What do you envision when you talk about an 'administrator'?  Are you thinking of utilizing the MAGIP administrator (Janet's replacement) or a volunteer administrator or the Mentoring subcommittee's chair (or other committee member)?

I think this is the only flag for me - everything else sounds good!

1. The thing I would need to see in here before I support it is a plan to develop a "code of ethics" for mentors that explicitly lays out what can and can't be done in the mentoring relationship.  I do not mean to sound paranoid --although having practiced law for twenty years I always will be-- but I can envision a whole host of abuses that could occur, including but not limited to sexual harassment, misuse of confidential and personal information, etc, etc.  In that same vein, I would like to see the whole program reviewed by an attorney before it is launched to ensure that any actions of a mentor occurring outside MAGIP's control cannot be blamed on MAGIP.

2. I also think that eligibility needs to be specified: is there a group of people who, while members, cannot avail themselves of the mentoring opportunity, or who can only have a special peer-level mentor (e.g. students)?

3. I think there needs to be a mentoring contract written up that can be adapted for each relationship, setting out the scope and duration, so that it does not have to be open-ended.

4. I would like to see an outreach component for tribal GIS staff

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Linda. As you consider my replies, please keep in mind that any vote called now would be to proceed with creating a program prototype, not a vote to release and implement a program. The program is not formed yet. Your comments help tremendously toward formation.

1. Your suggestion of consulting an attorney may be wise if MAGIP wants to stand firmly behind such a mentoring program. Is MAGIP willing and able to fund analysis by an attorney? At what stage should the Mentoring plan be to permit a solid assessment by an attorney?  Should this consulting task be done before *this* vote on the general process and key concepts (pre-prototype)? A developed prototype program would still need another vote by the Board to approve the program and implement it. In my opinion, voting down a mentoring program later in the year for legal reasons (or any other reason) is an acceptable (perhaps disappointing) possible outcome, but in my opinion it does not diminish the worthiness of this organization exploring creating a mentoring program.

2. I want to be sure I understand your comment: It sounds like you are concerned that a student or new practitioner with little GIS experience could seek a mentor who is highly skilled and cause an undue burden on that mentor. If this is what you mean, know that we are aware of this possibility and it is why the critical recognition that mentoring is not a replacement for adequate training is one of the key concepts presented to the Board in this discussion. Further thoughts:

First: It has never come up that a MAGIP member could not avail themselves of mentoring through MAGIP. In fact, we'd propose the opposite. With the same breath, however, we will insist through a mentoring guide, training of mentors, and robust web pages that mentoring is not a replacement for adequate training. We see Mentors as just as likely to send a mentee back to a Help file, university coursework, self-paced/guided training, or to another GIS practitioner to get the assistance they need.

Second, a mentor chooses to be in a mentor/mentee relationship. No one is brokering, no one is obligated. I see it a bit like my seeking a grad advisor. I had to ask to study with him and he could choose to refuse me as a student if my interests were not similar enough or if I he saw me as ill prepared or unmotivated. This guidance for mentors would be in the mentoring guide.

Third, we see mentoring relationships in our GIS community as conceptually as being assembled along a ladder (and we are using that graphic in our advertising for the conference). The same person can be both a mentor and a mentee depending upon their needs and skills, mentoring down the ladder at times and being a mentee under folks a few rungs ahead. I.e.: Diane Papineau can mentor students, beginner, and intermediate practitioners, cartographers, geographic information designers while at the same time reaching out to you, Gerry, Duane, and others for the tasks I'm unfamiliar with. This approach distributes the workload of strengthening GIS practices and data in our state. Mentor/mentee pairings could be situational (task related) or long term or both.

3. Use of a contract has come up in our discussions. We see its usefulness to define boundaries, expectations, duration, etc. However, two problems emerge: First, the mentor may not feel as free to leave the relationship if the mentee proves to be too ill prepared or unmotivated. Second, a contract then becomes workload for someone in MAGIP to manage, which goes against a very important program goal of creating a self-sustaining, low maintenance program. If the Board prefers a mentoring contract, the organization begins stepping into the middle of the mentoring relationship (perhaps placing more legal responsibility on MAGIP) and it would require staffing.

4. Agreed.

From my view, all of these ideas, requests, and concerns are valid and valuable and they can be addressed while creating the prototype. Perhaps they do not warrant stopping prototype development. An affirmative vote in the next couple of days permits this development. The only exception I can think of is consulting an attorney. Does the Board want an attorney's opinion before the subcommittee creates a prototype mentoring program (i.e. before this vote)?

Respectfully,

Diane

 

Just a couple of supporting comments:

I think the 'exit interview' is an important process and I'm glad that it is being addressed.

I think the idea of having an attourney analyze a proposed mentoring program is a good idea.  I think this would be most effective after the subcommittee is approved to create a prototype program (after this vote) but prior to implementing the prototype program.

I think that the administrative issues are things we can deal with relatively easily, though I would encourage the idea of a committee member taking responsibility for some/all of the admin needs if possible.  One, the more we pay, the more responsible we are, and two, the more member/committee/personal involvement we can garner, the stronger our organization.  We need to instill a sense of ownership in our members/volunteers or we will end up resorting to paying for everything.

Just my 2 cents!

Thanks Tony.....

Your concern about who will run any of these programs is important to the mentoring program, but as you write it goes well beyond mentoring to the rest of MAGIP goals and activities. Perhaps a well crafted mentoring program may have an impact on how the Professional Development Committee is structured (co-chaired, mentoring split off, other?). Perhaps processing through a mentoring prototype can serve an ancillary purpose of revealing these issues more clearly and also help the organization plan for how it will replace its long time administrator.

There are two risks identified in the Mentoring proposal plan that relate to your concern. One is we risk creating the program and it not being used (for whatever reason). The other is having a program that ultimately requires staff to maintain it. Your discussion point brings these distinct risks to the forefront for the Board to consider if the vote moves us  forward to creating a prototype.

Respectfully,

Diane