|
CDR Francois Lalonde |
NIH |
(Past Chairperson) |
|
CAPT Gilbert Sanders |
IHS |
(Vice Chairperson) |
|
CDR Allen Albright |
FDA |
(Recording Secretary) |
|
CDR Angela Gonzalez-Willis |
HRSA |
|
|
CAPT Carolyn Strete |
NIH |
|
|
CAPT Helena Mishoe |
NIH |
|
|
CAPT Alejo Borrero-Hernadez |
BOP |
|
- CALL TO ORDER:
CDR Sheets called the meeting to order at 1305 hours.
- GREETINGS FROM THE CHAIR:
CDR Sheets led introductions of the meeting participants and welcomed the guests who attended. Since no one from DCP was available to attend the meeting, she asked CAPT Dunn to provide his report.
- REPORT FROM THE DCP STAFFING OFFICER:
No report at this time.
- REPORT FROM THE CHIEF PROFESSIONAL OFFICER:
CAPT Dunn reported on the following items from the CPO meeting:
- With the departure of RADM Blackwell, the OSG will be looking for a new Chief of Staff. Until one is selected, RADM Maas will be acting in this capacity.
- A new Dietitian Chief Professional Officer (CPO) has been selected and will be announced soon. The OSG is conducting interviews for Nurse and Pharmacy CPOs and hopes to complete the process by September.
- Regarding the selection of the new Scientist Category CPO, the DSG is completing his interviews and will provide a short list of candidates for further interviews with ADM Satcher. It is possible a new Scientist CPO will be selected by September.
- The size and format of earnings statements will be changing sometime in the next 2-3 pay periods. The earnings statements will be 8.5 x 11 inches to accommodate additional information from DCP. Future plans include adding information concerning leave as part of the earnings statement.
- The results of permanent promotions will be available on August 1st and can be accessed from the DCP web site.
- The OSG is soliciting nominations for future SG Reports. If you have suggestions, you are encouraged to convey them to DSG Moritsugu.
- DCP will be reviewing the entire commissioned corps personnel manual (CCPM). CDR Green in DCP is the contact person for this effort. Scientist officers, who are aware of deficiencies in the current manual or have suggestions for changes, are encouraged to contact the SciPAC within the next 30 days for further discussion.
- REPORT FROM THE TREASURER:
CDR Ali had nothing specific to report at this time. The SciPAC has ~ $3,000 in funds available. Efforts are still under way on getting sign-off authority for appropriate individuals. The PAC needs to develop and document procedures for sign off authority for dispersing of PAC funds. CAPT Dunn encouraged that a committee be formed to explore means of raising additional funds for the PAC, such as a symposium and other type of training. In addition, a plan should be formulated concerning the use of any funds raised. CDR Ali was charged with forming a committee to put a proposal together.
- COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ISSUES:
CDR Sheets requested that the chair of each of the committees described below provide a report of its activities over the past year. In some cases, only highlights of a given report are provided with the option to jump to the full text report located in an appendix to these meeting minutes.
- AWARDS COMMITTEE: (CDR Troiano)
The August Commissioned Corps Bulletin and COA Frontline will carry descriptions of the officers who received the Career Scientist of the year and Junior Scientist of the year awards at the COA meeting in Scottsdale, AZ.
CDR Troiano prepared the report on the activities of the Award Committee during this past year. The main activity of the committee was soliciting nominations and selection of the Career Scientist of the Year and Junior Scientist of the Year. This year CAPT Michael Alavanja was selected to receive the Career Scientist of the Year award and LCDR Ben Wheat was selected as the Junior Scientist of the Year. Read the full report by clicking here.
CHARTER COMMITTEE (LCDR Weber)
The charter review committee, composed of the executive board of the SciPAC, is finalizing proposed changes to the 1998 SciPAC charter. These proposals will be presented to the membership for approval, modification or rejection of some or all of the proposed changes. Several administrative changes are proposed to better reflect the PAC's current operations, such as the move toward more electronic communications. Other proposed changes still under discussion by the working group include creation a Category Historian, reorganization of the Executive Board and increased utilization of ex-officio members. It is expected that membership will be asked to vote on which proposed changes should be accepted, rejected or modified by the September 2000 meeting.
HANDBOOK COMMITTEE: (LCDR Weber)
The current edition of the Scientist Handbook, edited by CDR Ohata, was extensively reformatted, updated and hyperlinks were added to improve navigation. The entire handbook is available for viewing on-line in hypertext markup language (HTML) format. Alternatively, individual chapters can be downloaded in Acrobat portable document format (PDF) for viewing. Efforts are on going to convert the hyperlinked handbook version to PDF to facilitate downloading by individual officers.
CDR Troiano suggested that a committee be formed to evaluate updating portions of the handbook in a modular format. One area that needs updating is information concerning the OPF, since with the advent of the new optical scanning technology in DCP. It was also suggested that the addresses and emails for Scientist officers be updated.
MENTORING COMMITTEE: (CAPT Mishoe)
|
top |
CDR Troiano provided a report on the results of the survey of officers that utilized the CV review program provided by the SciPAC this past promotion cycle. 23 of 60 promotion eligible Scientist officers took advantage of the program and submitted their CV for review. Each CV was assigned to two SciPAC members to be reviewed for consistency with the recommendations in the Scientist Handbook. The reviewers were instructed to contact the officer whose CV they reviewed between November 15th and 30th and discuss any issues encountered during their review. In March 2000, CDR Troiano sent a survey to each officer who submitted a CV for review to find out if the program had been of value to the officer. Sixteen (70%) officers responded. Find out what they thought of the CV review program by clicking here.
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE: (LCDR Adekoya)
LCDR Adekoya prepared a report on the activities of the recruitment committee. Highlights of this report include a description of the Corps wide effort initiated by this committee concerning the recruitment program under way at various schools of Public Health. In addition, the committee has made efforts to collect vacancies from various OP-DIVS and forward to "boarded" scientist applicants to assist them in finding positions. Also, the committee is actively preparing a series of informational recruitment slides geared specifically toward potential scientist officers. Read all the details in this report by clicking here.
LCDR Adekoya is also active in the Junior Officers Ad hoc Workgroup (JOAHG), which is tasked with providing feedback on interest and concerns specific to junior officers, such as career development issues and retention. Read his report on July 5th, Junior Officer Ad Hoc Group meeting with RADM Michael Blackwell by clicking here.
VISIBILITY COMMITTEE:
|
top |
- Public Relations/Others (LCDR Weber)
|
top |
- Scientist Officer Survey
This year, the SciPAC undertook a survey of the entire category to gauge the impact and success of the programs and services offered by the SciPAC to the category and the needs of the category which may be unmet and might be met by the SciPAC.
The data analysis is still underway, but one positive benefit already reaped from this effort was the opportunity to reach officers who were not already on our e-mail distribution list or Listserv and obtain their email information. Read the full text of this report by clicking here.
- 2000 COA Meeting
LCDR Adekoya reported that the MAC flight for COA was a success and that 65 officers took part. Mike Lord has sent letters of appreciation to those officers who assisted in this effort. CAPT Dunn stated that the joint HSO/SciPAC joint session on mental health was very successful and well attended. He noted that the afternoon session was less well attended, most likely since it consisted of a series of un-related topics. He strongly advised that the PAC select specific topics or themes for sessions. He also commended CAPT Paris' efforts in organizing the session with the HSOPAC.
- Corps Musical Group
CAPT Bartko (Ret.) is leading this effort for the PAC and the Corps. He sent out a Corps wide survey, which was distributed by email as well as in the CC Bulletin and COA Frontline. He received responses from ~70 officers (25 from the DC Metro Area & 45 officers in the field) who are interested in participating in this effort, which will be initially limited to a choral group.
A working group is currently being formed to move this effort forward. The first meeting of this working group will meet following today's SciPAC meeting at 1600 with 10 officers from the local area and 17 officers in the field to see where this group wants to go. The DC-COA picnic in September may be debut for the group.
CDR Sheets thanked CAPT Bartko for his vision and efforts in promoting this idea. The CPO will also be liaison between OSG and DC-COA. All interested parties are asked to contact CAPT Bartko.
- CC Bulletin
An article about the Scientist Category's history and achievements was prepared and published in the June 2000 Commissioned Corps Bulletin. In addition, a special page on the category web site ( http://scipac.nimh.nih.gov/scientist/contributions.html) was created to highlight the numerous activities of the category, past and present. CAPT Dunn, CAPT Bartko (Ret.), CDR Brown and LCDR Weber contributed to the article.
- Dining Out
The annual DC-COA Dining out was held on November 20, 1999 at USUHS, in Bethesda, MD. The Scientist Singers led the singing of the Corps' anthem. CAPT Caviness served as "mistress of rules" as well as the "visitor from 1799" and was instrumental in organizing this event. CDR Sheets was the official grog taster and an "officer of disorder." LCDR Weber provided the Scientist Category toast and CAPT Bartko provided the Retired Officers toast.
- Public Health Awareness Week
LCDR Weber organized members of the DC Metro Area Branch of the COA to answer telephones on camera at the local PBS TV affiliate WETA to help raise awareness of Public Health Awareness Week.
- NEW BUSINESS:
|
top |
- SCIPAC STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS ISSUES:
- SciPAC Elections
CDR Sheets reported that the following officers have been elected to the SciPAC Executive Board for 2000-2001:
|
Chairperson: |
CDR Richard Troiano |
|
Vice Chairperson: |
LCDR Nelson Adekoya |
|
Executive Secretary: |
CDR Allen Albright |
|
Recording Secretary: |
CDR Angela Gonzalez-Willis |
|
Treasurer: |
CDR Laila Ali |
- Selection of new SciPAC members
CAPT Dunn indicated that he is in the process of contacting the supervisors of officers who expressed interest in serving on the SciPAC. Once a list of officers who have OP-DIV support is determined, he will then select from the pool of officers to balance the composition of the SciPAC based on factors such as geographic location, rank and OP-DIV representation.
- SciPAC member alternates:
CDR Sheets requested that prior to the upcoming September meeting all SciPAC members identify and invite alternate members to participate in SciPAC meetings. These alternates will have voting privileges in situations where the member is unable to attend a SciPAC meeting. CAPT Dunn encouraged members to identify alternate members who are in the field to encourage their participation in SciPAC.
- CCRF and Scientist Officer Competencies
CDR Rick Davis (chair), CAPT Susanne Caviness, CAPT Lauren Iacono-Connors, CAPT Armen Thoumaian, and CDR Patrick McNeilly have been asked to form a working group to develop roles and competencies for scientist officers who wish to participate in the CCRF.
- ANNOUNCEMENTS
|
top |
- Scientist Officers assume leadership roles in COA branches.
The SciPAC congratulates CDR Rick Davis on his election to President of the Cincinnati, OH branch of COA and to CDR Allen Albright on his election to Vice President of the DC Metro branch of COA.
- Military Standards Cadre
This group developed as a part of a special activity sponsored by the newly developed "Ft. Detrick Branch COA." The focus of this group is on military related protocol as well as uniform wear and physical standards. An inactive reserve scientist officer, LCDR Rick Gussio (301-846-5791) is President of the branch and is coordinating this effort. CAPT Caviness is serving as "Commander" of the cadre. For further information contact LCDR Gussio and check out this group's excellent web site: http://www.comilstd.org.
- There is no meeting in August.
The next SciPAC meeting will take place September 28, 2000 from 1-4 PM in room 18-57 of the Parklawn building.
- ADJOURNMENT
|
top |
The SciPAC meeting adjourned at 1515 hours.
Submitted by:
__________________________ ______________________________
CDR Allen Albright CDR Rebecca Sheets
Recording Secretary Chairperson
Date___________________ Date___________________
|
Award Subcommittee Report for 1999-2000 |
back |
Committee members: CDR Rick Troiano (chair), LCDR Nelson Adekoya, CDR Laila Ali, CDR Angela Gonzalez-Willis, LCDR M.Thomas Hendricks.
The awards subcommittee's chief accomplishment was the administration of the SciPAC Scientist of the Year awards. This year, a decision made after the 1999 awards cycle was implemented that separated the reviewers from the members of the SciPAC awards subcommittee. This removed the potential for members of the subcommittee to be influenced ahead of decisions or harassed afterwards by award nominees or nominators. The CSO and selected reviewers (total of 4 for 2000) discussed awards nominees in a teleconference meeting. These senior officers were joined by the awards subcommittee chair, which provided logistical support prior to the call and process continuity during the call. An additional benefit of the new process was the inclusion of reviewers from outside of SciPAC.
The 2000 award nominees included 3 candidates for the Junior Officer award (1 new and 2 carry-over), and 15 candidates for the Career Scientist award (3 new and 12 carry-over). The Junior Scientist of the Year was LCDR Bennie Wheat, an officer with the Bureau of Prisons. The Career Scientist of the Year was CAPT Michael Alavanja, an officer with the National Institutes of Health.
A separate, more detailed summary of the decision process includes the names of those officers who will carry award eligibility into the 2001 and 2002 cycles. This summary is intended to provide the 2001 awards committee continuity and useful information.
An issue for future consideration is the role of awards subcommittee members. In 1999-2000, the chair sent out notification of award availability to OPDIVs and provided logistical support to the awards reviewers. One person probably most efficiently carries out these functions. However, it may be possible to expand the responsibilities of the awards subcommittee to utilize other members. A potential direction is to develop a database of awards for which Scientist Officers are eligible and provide periodic reminders to the category.
Respectfully submitted,
CDR Richard Troiano
|
SciPAC Curriculum Vitae Review for the 2000 Promotion Cycle |
back |
In August 1999, SciPAC offered to review the CV of Commissioned Officers in the Scientist Category who were eligible for promotion in promotion year 2000 (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001). The initial notification (attached) and a reminder notice one month later were sent out on the Scientist Listserv. CV submissions were received from 23 officers: 2 Captains (up for P-grade promotions), 12 Commanders, 7 Lieutenant Commanders, and 2 Lieutenants. These submissions came from a pool of approximately 60 Scientist officers who were eligible for temporary promotions plus an unknown number eligible for permanent promotion alone. Only one officer who was not eligible for promotion submitted a CV.
Each CV was assigned to two SciPAC members to be reviewed for consistency with recommendations in the Scientist Handbook, including format, appearance, clarity, and appropriate content. Twelve current and ex-officio members received from one to four CVs to review. Particular care was taken to assign at least one Captain to review the CV of officers eligible for promotion to O-6. An effort was made to have at least one reviewer be in a similar field to that of the officer whose CV was to be reviewed (e.g., epidemiology, regulatory, basic science, psychology). Furthermore, where possible, SciPAC members were not assigned to review officers from their agency in order to get a broader perspective. Reviewers received a listing of telephone and e-mail contact information for the officers who submitted CVs. The guidelines for CV reviewers are attached.
In March 2000, e-mail was sent to officers who had submitted a CV for review, seeking their feedback on the process. Sixteen (70%) officers replied. Their responses and comments are summarized below. The message they received is attached.
|
15 |
officers indicated that they had been contacted to arrange a convenient time to receive feedback on their CV. |
|
1 |
Officer was not contacted by the SciPAC reviewers, and received no comments about his/her CV from SciPAC. |
Of the 15 officers who were contacted,
|
7 |
received comments from two reviewers before November 30 (as intended) |
|
8 |
received comments from one reviewer before November 30 |
|
14 |
officers responded that the review and comments were handled in a professional manner |
|
1 |
officer did not answer this item |
|
14 |
officers responded that the comments received were useful for revising the CV |
|
1 |
officer did not find the comments useful |
Officers were asked if they were aware of the revised CV format guidelines in the Scientist Handbook prior to the CV review.
|
12 |
officers were aware of the guidelines |
|
4 |
officers were not |
The remaining items were open-ended. Officers provided the following comments:
What was the most useful aspect of the review and comments?
- Suggestions to rearrange information on my CV and to delete certain unnecessary information to make my CV more succinct
- I greatly appreciated the review. The suggestions were all helpful and led to greater uniformity in my CV. In addition, the reviewers pointed out several areas of my career that needed greater emphasis.
- My reviewers were very professional and understanding of my situation. Their comments were excellent and on point and their explanations for why each comment was made were very helpful. They took all the time necessary to thoroughly go through my CV with me. One of the reviewers had been promoted late in his career (I am late in mine) and was very supportive and helpful in seeing that my CV adequately reflected my accomplishments and activities.
- Excellent advice on highlighting the important achievements in the CV
- I was aware of the revised format but not of the summary sheet and so the assistance provided in this area was very valuable.
- Having another officer from the category critique CV for format, content, wordiness, or redundancy
- I modified the language on some of my accomplishments and goals. I included a summary page.
- Detailed comments based on the reviewer’s experience
- Very helpful comments that were clear and specific.
- The reviewer helped me focus and format my CV in the most appropriate and effective way for the Corps.
- Combination of written and verbal feedback on CV was helpful.
- A sample CV to illustrate the format.
- It was a good double-check to be certain my CV was formatted properly.
- Feeling that I had not passed up an opportunity to increase chance for promotion.
What could have been done differently to improve the review and comments?
- Follow through (from the officer who was not contacted)
- I believe the review was very satisfactory as conducted.
- I think they need to be done a lot sooner. November 30 is really pushing I think. After December 1 you have lots of distractions and leave which gets in the way of thinking about promotions.
- Nothing - I was very satisfied with the review/input.
- Nothing. The comments were very helpful
- I did not receive a second set of comments, but it may not have been necessary. Found first set very useful.
- Nothing to my knowledge.
- I was very satisfied with the way the review was conducted..
- It was very helpful. SciPAC has given invaluable service to fellow scientists. I would have been in a better position to comment on this if it were done earlier when my memory was still fresh.
- No. I really appreciated the assistance and don’t see how you can do anything different. The reviewers contacted me about setting up a time that worked for all of us and then even provided feedback on my newly created summary sheet.
- It was just too long ago to remember details about the review.
Please provide any other comments about the CV review as you experienced it here:
- This was definitely a beneficial experience and I sincerely appreciated the reviewers' efforts and their comments. I would recommend this to all officers. I guess in a couple of months I will get to see if the promotion board appreciated the efforts as much as I did! Thanks again. (Perhaps they did; this officer was promoted)
- This is a great way to have your CV reviewed before the "test" before the review board. I would have liked to know how many people reviewed my CV. I was never told this. I would like to thank the SciPAC for beginning this helpful service.
- I wonder whether it is feasible to ask scientist officers who had served on the promotion board this year of their thoughts/ideas on CV they had reviewed and share them with other scientists.
- This was the best help I have ever received on my CV. My two reviewers should be cloned so that 11 officers up for promotion can be helped as much as I was. The officers should be nominated for an award for the service they provided.
- I was impressed that the reviewers stated that they were impressed with the depth, quality and types of research being conducted by PHS scientists.
- Both of the Commissioned Officers who I talked to on a conference telephone call were what I consider kinder and gentler, and they showed genuine concern about what they were doing. I do not recall their names, but I do appreciate their help.
| | | | | | | | | | |