March 27th Weekly Update

Jess Hardwicke (CS&S fiscally sponsored projects manager) and I met with Tracy to discuss ways to strengthen the CS&S Code of Conduct and how it applies to the conferences we fund. Our recommendations are to:

1. Ask awardees to ether have a Code of Conduct or have a plan for creating one that has the following components:
2. Clear guidelines for reporting
3. Clear language about how to file reports
4. A review and appeal process
5. A Transparency report (see pycon)
6. Provide good examples to use as models
7. Ask conference organizers to provide first responder training for event staff (e.g. from Otter Tech)
8. Require approval of an event’s code of conduct prior to disbursing funds
   

Jess and I will work with Joe and Danielle to improve the reporting structure for CS&S’s Code of Conduct and provide regular transparency reports for the organization. As a next step, we are reviewing example codes of conduct and are in the process of developing a workflow for modifying our existing policy. In this process, I’ve been able to draw upon the knowledge and resources I’ve gained as a member of the Center for Scientific Collaboration and Community Engagement’s code of conduct committee.

Kari reviewed the CS&S Conflict of Interest policy and had the following questions:

1. How long will it take for the board to review matters related to conflict of interest? Does it happen directly in the meeting?
2. Is there a transparent workflow/timeline for the public?
3. What kinds of resolutions are there for conflicts of interest beyond having the individual leave the meeting?
4. Do they publish the minutes of board meetings, particularly notes from conflict of interest discussions?
5. The terms “interested” and “disinterested” are not clear to me.

Joe is working on addressing them and I will provide an update with his responses next week.

Joe, Jess, and I are all grateful for the feedback that has been provided on these policies, since strengthening them will improve our efficacy and transparency as an organization.

I incorporated feedback from Kari on the impact strategy, draft RFP, and application questions. My goal is to be able to do a final review of these documents at our next meeting (April 30).

One of the questions that came up last week in conversations with Kari and Micaela concerned our target applicant pool for the first round of proposals. We brainstormed a few potential options:

1. Established conference organizers who are developing new events
2. Early career organizers
3. Topic specific events (e.g. data archiving)

Related to this, Adam Jones from the Moore Foundation was wondering if we were considering focusing our first RFP on COVID-related conferences and events.

Next week, my goals are to set up an example Conference Fund dashboard in Open Review and start working with Joe on the conference fund website. On the website, I’d like to include the following:

1. Program overview (mission, goals, strategy)
2. RFP
3. Link to application
4. Advisory board members (with photos, bios, links, with permission)
5. Resources
6. Info about awardees, once it’s available
7. Link to nominate someone for the selection committee
   

Lastly, I mentioned to Joe that I was compiling weekly updates and he was wondering if we would like to make them public, e.g. in the form of a brief blog post, to increase transparency.