Ad Hoc Issue Committee Minutes
October 3, 2003
Face-to-Face Meeting
Grand Hyatt Hotel
Washington, D.C.
Attendance
- Gerald Gensiejewski Jr., PA
- James Griffin, CA
- James Grimaldi, NY
- Calvin Johnson, VA
- Lawrence Lexow, IL
- Gregory Maciulla, AZ
- Robert (Bob) Meldman, Chair, WI
- Diane Mignano, RI
- Buck Paolone, AL
- Paul Smathers, ND
- Sherry Whah, AK
- Lillian Woo, Vice-chair, TX
- Judi Nicholas, Designated Federal Official
Guest
Staff
Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda
Bob welcomed everyone and introduced Karen Kraushaar, Public Affairs Specialist with the Internal Revenue Service, and explained that she is attending the meeting to discuss the marketing strategy for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. Marla took roll call and Bob continued with the next agenda item.
Election for Chair & Vice-chair
Bob explained that Chris Lowe, current Ad Hoc Chair, would be unable to continue as Chair. Judi explained that it is up to the committee to decided how they would like to go about electing a new chair.
The committee discussed possible candidates and decided Bob is currently Vice-chair he should continue as the chair of the Ad Hoc committee. Bob graciously accepted his new roll as chair of the Ad Hoc committee.
Bob asked if there were anyone interested in representing the Ad Hoc committee as the Vice-chair. Lillian Woo and Paul Smathers were nominated and the committee continued with questions to both candidates.
The committee submitted their votes and Lillian Woo was named Vice-chair for the Ad Hoc committee.
Review Committee Minutes
The committee reviewed minutes from their previous meeting. There were no additional changes made and the minutes were approved.
Marketing Strategy
Judi explained the work of the subcommittee for TAP marketing strategy. Judi presented a marketing strategy to the committee for their review. Judi indicated that the marketing strategy would need to be sent to the Joint Committee by October 21st.
The committee reviewed the strategy and provided changes to Judi. The committee discussed and felt that the demographic portion of the strategy was not needed.
Bob introduced Karen Kraushaar to the committee and asked if she would provide her background to everyone. Karen expressed that it was an honor to be affiliated with the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. Karen explained that she was with INS public affairs and was with them for five years. She saw her current position with Taxpayer Advocate Service as an opportunity. Karen continued and explained her background was media. She was in the media for 15 years. This included being a Washington correspondent, a reporter for a newspaper in Detroit, and a columnist.
Karen commented “How do you get things out to the public and how do you get them to pay attention?” She explained that this has been her specialty for the last 20 years. She explained to the committee when she was given the assignment to create a marketing strategy, she understood that it was mainly a communication strategy and how to raise the profile of this organization. Karen felt the document was only a part what the Ad Hoc committee tasks was.
What Karen tried to focus on was figuring out how a newsroom editor would look at this panel and if they should to decide to run a news story on TAP. Karen explained that in journalism school the first thing that is taught is that any news editor asks is; So what? and Who cares?
Karen continued to explain that she looked at TAP in two aspects and one is how to raise the profile internally within the IRS. This is a strategy that is already in progress.
Karen referred back to the editor's question and indicated that this is the group that is suppose to be the voice of the taxpayers. If this is true, Karen asked, what do we know are the results of TAP?
- TAP has been in existence for a year
- TAP has received a variety of multiple input taxpayers from around the country.
- TAP has the ability to analyze the input
Karen asked Judi to explain the SAMS database. Judi explained that SAMS is the Systemic Advocacy Management System. SAMS is a database of systemic issues. Systemic Advocacy will be creating a section for TAP. While this system was being developed, TAP has created it's own database to track TAP issues. The analyst will be able to go into the database and retrieve all the issues, analyze the issues and see if they fall into any categories or if there are any trends.
Karen expressed that it's one thing to go to a media decision maker and ask if them if they could do a story about TAP because it's new and different. It's another thing to say we are listening to taxpayers and here's what they're telling us. Karen also expressed that timing is also an issue. She felt since TAP has been in existence for a year that TAP should look at doing a study. Karen explained to the panel members that studies are very popular in the media. Everyone reads studies every day. Karen provided examples and explained the reason everyone sees it every day because it's very popular with newsrooms editors.
It occurred to Karen that doing a study is something TAP should do. TAP is in a unique position to know what it is that taxpayers want and what are they concerned about. Karen suggested that someone work with TAP to design a study to give us some kind of impartial analysis of all the input. Then to write up a summary of the study and do a news release that talks about the study and what it found. Karen feels this is something that could be used to the groups advantage. Karen continued to suggest other strategies that the committee could do.
Judi suggested that the committee review the marketing strategy and ask themselves is there are anything listed that they didn't like, is there anything listed that is great, or is there anything that's missing.
The committee continued to discuss the document and changes that should be made. The committee felt that the strategy should be to increase taxpayer input and not just market TAP to increase their knowledge of TAP.
James Griffin commented that the IRS is doing a lot of the marketing or advertising that's being done. Most people have an adverse reaction to the IRS. If the committee would like to do marketing, Jim suggested that the committee needs third party attention. He continued to suggest that the committee explore having the Council for Excellence in Government produce an article. It's a monthly federal digest. They could explain how this is an important new function that has developed some momentum and is dedicated to being available to the public. James felt that as long as we keep telling this to ourselves it's incestuous and the message is not getting out. Karen felt this was an interesting idea. James continued by stating as long as the marketing comes from IRS, people tend to shut down.
The committee felt that this is the reason why the group is discussing a marketing strategy that is coming from TAP and not the IRS. The committee wants the focus on TAP not IRS. Therefore, the committee should look at the criteria Karen presented and have the same “so what and who cares” criteria to groups and organizations.
Karen continued to suggested that the committee draw up a list of TAP success stories and accomplishments to answer the ‘So What?” question. The committee gave two examples; the Kiosk and check the box. Karen felt it would be a nice document to have and be available to committee members.
Lillian asked the committee what should Ad Hoc send to the Joint Committee. She felt that the two marketing strategy documents are very thought out, very comprehensive and very doable. Lillian asked if the committee wants to send to the Joint Committee the big objectives and strategies or does the committee wants to outline the strategy in more detail.
A committee member explained that the Ad Hoc committee was charged with developing a comprehensive strategy. He continued to express that the Joint Committee is another committee, not necessarily to have a stamp of approval but to at least have a say so. Lillian felt it was up to the Ad Hoc to decide how detailed the strategy should be.
Karen concluded her presentation and the committee continued to discuss and edit the documents. Judi noted the changes on both documents.
Decision: The committee decided to change the title from “Marketing Strategy” to “Communication Strategy”.
Decision/Action: The committee discussed marketing materials, for example TAP post-it notes, note pads and bookmarkers. Bob requested that there be digital pictures available to the person who is ordering the supplies so that they know what they are getting.
Annual Assessment Review
The committee discussed and edited the annual assessment written by Chris Lowe that would be delivered to the Joint Committee.
Future Meetings
The committee discussed the proposed face-to-face meeting dates and locations. Judi suggested that the committee select 3 dates and locations. Although the panel was told that they may only have 2 face-to-face meetings, there could be a chance TAP will receive additional funding and a third meeting maybe possible.
- February 2nd – 4th Tucson, AZ or Phoenix, AZ
- May 24th – 26th Seattle, WA
- August 1st – 3rd Philadelphia, PA – Possible meeting if additional funding is received
Action: Judi has agreed to cost out the suggested cities and provide the information to the committee.
Additional Comments
Bob asked the committee if they were still interested in having their teleconference schedule stay the same. The committee meets monthly on the first Monday of the month at 8 am in the morning.
Decision: The committee decided to keep the teleconference schedule the same. Their next meeting will be Monday November 7 th at 8am pacific.
Public Comment – Sherry Whah
Bob informed the committee that Sherry, committee member, wanted to make a few comments on practitioner licensing. Sherry provided a document to each member and continued to discuss its contents.
Sherry explained when she attended the Las Vegas Tax Forums she spoke with Thomas Cooke. He conducted a class on Ethics and Consumer Responsibilities. Sherry continued to explain that a heated discussion took place in his class regarding “Privacy Act.”
Sherry asked what makes a tax professional a tax professional. She explained that there was a person that worked for a tax firm and committed ID theft. She continued to speak with Thomas Cooke during her visit to Las Vegas and he felt something needed to be done about National Licensing for practitioners.
Sherry continued to discuss Thomas Cooke proposal that federal tax return prepares be subject to federal registration and certification. The committee discussed the document and gave suggestions. The committee would like Nina Olson input his proposal into her annual report to congress.
The committee concluded by reviewed the decisions that were made during the meeting and discussed their next meeting in November. No additional comments were made and the meeting adjourned. |
Text Version
