News & Press: ACVP News

Annual Meeting Task Force Feedback

Tuesday, January 23, 2018   (22 Comments)
Share |

The ACVP Annual Meeting is an important event for our College as it provides outstanding opportunities for continuing education and networking for our membership.  The meeting has not been critically reviewed in over a decade, so in mid-2016, a Task Force was assembled to thoroughly evaluate the Meeting. The results of this evaluation and the Task Force recommendations were presented and discussed at the ACVP Town Hall at the 2017 Annual meeting in Vancouver.

At that time, one of the recommendations of the Task Force was to rotate the meeting through 4-5 cities. This recommendation was clearly not favorable to the majority of the individuals attending the Town Hall and therefore will not be implemented. 

The other major change that was recommended was to shorten the meeting and eliminate the free Monday afternoon. In this proposed scenario, the Meeting will run from Saturday to Tuesday night, with the Presidents reception remaining on Tuesday night to conclude the Meeting. In addition to these recommendations, several other changes were proposed. 

The presentation delivered at the Town Hall is available for your review and comment here. Our Annual Meeting is a vital part of our College, and your feedback is crucial to make it the best it can be.  We are looking for your constructive feedback, and welcome all comments on the proposed changes.  Please select Add Comment to provide your feedback here by end of business, Friday February 16th, 2018.  

Comments...

Joshua Webster says...
Posted Sunday, February 11, 2018
I agree that shortening the meeting and eliminating the free afternoon on Monday would be beneficial and streamline the meeting. Individuals can choose to come a day early or stay a day longer to enjoy the meeting site, if they please. As Andrew Miller mentioned, changing some of the scientific sessions from 2 half days to 1 half day might be advantageous to maximize the attendance per session. There can also be some coordination between Natural Disease and Diagnostic and between Experimental and Tox/ Industrial because these sessions often draw from similar audiences and are each natural allies.
Kyathanahalli Janardhan BVSc MVSc PhD says...
Posted Friday, February 9, 2018
I concur with Piper. We should try to have combined ACVP/STP meetings more often. If not every year, at least we should try to have it every other year.
Piper Treuting says...
Posted Thursday, February 8, 2018
Thanks for extending the deadline to chime in and emailing the reminder and to the TF for taking this on! I strongly agree with shortening the time commitment by consolidation of pre-and post meetings, Sunday plenary kick-off, and doing away with the "free" Monday p.m. It will be challenging, no doubt, to balance the overarching goal of an efficient and more economic meeting with the competing goals of the meeting (business, science, education, networking, etc.). I am in strong favor of combined ACVP/STP as frequently as logistically possible- I'd love it every year (an outlier I am sure). I like Keith Harris' suggestion to make Monday p.m. a "business time" for career development sessions, interviews, some ACVP committee meetings etc. the implication being that the scientific sessions would have the afternoon off, but the some of other goals of the meeting would continue to be met. Looking forward to D.C.
David E. Malarkey DVM PhD says...
Posted Thursday, February 8, 2018
ditto to what Mike Conner says with the caveat that Wed morning workshops/ sessions were created (in my lifetime) to accommodate those folks had Wednesday afternoon flights. and attendance (and additional registration fee) was good enough to break even. So if you keep the president reception on tuesday - you might consider wed morning workshops. we want to learn as much pathology as we can! Dave
Michael W. Conner DVM says...
Posted Thursday, February 8, 2018
The effort to reduce costs for both the College and for attendees should be supported. I would definitely support focusing venues that are less expensive, but are still relatively accessible. Eliminating the open half day would also receive my support, but the compromise suggested by Eric Bloom (sessions from 7 AM to 3 PM) might well address this issue. One of the challenges many of us face is the time away from work. Having workshops on Saturday and the plenary session on Sunday, with the remaining sessions on Monday and Tuesday addresses this. To facilitate members who would like to travel on Tuesday evening rather than stay an extra night in the hotel, the President’s reception could be scheduled for Monday evening. Because of modern realities of company travel restrictions in 4Q, competing meetings (ACT), faculty responsibilities, and weather challenges, I think we should consider moving the meeting to another season.
Brad Bolon says...
Posted Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Thanks to the Task Force for their work. No solution will satisfy everyone. I would favor a Sunday to Wednesday meeting (to keep all sessions within one work week, and avoid expensive Friday flights). That said, most years will be a "no show" for me since ACVP meeting directly overlaps most years with other meetings with more relevant content (and especially the American College of Toxicology, which contains more focused practical content than does ACVP in terms of my routine work-related tasks). I do enjoy seeing sights but agree that the ethically correct choice is to do so on a satellite day rather than during the meeting at my employer's expense.
R. Keith Harris DVM says...
Posted Friday, January 26, 2018
I am in favor of shortening the meeting as recommended and eliminating the half day off. I do have one suggestion for your consideration, one that will not save money. Rather than eliminate, make Monday afternoon the place to "do business". Schedule committee/task force meetings in this time slot. Maybe even move some of the CVM alumni events and other activities into this slot, taking the pressure off the evenings. Make it a convenient time for employers to meet/interview potential new employees. Maybe a professional development session could be added here as well. Meantime, those not participating in these activities could have the afternoon off to do whatever.
Lydia Andrews-Jones says...
Posted Friday, January 26, 2018
My biggest obstacle to attending ACVP is the time of year of the meeting as well. There are personal and business conflicts, and all too often in industry there is a freeze on travel in the 4th Quarter of each year. The combined STP/ACVP meeting was one of the best in years, and I encourage a repeat of that every 5 years or so.
Katherine A. Knostman DVM PhD says...
Posted Friday, January 26, 2018
The biggest obstacles to my own attendance have been scheduling conflicts that time of year (I would recommend holding the meeting in October), the long duration of the meeting, and sometimes the travel time and expense if the meeting is at a distant location. Thus, I agree with the recommendation of shortening the meeting (but still starting it on a weekend) and rotating it through some "mid-level" cities as well as the fancier destinations. I'm also in favor of making one or two featured presentations available online as live webinars or recorded sessions (Charge IV). STP does this, and it expands the reach of information.
Kyle R. Taylor DVM PhD says...
Posted Friday, January 26, 2018
I don't like Charge III, the idea of running the conference from Friday to Tuesday. This is in a large part a work-related event, so it should be in a large part during workdays. Staring Friday also creates the issue of requiring days off in two separate weeks. For similar reasons, I'm not a fan of the Saturday (because travel falls to Friday) to Tuesday. I'd rather we move to a Sunday to Wednesday with no free afternoon. I agree the poster sessions need an overhaul. Put posters in digital format on the App, with the ability to post questions and comments to create more involved discussion among larger groups. A comment linked to a profile would lead to better connection. Placing all workshops pre-meeting and getting rid of post-meeting workshops would be great. Limiting speakers by country of origin seems like a good way to limit exchange of ideas, perspective, and knowledge. The speed networking idea, while potentially comical, may be a brilliant idea for trainees
Andrew D. Miller DVM says...
Posted Friday, January 26, 2018
I would also encourage looking into more mid-market venues where the costs of the meeting might be less than some of the bigger cities, although not knowing the economics of the meeting cost, this may be wrong (ie. what is the cost difference from a meeting in Savannah vs. Chicago). If a rotation system is used, then having an east coast, midwest, west coast rotation makes sense so that travel times are evenly spread out every three years. The time of year is problematic for those of us teaching in the fall, but there is really no good time of the year. I think the end of October through mid-November works fine and decreasing the meeting to four days will alleviate some of the time constraints as it relates to travel and being out of the office. Less material could be handed out at registration as well. I think everything that we need could be on a USB as well as a notebook to take notes. Move as much into the app as possible.
Andrew D. Miller DVM says...
Posted Friday, January 26, 2018
I think moving the meeting to four days is a needed first step. Coalescing the workshops to one day, and making all of them half a day would allow people to better pick and choose what interests them (and could therefore attend two in a day). Having been a former chair of the Natural Disease session, I think that decreasing it from a full day to a half a day is reasonable. This could be achieved by more selective criteria for platform presentations and having one invited speaker instead of the traditional 2-3. Better synergy between the Natural Disease and the Diagnostic Path sessions should be a priority as presentations can be more strategically aligned with one of the two sessions than they currently are. As incoming chair of mystery neuropath, I am also in favor of moving it to digital only slides that would be kept archived on the ACVP website for future access. This would likely increase case submission as many interesting cases don't have enough material for recuts.
Harold W. Tvedten DVM PhD says...
Posted Friday, January 26, 2018
The cost benefit ratio of using a non-American speaker should be what determines whether to invite such a person to speak. The cost of a flight from Europe to the East Coast may be less than to fly from California or a little town in Utah. Use of a local speaker (in that city) can be prioritized, but consider even then cost to the meeting and quality of the talk. ACVP members have always contributed talks with no or little monetary compensation. We can continue that tradition if the quality of speakers does not suffer. The pre- and post-meeting sessions have provided “in depth” coverage of a topic. There is no need to eliminate the offering of post-meeting sessions. They are optional and no member is required to attend either.
Harold W. Tvedten DVM PhD says...
Posted Friday, January 26, 2018
Eliminating a “free” half day off is ethically correct. We should not expect employers sending us to meetings to pay for a half day of tourism. Members can book an extra day or more at a venue at their own expense if they would like to visit the area. Similarly registration (and ACVP meeting expenses) should not pay for “free” lunches or dinners. Sponsors can offer these at a meeting at their expense. Employers or members paying for themselves to attend the meeting should pay only that needed for us to attend the educational parts of the meeting. Use of digital slides for mystery slide sessions is a good idea, but should not be mandatory. For cytology cases there may only be 1-2 slides with good cell presentation and the ASVCP request for 80 slides eliminates some good cases from consideration. The cost of producing a digital slide should be supported by the ACVP-ASVCP. The digital slides should then be available open access or on a DVD for full educational benefit.
Kathryn A. Eaton DVM PhD says...
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2018
I like the ideas overall. I particularly like the idea of shortening the meeting and of holding joint meetings. I'll be sorry to see the free Monday afternoons go, but I like Eric's idea of an early afternoon on Monday. I'm a bit concerned about the loss of honoraria for non-members - will that make it more difficult to attract good speakers? I can't remember what we pay, but maybe we can just decrease the amount somewhat. Thanks for putting this together!
Mary T. Wight-Carter DVM says...
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2018
I like getting rid of the Monday afternoon "free time". If people want to tour the city they should set aside a time before or after meeting. We should pick cities and locations that have good neighborhood/restaurants/bars near the conference area so people feel safe to walk around when not in meetings. It would be great to have more vendor sponsored events and a more robust vendor exhibition area. Based on other meetings I have been to, 4 days is adequate. Fall is not the best time of year but OK if that is when the best rates are available.
Harold Davis DVM PhD says...
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2018
I have always enjoyed the fact that our venues were often destination sites where many members may not have gone before the meeting. We would never have gone to Banff, or Emila Island or maybe Savannah if we only went to the same four or five sites. While at those sites it was marvelous having an afternoon to see the city. Soon for efficiency sake we will be advocating doing the meeting exclusively on line. I will miss the fellowship and seeing and enjoying a different venue. DON’T DO IT!!
Eric A. Blomme DVM PhD says...
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2018
Few comments: 1. I think moving the plenary on Sunday and the workshops on Saturday are good ideas to enable a 4-day meeting. 2. The Monday free afternoon is really hard to justify for some of us. Why not considering a Monday that would go from 7 am to 3 pm, such that some of the benefits of a free afternoon could be there for those who think it is important? Then do the President reception on Monday night. 3. Moving from two 4-hr focused sessions to one 5-hr is an interesting idea, but it will need to be carefully executed, such that participants would still see the value of coming of coming to the meeting.
Carl Alden says...
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2018
Kelli, I am dated so I do not have a weighty opinion. I do think that four days is sufficiently long for our meeting. My observation over the years at this and other meetings is that folks bail out the afternoon of the last day- so I would expect poorer attendance at the Presidents reception. I am also certain that there is no perfect plan. If Saturday is the first day of the meeting it would seem to me that there should be some general sesions then vs only workshops. Best, Carl
Jennifer (Jey) W. Koehler DVM PhD says...
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2018
Prefer meetings in hotels, with common areas that encourage mingling with colleagues. Make sure to get advice from locals on the quality of the neighborhood. Atlanta and New Orleans were in sketchy places. On the website, create a program schedule with embedded hyperlinks to presenter content (slide decks, relevant journal articles, faculty/company web page, etc.). Leave these on the website in an archive. Eliminate the requirement to submit answers for mystery slides to get a drink coupon. Lame. Consider having one large alumni reception in a big ballroom with tables/locations for each school. Offer organizational assistance for schools who don't have the resources to do that, someone to solicit and coordinate donations from all the schools. Some places might be able to kick in some money for food/booze but don't have the peoplepower to promote and organize things. This would also free up some conflicts between sessions and receptions.
Anthony W. Confer DVM MS PhD says...
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2018
I am ok with the idea of 4-5 cities in which are known to have good venues for the meeting. Shortening of the meeting is what we suggested on the education committee back in the 1990s. For me, attendance at ACVP has been poor the last 10 years because of the length of the meeting coupled with its time towards the end of fall semester. I applaud the recommendation.
Linden E. Craig says...
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2018
Great ideas! I am OK with the 4-5 city rotation too. Thanks for doing this.

login | donate

2424 American Lane | Madison, WI 53704 | Phone: 608.443.2466 | Fax: 608.443.2474 | Email: info@acvp.org