Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Aerospace Initiative January 2007 Minutes

Industry Collaboration Committee
Minutes of the 01/04/07 Meeting

The meeting convened at 10:00 AM on Thursday January 4, 20076 at the Northrop Grumman facility in Linthicum, MD.

Next Meeting:
Thursday 2/1/07 at 10:00 AM at the Northrop Grumman facility in Linthicum, MD

Attendees: Name / Organization
Rafael Cuebas / GWIB
Dennis Faber / Time Center – CCBC
Carline Cazeau / Altimax Solutions
Jim Polk / Technology Service Corporation
Dave Rosage / NASA / Goddard
Bob Noble / Northrop Grumman Corp
Gene Burnet / Manufacturers’ Alliance of Maryland (MAM)
Connie Finney / APL
Don McErlean / Patuxent Partnership
Jesse Martin / Northrop Grumman Corp

1. Minutes Review
Bob Noble led the meeting which began with a brief review of the previous minutes. The action item list was used as the agenda and a detailed discussion of the action items followed.

2. Discussion Topic: The Vision – Path forward for creating the Association
Bob Noble will update the charter per last month’s discussion (AI#1)
The vision statement should be updated annually. (Rosage)
The group needs to develop a “Strawman” package that summarizes all the work performed to date. This document will be used as a basis for meeting with Mr. Pitts and brief him on the activities and request his support to reach out to the aerospace community.
The strawman package will be distributed to the industry stakeholders.
A workshop would then be held with the aerospace community to discuss the creation of the new association and seek their participation.
The approach is to have Mr. Pitts send out a letter to the stakeholders asking them to come to a meeting (the workshop) to review the goals of the new association. (Noble)
The strawman package should include the names of the CEOs to target as members.
This list is available from the summit.
Two letters should be sent out: a personalized letter inviting the CEOs to the meeting, and another general letter sent to all the aerospace companies inviting them to the same meeting. (McErlean)
It’s not necessary to have everyone in the industry at the first meeting to review the Strawman (Faber)
We don’t need to have every single company in the aerospace industry at the first meeting. If the major companies participate, the others will buy in (Finney)
McErlean disagrees
A discussion followed regarding whether it is best to invite the whole industry to the workshop or target the major companies only. The outcome of the discussion is to have one meeting and invite as many industry participants as possible so that the majority of aerospace stakeholders are part of the creation process for the association.

On the workshop
If we don’t have a strong champion, the organization will fizzle out in the first year. We must identify potential candidates for this role. (Noble)
The successful organizations have paid staff. (McErlean)
There is a concern that having a large workshop with all the aerospace organizations participating will be perceived as a repeat of the Summit. (Cazeau)
Disagrees. The workshop will have a focused agenda of vetting the need for an aerospace association. The goal will be to discuss all the associated issued. If it works right, it will create an new entity. (Noble)
The workshop has a singular focus. To provide a go/no-go on the association. An actual decision. (McErlean)
The letter for the workshop should be issued by Mr. Pitts and the DLLR secretary. If no one (in the industry) responds, that will be a litmus test. (Noble)
It would be good if the new governor signed the letter. (Polk)

3. Discussion Topic: The Name of the Association
A discussion followed on what the name of the association conveys and how that should be used to properly position the entity.
The current name is not powerful. A suggestion was made to call it the “Maryland Aerospace Authority”. (Rosage)
That would help to differentiate us from the other groups. (McErlean)
Does changing from “Association” to “Authority” imply some government support? (Faber)
A general discussion followed on what the term “Authority” might imply. Some felt that it would help to align the organization as a state chartered entity. It was felt very strongly that the association should be run by Industry, but that the link to the GWIB needs to be maintained and the support from the state at the highest level should be apparent. The structure of the GWIB was discussed (strong Industry membership with small amount of government participation). Other entities that use the word “Authority” were discussed, such as the NJ Turnpike Authority.
The term “Partnership” was discussed as an alternative name. Rafael will research the implications of using the word “Authority” in the name.
The current working name for the organization is: The “Maryland Aerospace Partnership” (MAP)

4. Discussion Topic: Membership Fee Structure

The group reviewed the fee structure document provided by Jim Polk (AI#4)
Not sure how realistic the estimate is for the number of participants (used to evaluate association membership) compared to the actual aerospace business base. (Polk)
It would be good to get DBED to put in some seed money, at least during the first year or two. (Noble)
It is easier for government employees to participate if the organization has no fee for government members. Need to add a rule to the fee document that the government does not pay a fee. Other non-profits can be required to pay a fee.

5. Discussion Topic: Review of Organizational Structure

The group reviewed and discussed the organizational structure documens provided by Dennis (AI#5). A discussion followed on the potential activities that the subcommittees will perform.

On the topic of how information is shared among the association participants:
We should share best practices related to educational issues, but not on some other topics. (Finney)
We should eliminate all competition related issues. (Noble)

On the topic of Committee Structures:
The association could hold quarterly meetings.
The Patuxent Partnership – The executive committee meets frequently and works through the working items. The board meets less frequently. (McErlean)
An active company would get a seat on the board, not necessarily on the executive committee. The chairs of the working committees would make up the executive committee. (McErlean).
The Boy Scouts have a structure we could model. The board consists of a long list of people (all the interested stakeholders). There is an executive committee (a smaller subset). The Operational committee does the actual work. (Polk)
The consensus is : we will have an Executive
Committee. Its chair will be the paid executive director, and the membership will be the (volunteer) heads of the subcommittees. It will also include ad hoc appointees.

On the topic of size of the Board: General Discussion
No limit on size is preferable.
We may want to name highly visible individuals to the board.
The board is appointed.
The executive committee runs the organization and is elected by the members.
The board chair is elected by the membership.
It is preferable to leave the ratio of industry/government membership vague for now

We will need some bylaws, but not yet (Noble)
We don’t need the next level of detail at this point (Finney)
The bylaws will have to be set up by whoever runs the “MAP”. (Noble)
We need to complete Phase I to get the letters drafted for the workshop (Noble)
We should set a target date for the workshop. (Cazeau)
April-May, maybe June as a target date for the workshop. (Noble)
The report that Chuck is preparing will have to go to Mr. Pitts. (Noble)

6. Other Miscellaneous Topics
We must separate ourselves from the other associations, which are a group of people with an intent, whereas we are a state chartered group, designed to present option to the legislature. (McErlean)
The AIAA is very strong on education. (Finney)
The AIAA is not focused on Maryland. (McErlean)
Engineer week is coming up in February. Outreach is part of our chart. Connie will compile the relevant info in her meetings with various groups. (Finney)
We should be an industry-run organization that is chartered by the state. (Rosage)
Virginia has a website that discusses the state’s aerospace activities. There are various links for different industry clusters. We need to explore how it is set up and determine if Maryland has something similar. Rafael will follow up with that. The URL is: www.yesvirginia.org. (Polk)
If there is a MD/VA partnership, how does that impact what we’re doing? (Faber)
That partnership refers to a specific facility – Wallops. We should stay out of being facility specific. Our charter has to be defined clearly to remove the ambiguities and potential overlap (with other organizations). (McErlean)
(The charter) should come from DBED. (Burner)
We are first addressing workforce issues (DLLR) not setting policy. (Cuebas)
(The current text of ) the charter does cross the line into policy. (Burner)
We should explore how the California Aerospace Authority is set up. Their building was provided by the government. Should explore what other states have done.
Bob invited someone who had set up an Aerospace organization in Illinois to come speak to our group. Scheduling conflicts prevented her from attending this meeting. Bob will try to have her attend our next meeting. (Noble)

Table of Questions / Action Items - Updates to the Action Item List

The group developed a list of key questions/actions that must be resolved to provide the basis for structuring the association. It was deemed that it was too early to address some of the questions. Those questions are captured in the list but are not assigned for resolution. Those questions are “Parked”.

MAA Development – Action Item List

Question / Action
Assigned to
Due Date
Status / Resolution
Update the Charter – per the discussion at the meeting
Bob Noble with redlines from all committee members

b. Update the Vision per the 1/4/07 discussions.
a. Update the Vision Statement per the discussion at the meeting.
Dave Rosage
Document provided and discussed at 1/4/07 mtg. New update needed
Develop a list of existing aerospace related organization. What does each provide to its members?
Chuck Divine
Closed. Document distributed to team by email.
b. Update per 1/4/07 discussions. Add a rule to the fee structure document that the government does not pay a fee. Other non-profits can be required to pay a fee.
a. Evaluate various membership fee structures. Should the fees be different for industry, government, academia. Conduct a survey of association practices and make a recommendation. What is the ROI for the members?
Jim Polk
Document provided and reviewed and 1/4/07 mtg. New update needed.
b. Update organizational structure per the discussions at the 1/4/07 mtg. Add in some key responsibilities under each committee.
a. Develop an organization structure for the MAA. Identify recommended committees
Dennis Faber
Document provided and reviewed and 1/4/07 mtg. New update needed
What is the mechanism for the MAA to interface with the existing aerospace-related groups? Does the MAA merge into one of them? Does the MAA invite the others to become members? The goal is to avoid duplication of purpose and activities.

Who will officially sponsor the Maryland Aerospace Association (MAA)? Should it be the GWIB or another entity. Should it be a standalone organization or should it be included in an existing organization?

Compile a “Strawman” package that includes: the vision, the charter, the org chart, fee structure info, what the association plans to accomplish. This package will be used for the meeting to brief with Mr. Pitts.
Rafael Cuebas

Provide the list of CEOs and list of Aerospace companies compiled during the Summit preparation
Rafael Cuebas

Explore how the Virginia industry cluster website is set up and determine if Maryland has something similar. URL is: www.yesvirginia.org
Rafael Cuebas

Explore if there are other state level Aerospace associations
Jim Polk

Draft the 2 letters for the workshop. One letter addressed personally to CEOs. One letter to send to the broad aerospace community – all the companies from the Summit
Don McErlean

Start a conversation with the new state secretaries – DLLR- to get their support for our work
Rafael Cuebas

Complete the report of activities performed to date
Chuck Divine

Invite the people who attended the previous presentation to Mr. Pitts to come to the next meeting on 2/1/07, so we can start briefing them on our approach
Rafael Cuebas

Explore the implications of using the word “Authority” in the name for the new organization
Rafael Cuebas

No comments: