Final Version: 4/18/08

Scientific and Technical Employee Development (STED)
Conference Call
August 02, 2007

Committee members:

Meeting Introduction:

• Bob Hainly opened the teleconference and reviewed the agenda. No additions were suggested.
• Bob announced that the note-taking for the meeting would continue to rotate among committee members. Kurt Schultz will be the note taker for this conference call.

Review of the Action Items Log:

• No comments were received.
• If there are action items that appear to be assigned incorrectly or actions have been completed and not marked so, contact Bob.
• It was noted that the action items log provides a good history of STED actions completed. Among other things, it can be used to develop progress reports to Senior Staff.
• Updates as a result of actions during this call will be added and then Bob will send the updated version out to committee members via e-mail.

Comments on the minutes from the May 2007 meeting:

• No changes to the minutes were suggested. Bob will delay posting them on the STED web page for a short time to provide an opportunity for those not participating today to comment.

Comments on the STED Web Page

• A few comments were received. It was suggested that they be e-mailed to the group.
• Mike Nolan agreed to take the lead on managing the web page.
• ACTION ITEM – Mike to consider web page updates and report back to committee.
• Updated agenda and meeting documents were provided to Tj and Ralph for posting.
• There are sections on the page that will allow for additional information. The committee was asked to take a look at the page and provide suggestions to Mike.

Priority Action Item Status – Recommendation to Senior Staff:

• In June, Steve was able to make the request and received approval for the FY2007 OED and OWQ SME funding.
• STED members had originally suggested to Steve to split the requested $37K 50/50 for QW course and OED. Due to the late time of year for the disbursement, OED probably needs less than anticipated.
• DECISION – $15K was designated for 0.25 FTE for OED and $22K was designated for OWQ and the Water-quality Principles course-development (SME) contract.
• It was questioned whether STED should provide a prioritized list of tasks to OED.
• DECISION – It was decided that OED should set their priorities without STED input.
• OWQ will look in to using the $22K this fiscal year, if possible, by increasing the current contract amount. Will it be possible to amend a contract this late in the year?
• ACTION ITEM – Franceska and Virginia will seek info on the use of the funds in FY07.
• Franceska noted that developing a TEL course is a learning process. The quality of the course and the presentation has improved as more modules are being completed.
• ACTION ITEM – Bob will contact Alan Ward to see if OED has the capability to carry the FY2007 funding over to FY2008. (Update 8/8: OED does have this capability. Alan will contact Franceska to relay this information and the OSW AO to provide an OED account number for the FY07 funds transfer.)

Priority Action Item Status – OWQ FY2008 TEL Course Development Proposal:

• OWQ retiree, Roger Lee, has completed the development of 8 modules. These are the most fundamental modules. Two more were developed and are in draft stage since the proposal was distributed.
• The plan is for all 16 modules to be completed in their entirety by the students. Credit will not be received unless all modules are completed.
• An interactive session to introduce a real-world problem is included with each module. Each module adds complexity and builds on a solution to the problem.
• FY2008 plan is to proceed with module development and concurrently enhance the module presentation.
• Franceska added that OWQ staff is preparing the best course possible with the resources available.

Priority Action Item Status – Course-Conversion Priorities:

• The purpose of this exercise was to determine what courses might WRD disciplines might consider converting to TEL
• Bob was to put together list, but it is not yet complete.
• The list is presented in a draft TEL course tuition document that Alan prepared and distributed.
• It appears that all course nominations have been received.
• ACTION ITEM – Bob will compile a draft prioritized list for STED review.
• ACTION ITEM – Following STED endorsement, Alan will deliver list to Tj for current progress and comment on prioritization and schedule.

Priority Action Item Status – TEL Course Tuition Policy

• Steve suggested that Senior Staff will want a recommendation from STED. We should not expect to receive advice on the best choice. As a result, we need to work towards our best recommendation.
• Steve thought that Bob Hirsch would be agreeable, if funds continue to be available, to $50K per year of TEL course development and maintenance funding.
• Issue of using TEL for courses was presented to cost-center directors for feedback: some feel that it’s a cost effective solution, others feel that hands-on training for key skills were more appropriate. They appear to prefer a fee-for-service rather than a general assessment policy.
• Beneficiaries of TEL courses (staff and immediate supervisors) appear to be willing to pay a fee.

Questions raised:

• Are fees appropriate, and in what cases? No fee for some courses may introduce course selection based on amount of fee.
• Should there be fees for required courses?
• Who would decide whether a course is required? Definition of “required” needed from HQ or elsewhere.
• The fee should be based on how many people would we expect to take a TEL course during a year? Good attendance statistics are needed for this estimate.
• If Senior Staff prefers no fees for courses, should the discipline offices expect to be reimbursed if someone on their staff was a SME on a developing course?
• Should fees be equalized for other courses regardless on whether SME developing courses is funded through headquarters or funded by discipline offices?
• Suggested fees will need to be recommended in proposal.
• Will fees be per course or per hour and will there be a minimum fee?

Conclusions:

1. A categorization of required/essential courses and not-required based on course content is needed; Discipline offices would need to buy-in as to what a required/essential course is.
2. There would need to be a continued stream of revenue to develop any no-fee courses.
3. If it is found that this initial policy doesn’t work, then a change can be recommended.
4. DECISION – Policy recommendation should include a definition of fee and no-fee courses. Some courses will have fees (courses not required); some will not (required/essential and possibly other courses).
5. DECISION – WRD Technical offices will make the initial decisions on required/notrequired courses and on fee/no-fee designation.
6. DECISION – Policy recommendation will include a request for long-term (~$50K) funding from Bob Hirsch.
7. DECISION – Policy recommendation will include a statement about additional subsidies from Discipline Office staff donated time.
8. DECISION – Fee will be based on WRD support and anticipated course completions.
9. DECISION – Suggested to start with fee of $15 to $25/hour of screen time with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $500.
10. ACTION ITEM – Bob will provide notes of this discussion to Virginia along with Alan’s draft tuition policy recommendation. (Update 8/2: Meeting notes and draft document delivered to Virginia.)
11. ACTION ITEM – Virginia will revise the first draft of the policy recommendation to include the committee’s recent decisions and distribute it to the committee for review.

Discussion Item – Course Mechanics – Review of Course Material and Presentation

• Since the last conference call, it was learned that section 508 compliance is no longer mandatory on every course module.
• Two versions (one compliant and one not) can be developed. As a result, the narration method will be changed on the modules intended for staff without special needs.
• Virginia has agreed to act as a primary reviewer for the Water-Quality Principles course presentation methods.
• The modules are expected to be completed in October. The course will be released at that time to the STED committee members for voluntary review. Franceska is interested in receiving feedback.

Discussion Item – Course Mechanics – Course Use Statistics

• Alan was unable to attend the call and provide an update on course usage statistics.
• ACTION ITEM – Alan will review his previous evaluations to confirm the drop-off in course hits further in to the course pages. (Update 8/16: Alan provided updated use statistics to the committee for their review.)

Wrap-up

• Draft minutes of this meeting will be distributed for committee review.
• Bob will continue to update action item log and email to STED.

The next conference call is scheduled for Thursday, October 4, from 1:00 to 3:00 pm EDT.