Joint Committee Minutes

Joint Committee Minutes
Face-to-Face, Denver, CO

June 29, 30, and July 1, 2006

Members Present

Thursday, June 29, 2006
Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda
National Office Report
Success Stories
Commissioner Issues
Chair Reports

Friday, June 30, 2006
Communication Committee Report
TAB
Recommendations
Review IRS Responses
TAB Issue
Closing

Saturday, July 1, 2006
Commissioner Issue Discussion Continued
TAP Operations
October Face to Face meeting
Closing

Attachment 1 - TAP Director, National Office Update
Attachment 2 - Notice Committee Synopsis for Joint Committee Meeting
Attachment 3 - TAP Communication Strategy

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Welcome/Announcements/Review Agenda

Larry Combs welcomed everyone.  Dorothy Havey was unable to attend due to weather-related conditions.  Maureen Amos is delayed as well and so agenda will need to be adjusted.  The Commissioner issues will be moved to today’s agenda in place of the Communication Committee Report.  Any additional time on the agenda for today will be filled by the chair reports.

National Office Report

Bernie Coston reported that the national office in Washington is currently closed due to major flooding which displaced over 2,300 employees.  The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is hoping to open the building next week; however, it is possible that it may be closed for up to 30 days.  One major implication for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is the posting of the Federal Register notices.  Coston talked to the Committee Management Officer (CMO) in Treasury and the General Services Administration (GSA) has determined that TAP meetings can continue.  If TAP is unable to post the Register timely due to the disaster, the meeting can be held.  However, TAP must document the reason the Register was not filed timely (include a notation in the agenda and minutes).

Coston handed out and read parts of the TAP Director, National Office Update dated June 29, 2006 (see attachment). 

Sonny Kasturi asked if there is a set percentage for the ratio of practitioners and non-practitioners because practitioners have an inherent conflict of interest.  Coston replied that TAP has not set exact standards but is mindful of keeping a balance when selecting panel members and tries to keep the program open for regular taxpayers.  In addition, practitioners have other avenues to get their issues addressed.  Sandy McQuin added that after interviewing with Ferd Schneider last week, they discussed that the panel should not be skewed to any demographic including Volunteer Income Tax Preparation (VITA) or Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) volunteers.  Tom Karwin said there is a need to ensure TAP is addressing the issues of taxpayers.  If any members have a conflict of interest, they are expected to recuse themselves.  Combs corrected that all members signed the ethics agreement but the agreement states that the conflict has to be made known but the members do not have to recuse themselves.  Further, if the members do not recuse themselves and the referral is sent to the Joint Committee, the chair must notify the Joint Committee of the conflict.  Kasturi said it is common to have a balance of interest by setting strict numbers and it is important to make sure the average taxpayer is TAP’s main priority.  Paul Duquette added that TAP also needs to make sure the standards don’t become so rigid that TAP passes up excellent candidates.  It is also difficult to define tax practitioner.  Does the definition include tax lawyers, only paid preparers, volunteer preparers, enrolled agents, Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), professors teaching tax law?  J.T. Wright said TAP’s focus should be first in getting the most qualified candidates and seeing the results, only addressing the problem as it arises.  Kasturi agreed with Wright but added that TAP needs to ensure the panel is not unduly skewed.  Coston said that TAP already has a built in sounding board, the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) and Treasury both of which look at the panel balance closely.

Wright asked if TAP has an adequate list of alternates to fill positions throughout the year as their area experienced problems after losing a number of members.  This was echoed by other committee members.  Coston replied that this was the year TAP had to suffer to get to that one third rotation of members for each year.  As a result, it was an extra burden on this year’s membership but TAP will be filling the alternate spots as they occur in future years.  Duquette asked about filling spots taken by members who do not contribute in any way.  Coston replied that several of members are in this position right now and are on notice to increase participation or be asked to retire from the panel.  During the interview process, TAP is making sure that applicants know that TAP doesn’t take this lightly.  Members are asked to commit to the 300 to 500 hours and the commitment is compared to working a part-time job.

Patrice Marker asked if there were any plans to set a regular date for the annual meeting.   Coston replied that because of the way the government has to contract, TAP cannot make any long term commitments.  Maryann Motza added that TAP isn’t large enough to make the meeting attractive to hotels.  It also hurts that the government cannot purchase food.  

Kasturi said that the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint (TAB) team is doing a new survey about customer service and he is concerned that TAP was not approached for input.  McQuin added that TAP already completed a survey in phase one and suggested Kasturi wait to raise the questions when the TAB representative is available. 

Success Stories

The Communication Committee has sent out an updated list of success stories.  The Committee listened to input from members and this revision is excellent and a very useful tool for doing outreach.

The Burden Reduction Committee completed a review of the process for applying for Subchapter S status and the recommendations they made to the IRS were accepted.  It was interesting that originally the program owner told the committee to find other options since IRS could not accept this recommendation, but the committee kept coming back to the proposal and it was finally accepted.  The savings produced by the recommendation’s implementation could mean $50 billion to taxpayers and $10 billion to IRS. 

Kasturi made an observation for the Joint Committee’s consideration that, in his opinion, last year’s recommendations belonged into one of three baskets:  cosmetic (30%), substantive (40%) and notice or user group feedback (30%).  He feels TAP could lose its relevance if the breakdown for significant and insignificant doesn’t change and TAP could be asked why it is not spending more time on substance.  Marker added that sometimes you need to do the cosmetic issues to get to the other more substantive issues. 

Paul Brubaker thinks the new linkage between the VITA committee and the IRS is a huge success.  McQuin added that the program owners realize the value of the volunteer feedback that TAP has brought to the IRS.  This is truly a TAP success story.  Lee Stieger said that the program owners for the Notice group also valued TAP’s input and as a result are asking for input on so many different topics that it has become difficult for the committee to respond to each request.

Kasturi wants to enhance the status of TAP by addressing significant issues.  Wright replied that improving TAP stature is a very serious but thinks it is more of a communication issue.  Wright favors taking a more creative approach in improving TAP’s stature.

Duquette believes one of the major components of the VITA Committee’s success was the attendance of executives from Stakeholder Partnerships, Education and Communication (SPEC) and its parent organization, Customer Assistance, Relationships and Education (CARE) at the VITA Committee face-to-face meeting.  Additionally, as a group, the VITA Committee members and most members of TAP are willing to rollup their sleeves and get to work.  Providing that type of resource, TAP can’t help being a success.  Karwin said that TAP currently has only the one measure of success, the number of recommendations.  So, TAP’s input on little things gets put out as a success story on the same level as the larger items.  The solution may be that some of the recommendations need to get recorded differently and not included with the substantive success items.  TAP needs a different channel to communicate its successes so it is not exaggerating the relatively minor and losing the major successes in the process.  Combs added that TAP must remember its role which is to solicit taxpayers to identify problems with the IRS and to represent taxpayers.  Maybe their problems won’t make headline news but if TAP identifies a problem that affects a lot of taxpayers and TAP can help solve the problem, it should be counted as a success.  Also, TAP is charged with assisting the IRS in working as a user focus group to represent taxpayers.  This activity should also be counted as a success.  Motza observed that this discussion relates to what the Communication Committee is trying to do with the communication strategies.  The Committee is trying to develop measures and also a way to communicate TAP’s success stories. 

Commissioner Issues

The goal is to leave this meeting with a document that can be finalized and sent to the Commissioner with a cover letter.  The issues will be presented today, panel members will have overnight to think about and discuss, and then the Joint Committee will form subcommittees to finalize the documents.  There is also additonal time on Saturday morning’s agenda for discussion of the Commissioner’s issues.

Section 7216 Regulations (Selling Taxpayer Information)

Combs commended the subcommittee for their position paper on this sensitive issue.  Motza thanked the subcommittee for all their input.  Motza worked with members from Areas 2, 6,
and 7, and thanked everyone who expressed interest in this issue:  Kasturi, Joe Shields, Willy Nordwind, Margaret Ferguson and Virginia Symonds.  In addition, Brubaker and Combs gave input. 

The Commissioner wanted grassroots input about proposed changes to Section 7216.  Based on input from the Joint Committee members who attended the Commissioner meeting, the subcommittee did a straw poll of all TAP members.  The papers reflect the opinions of whoever responded and readers should take into account that you generally hear more from people who want to complain.  Motza grouped the comments under each heading and did not do a general tally.  Most comments came from TAP members some of whom checked with their constituents. 

Most surveyed were not aware of these changes.  This included many of the practitioners who answered the survey as well.  Those who had heard learned about the issue from the news media which highlighted the fear of identity theft aspect.  This sale/use/disclosure of taxpayer information by return preparers has been in the regulations for a long time but went unnoticed until the proposed update to the regulations was posted on the Federal Register on December 8, 2005.  Many concerns expressed through the survey were related to identify theft.  There were also favorable comments about the proposed changes.  Other concerns expressed were the loss of control over the information after it is disclosed and how taxpayers already feel overwhelmed by all the consents they need to sign and a concern that when information is disclosed to foreign entities, the United States’ laws no longer apply.  The survey results provided an excellent foundation for TAP’s response to the Commissioner.

The testimony of the NTA provides an excellent explanation of use and disclosure.  That really is very significant to understanding the issues that came to light when the subcommittee asked for input.  The NTA’s testimony is quoted extensively in the position paper to provide good background information for the Joint Committee members to base a decision on what goes forward to the Commissioner; however, it was not intended that the testimony be part of the response to the Commissioner.

Kasturi commented that increasing the number of VITA/TCE sites would decrease this problem as suggested in one of the comment surveys but it may not be relevant to this issue.  It was decided the comment related more to the separate commissioner issue regarding the direction of VITA/TCE and should be part of that discussion. 

Kasturi did not agree with the sentence that “it provides protections for taxpayers,” and asked that it be removed from the final document.  Beadsie Woo asked for time to review this document then talk about more and finalize on Saturday. 

Kasturi suggested that the letter to the Commissioner be no longer than two pages; Combs agreed and said his goal was a page and a half.

Kasturi talked about his suggested solution regarding using a taxpayer identification number.  He asked for feedback from several different groups and got mixed reactions.  If the identification number is limited to filing of tax returns only, it is a difficult system to beat.  It was mentioned that charge card companies now offer a system where you can purchase off the internet using a one time only special purchase number so one’s credit card information does not go out on the Internet.

Motza added that the subcommittee acknowledges that some of the positions TAP takes may require statutory change but this is a position paper rather than a formal recommendation so should not be excluded.  Also, outsourcing to foreign entities is a key issue and should be included in this position paper.  Motza and Kasturi will work on the subcommittee to rewrite this paper and present it back to the full committee. 

All members did not have a chance to read through the position papers and the committee decided to move the remainder of the Commissioner Issues to Friday Morning.

Chair Reports

Area 1

Havey submitted the following report by email which Combs read into the minutes:

Please accept my deepest apologies for the weather conditions in Maine preventing me from attending.  Apparently my plane was held up Wednesday morning in Albany and all other flights were sold out and overbooked.  I could have flown on Thursday (out of different airport) but would not have been able to return on Sunday……  Ahhh, the joy of living in Maine close to the July 4th holiday!

My chair report would have been to simply convey that we are working diligently on issues, some moving through faster than others.   The face-to-face in Cranston, RI, was a great success as was the Town Hall Meeting.  Approximately six issues were raised and will be developed from the Town Hall Meeting.  As we all know, the face-to-face is such a great time to work the issues and so much more seems to be accomplished.  We have extended our meeting times throughout the end of the year to continue our work.

We have two recommendations for the Joint Committee to consider; TAP # 3570 is to be combined with Area 3’s similar issue, and the next is the Schedule D TAP #3571.  I will leave the explanation of the first in Area 3’s capable hands. 

#3571 Schedule D Carryover line.  I think the referral form explains it all and even Nina Olson indicated it was a good idea.  (See Providence Journal Article)

The genesis of this was if the taxpayer changed preparers in a given year. What would happen if they didn’t bring a copy of their return to the new preparer; potential capital loss carryover information would be lost. 

I do hope that the Joint Committee approves both items.

Area 2

Paul McElroy reported that Area 2 had a lot of success this year.  Area 2 established a screening committee.  The purpose of the committee is to review the issues coming into Area 2 and then make recommendations to the full committee to make it active or drop it.  The full committee decides whether to accept the screening committee’s suggestions or may ask the screening subcommittee to review again.  The system works extremely well and is very productive.  Area 2 formed another subcommittee for quality review which makes sure that the issue referrals are written well enough to go to the full committee.

Area 2 reduced the number of active issues and ranks the issues placed in the parking lot.  As soon as one issue is elevated, the next issue comes up from the parking lot.  The area is currently working five issues.  Area 2 elevated the Schedule D and D1 recommendation for this meeting and is hoping to have three more recommendations by the August meeting.  There are five more waiting in the parking lot.  Committee members have reported 47 outreaches through May.  Area 2’s success can be contributed to the screening committee and the quality of the new members.

Area 3

Wright reported that the transition period was somewhat awkward with the new fiscal year starting with new members and losing others.  Area 3 did get some very good talent with the new members.  Area 3 got a good start at the annual meeting in January.  The first face-to-face meeting is very important.  Area 3 had a face-to-face meeting in May.  Three people resigned during the year, so membership is down to seven people.  The committee decided to pare active issues down to five and identified six new issues for the parking lot to be looked at as the committee completes the active issues.  Marker added that cutting back on the number of issues was very productive.  With too many active issues, staff and members can’t keep up with the research and other work that needs to be done.  She suggests working the issues continuously even if they can’t be closed within the fiscal year.  Area 3 members have been active in outreach but question whether they really understand the constituents in the area.  Area 3 drafted a boiler plate letter of introduction for committee members to use at outreaches and would like to get an article of what is happening in TAP publicized in local papers to draw attention to TAP and let the general public know that TAP is seriously trying to represent them.  Area 3 had a town hall meeting in Jackson, MS, in March which was very successful.  TAP needs to find a way to bring continuity and improve the process so the transition from people to people and year to year can work better and keep the enthusiasm going. 

Area 4

Schneider reported that Area 4 is experiencing trouble with attendance; it is the new members that are not attending.  They had a conference call this week and for a while didn’t have quorum.  Area 4 has 17 members of which about 12 are active.  The Committee organized into three subcommittees:  Forms and Publications, Customer Service, and a Review Committee.  The review committee works like a triage for issues, reviewing the new issues and either assigning to one of the subcommittees or placing the issue in the parking lot.  One issue was elevated and eight others are in progress.  The Committee’s face-to-face meeting is in July.  This is a mistake; the face-to-face should be held much earlier.  There are eight issues in the pipeline and the Committee hopes to have them done this year.

McQuin added that some of the members aren’t active in the area committee, but are very active on their issue committee.  Part of the problem is the members are not communicating and don’t notify staff or the chair when they cannot be on the call.  She asked for input from chairs as to what they think will work to set the stage to foster commitment from panel members.  Woo stated that they had a great face-to-face meeting three weeks ago but, thought is would have been better in February, especially for the new people.  The face-to-face meeting allows members to gel.  Other chairs agreed.

Combs asked to move forward with more chair reports to clear time from tomorrow’s agenda for the Commissioner’s Issues.

Area 5

Stieger reported that Area 5 is facing some of the same issues facing other committees and has also found working fewer issues is more productive.  The Committee looked at all the issues; it had 40 issues at one time and found by condensing some, dropping issues being worked by other committees, dropping or placing other issues into the parking lot, they now work only three or four issues at a time.  Area 5 has been working on the FreeFile issue as requested by the Commissioner.  The town hall meeting in Davenport, IA, was successful; the Area got 31 issues out of that meeting.  The Area invites a different Local Taxpayer Advocate (LTA) to each teleconference to get to know the LTA and for the LTA to get to know the panel members.  The area is actively working on three issues right now.  Members have done 19 outreaches which include two radio interviews reaching audiences of over 250,000.  Area 5’s current membership is ten with six active members.  Area 5 has had lots of challenges, lost the chair and some other members, but is still moving forward well.

Area 6

Motza reported that Area 6 divided into subcommittees to work the issues.  This helps members focus and helps the support staff concentrate their efforts by not researching multiple issues.  The three subcommittees formed are:  Accessing Accuracy of IRS Services, Taxpayer Burden and Miscellaneous Issues.  The Miscellaneous Subcommittee is updating the recommendation for using Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) for daycare providers.  The Taxpayer Burden Subcommittee is looking at the rules for self employed making estimated tax payments and the Accuracy Subcommittee at the helpline accuracy of answers.  Area 6 took the lead on coordinating the 7216 response to the Commissioner.  The Committee should have two or more issues elevated to the Joint Committee this year.  Area 6 will not meet face-to-face until August which did have an adverse effect on its ability to work as a group.  One problem in scheduling an earlier meeting is that the VITA volunteers don’t want to meet face-to-face until after April.  Area 6 members average 10-15 outreaches each month; some reaching a significant number of people.  Area 6’s town hall meeting was in Fargo, ND.  There were obstacles to overcome.  It was held in a hotel and the people next door to our meeting were somewhat vocal.  There was also media taping the NTA which made some of the audience reticent to speak on camera.

Area 7

Karwin reported that Area 7 was reasonably productive this year.  Area 7 endorsed the idea of a screening committee and is working well.  The subcommittee does not make the final decision but discusses their recommendations with the full committee which then decides.  Area 7 also adopted the practice of subcommittees and assigning each issue to be worked.  It is a challenge since Area 7 is used to forming a subcommittee around an issue, rather than sending an issue to one of the established subcommittees. Area 7 has gotten backlogged waiting for research.  There is a lot of research to be completed, and Area 7 is working to keep committees active while waiting for research. 

Some members are not real active.  Outreach could use some improvement; the same members report outreach every month.  Consequently, Area 7 is not getting enough media coverage.  Area 7 had a town hall meeting in San Diego, CA; there were more IRS folks than taxpayers. 

Coston reminded Joint Committee members that members don’t have to wait on the IRS media people to get the message out.  The Communication Committee has developed templates that can be customized and sent to newspapers and other media directly by the TAP member.  An article is more likely to be published in small, local newspapers.  Templates are in the Outreach Tool Kit folder in the Reading Room on TAPSpeak.

Ad Hoc

Marker reported that the AdHoc Committee has an ongoing program to review filing season products as they become ready.  Other issues the committee is working on include disaster releases, the Forms W -4 , Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, and W-4 P, Withholding Certificate for Pension or Annuity Payments, which was raised by an area committee but Forms and Publication requested Ad Hoc takeover the issue, and a review of the new Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.  Ad Hoc met face to face two weeks ago.  The committee is also reviewing the new financial literacy tool, the life-cycle pamphlets, and the issue of return preparers regulations (licensing).   

Burden Reduction

Kasturi reported that the Burden Reduction Committee is somewhat fortunate to have stable membership and is not experiencing the same problems that other committees reported. The Committee met face to face in Minneapolis two weeks ago.  The Committee addresses one or two issues each month.  The program owners bring in a new issue when the committee has identified solutions to the current one.  Burden Reduction completed work on three issues:  innocent spouse relief, office in-home business deduction, and the Subchapter S election.  The committee recommended eliminating the form for claiming Innocent Spouse status and recommended a flat dollar amount for claiming an office in-the-home business expense.  IRS was considering a dollar amount per square foot.  Most recommendations were received very well by the program owner.  Burden Reduction is also working on simplifying the 940 series tax forms.  All of the committee’s issues have high dollar impact.  One disappointment is not being able to get better feedback from TAP as a whole which provides a broader base for the recommendations.  The committee has put discussion items on TAPSpeak but doesn’t get much feedback.  Kasturi asked that area committee chairs encourage their members to provide feedback.  The committee has six or seven issues to work on for the remainder of the year.

EITC

Woo reported that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) Committee has had mixed success.  The committee lost 25 per cent of its members which had an impact on the Committee’s work.  The EITC office broke the committee into four subcommittees and then asked each what issues they wanted to work.  The four subcommittees have merged into two.  One is looking at the immigrant population to see what their needs might be and the other subcommittee is Tax Preparation and Acknowledgement.  The EITC Committee is really just now getting started. 

VITA

Duquette described VITA as the partnership between IRS and various community sponsors such as churches, financial institutions, and the military.  The IRS’ goal is to have their partners secure facilities, equipment, and volunteers to offer free accurate tax preparation to low and moderate income folks.  VITA is sponsored by Stakeholder Partnerships, Education and Communication (SPEC) which reports to Customer Assistance, Relationships and Education (CARE) which is a part of IRS’ Wage and Investment (W&I).  VITA prepared 2.1 million returns this includes both Military and Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) prepared returns; 88 percent of the returns were efiled.  Currently, VITA is the third largest tax preparer. 

VITA is a new issue committee.  The Committee started with four subcommittees:  Emerging Issues, Training Process, Training Methods, and Training Materials.  VITA has now reorganized into two subcommittees.  The Training Process and Methods subcommittees were combined and the Emerging Issue Subcommittee is active only as needed.  The face-to-face meeting in Atlanta helped the committee develop rapport with the program owners.  Committee members have combined experience of 132 years.

Members of the Committee have traveled separately to Atlanta for one week to work with the Program Owners on VITA issues.  VITA reviewed the Forms 13614, SPEC Intake Sheet and 8158, VITA/TCE Quality Review Checksheet, and Publications 678, Volunteer Student Guide and 3189, Volunteer e-file Handbook.  Committee members also helped in the development of the volunteer certification program and the volunteer training regiment.  The Committee is going to recommend IRS go to process based training.

Notices

See Attachment 2, Notice Committee Report

TAC

Fireman reported that the Taxpayer Assistance Center (TAC) committee is also new this year.  The Committee has received great support from the staff.  There are 400 TACs around the country; a TAC is staffed by TRRs or Taxpayer Resolution Representatives.  TRRs assist taxpayers who walk into the IRS offices.  They prepare basic returns when the income is less than $38,000.  The Committee is looking to improve the customer service provided by the TACs.  It is looking to better structure the program so the TRRs can better answer questions. The Committee is also working on reviewing the draft of the TAB.  This is a document required by a Joint Committee of Congress in joint authorship with the National Taxpayer Advocate.  Its purpose is to look at long-term goals in law enforcement and service.  The TAC Committee had a face-to-face meeting in May.  Members met with Mark Pursley and discussed phase one and plans for phase two of the TAB.  The Committee will have a similar opportunity to review the Phase Two report.

Friday, June 30, 2006

Communication Committee Report

The Communication Committee has three subcommittees:  Communication Strategy which is developing a practical and realistic communication strategy.  The Committee is hoping to have the Joint Committee approve the first phase of the strategy today.  The Internal Communications Subcommittee looks at how TAP members communicate with one another and staff and the External Communication subcommittee concentrates on outreach activities and how TAP is getting issues.  Their concern is how TAP presents itself though posters, flyers, and other products.

Communication Strategy—Approval

Maureen Amos asked that the Joint Committee approve the Communication Strategy.  This is the first step in planning the Communication Strategy.  After this phase is approved, the Committee will fill in the details.  The Communication Strategy is practical and easy to read.  The Committee used time at their recent face-to-face meeting to include goals and objectives from each of the other subcommittees.  The document will also be used by the Communication Committee to track the progress of the strategy although the Communication Committee will not be performing all the actions.  The document addresses communication efforts only and is not designed to measure performance of TAP as a whole.

Wright observed that the Communication Strategy is a good document and includes both internal and external relationships.  A part of the strategy should include how TAP handles the legislative issue process and meetings with the Commissioner which should probably be a separate strategy.  Jerry Fireman thought the strategy was going to be an outline of what TAP is bringing to the public; but it measures what we are getting from the public and does not outline the process TAP uses to capture the information.  Karwin replied that the Communication Committee was concerned with the desired objective of getting more information from the public, and their interest was in stimulating input from the general public.  Amos added that the Communication Committee is also working on making TAP members more cognizant of the importance of accurately reporting outreach activities.  Stieger said that all TAP needs to be concerned with the image TAP presents because TAP wants to make people aware that TAP is a viable organization.  Woo asked what it meant for the Joint Committee to approve this strategy.  If the strategy is approved the Joint Committee is stating the Communication Committee has captured the way TAP can achieve its objective and defined how to assess TAP’s performance.  Motza added that this strategy was modified from the original TAP strategy because the former did not fit the current TAP and too much work was assigned to staff.  Amos stated that this is the framework and if the framework is approved, the committee will come back with more detail.  Combs suggested changing the wording “from general public – to the general public.”  The change was agreed to and strategy approved.
Decision:  Joint Committee reached consensus on changing the wording “from general public – to the general public” and the strategy was approved.

TAP Member Handbook

The Internal Communication subcommittee made several changes to the TAP Member Handbook after collecting input through an all member survey.  Some of the changes included:  adding tips on how to use handbook as a quick reference tool to encourage more usage; how to search both a paper or the electronic copy; defined the role of the Designated Federal Official (DFO) during a meeting; added an insert on communicating effectively during internal and external outreaches; inserted the issue flow pipeline charts to help members understand how issues get from point a to b to c; and up-dated the exhibits and the references to the exhibits. 

TAPSpeak

The Committee received excellent feedback from TAP members on TAPSpeak.  The Committee looked at two aspects:  enhance existing capabilities to encourage more usage and the other a wish list--what features were desirable for a completely new site.  TAP Members have problems using TAPSpeak.  Part of the problem is due to old technology and part because the program was designed at the beginning of TAP and there has been an evolution in members’ needs. The Communication Committee is in the midst of finalizing a statement of work to redo TAPSpeak and Improveirs–tying them together more directly and possibly having TAPSpeak be a passworded part of Improveirs.  America On-Line (AOL) users consistently have problems using TAPSpeak and the committee is also working that issue.  Motza prefers changing the TAPSpeak name; it has a bad reputation which is difficult to overcome.  Other features needed include standards for naming and using folders within TAPSpeak, a user friendly calendar, a better search capability, and the system should accommodate all browsers.  Currently, there is some information on TAPSpeak that is old which gives the impression that TAPSpeak is out of date.  The committee is also recommending an archive feature to reduce clutter.  Stieger suggested standards for filing agendas, minutes, and such within the committee folders since it is sometimes difficult to find documents.  The Committee asked permission from the Joint Committee to send the ideas forward.  Wright suggested a continuous improvement feedback feature for the site and Karwin suggested a standard strategy for naming documents.  Woo asked that on the login page, the cursor automatically be placed in the box so that the mouse does not need to be moved.   She also mentioned that when more than one document is posted on the same item, the document cannot be identified without opening it first. 
ACTION:  All members should send additional comments to Motza with a copy to Dave Coffman, Program Analyst for the Communication Committee.
ACTION:  Toy will send Coffman’s and Motza’s email addresses out to all Joint Committee members and meeting attendees.

Annual Report

The External Communication Subcommittee suggests using the annual report as an outreach vehicle and was disappointed that the annual report is not in a format that lends itself for use in outreach.  The report should emphasize accomplishments and successes of TAP.  It should showcase and highlight the positive aspects of TAP.  McElroy said the Communication Committee supports two versions of the annual report.  One to meet the requirements of the charter, and one to be used for outreach.

TAP Presentation

An updated version of the TAP PowerPoint titled, TAP Presentation, has been loaded on TAPSpeak in the Outreach Toolkit folder in the Reading Room. 

TAB

Elizabeth Fuchs, from Stakeholder Partnerships, Education & Communication (SPEC) Field Operations presented an update on the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint (TAB).  The TAB team is looking at the needs of individual taxpayers and their needs and customer service preferences.  It will develop a five year plan IRS service delivery.  

The IRS works with the National Taxpayer Advocate and the IRS Oversight Board on TAB.  TAP was a valuable research resource during Phase 1 and Fuchs thanked the Joint Committee for TAP’s assistance.

Fuchs explained the TAB objectives and that the research and surveys done by TAP in Phase 1 helped the team develop five strategies for TAB Phase II.  They are:

• Improve and expand education and awareness activities
• Optimize the use of partner services
• Elevate self-service options to meet taxpayer expectations
• Improve and expand training and support tools that enhance assisted services
• Develop short-term performance and long-term outcome goals and metrics. 

Fuchs talked about National Performance Review (NPR) audits shows that 67 percent of non-compliance is unintentional and the rest is intentional non-compliance.  The TAB thinks they can improve on the non-intentional non-compliance by improving and expanding the education and awareness activities to improve taxpayers’ access to information and their awareness of how to get that information.

TAB Phase 2 is targeted for completion in October 2006 which means the team needs to complete their report by August 11th in order for it to go to Treasury and the Office of Performance Management (OPM) for approval.  Fuchs was asked how TAP could assist in Phase II.  TAP might help by sending out the surveys.  Combs suggested having a team together in case TAB needed assistance; however, Coston preferred to form a team, if and when the need arose.  Members and taxpayers can email their comments and suggestions regard TAB to customerinsight@irs.gov.  The TAB Phase 1 report is available on-line at www.irs.gov.

The object of TAB is to try to maximize service delivery within budget restraints.  Part of the sub team is the analysis of taxpayers.  They are doing a demographic footprint of different segments within the United States; the elderly and disabled have different needs than small business owners.  What services should IRS be providing to taxpayers and what is the delivery method taxpayers need?

Recommendations

Area 3 #3734 Area 1 # 3570 and 3578 Forms 1096 and 1099 MiSC Downloadable and Fileable

Area 1 #3758 Form 1098

Area 4 and 7 Research Reports

The forms that are downloadable are not machine readable.  Toy felt that these referrals should be combined as they are all the same basic issue or problem but each has a different solution.   
There should only be one recommendation from the Joint Committee on these forms.  Stieger suggested having the solution be a stepped approach, the simplest first and then building up to electronic filing.  Wright replied that based on his understanding, the electronic filing is a little different for these types of forms.  The Joint Committee felt these issues should be combined into one recommendation.  Wright offered to take the lead and coordinate it.  Woo commented that it seems as though the various recommendations have two basic issues; one is getting a form that is usable and the other is how the forms are processed.  Karwin asked if it would be practical to recommend that all forms be machine readable.  Toy talked to Sue Sottile who said each of the IRS processing centers are working on updating their systems individually, so it would not be practical to combine all the OCR (optical character reader) forms although all the forms in these recommendations are Information Reporting forms and are processed in same center so can be combined.  Karwin said the problem is that if you get too specific about a few forms, it is too particular; if you say all forms, it is too broad.  The recommendation needs to make the group of forms consistent and TAP needs to find out where the IRS is in the process of improving the forms.  Coston suggested TAP find a subject matter expert to talk to on these recommendations.  Nancy Ferree offered to take the lead on combining these referrals and finding the subject matter expert.
Decision:  The Joint Committee referred these Information Reporting Forms  recommendations back to Areas 1, 3, 4, and 7. 
ACTION:  Wright will form a multi area team to combine all the machine readable information reporting form issues and Ferree will locate a subject matter expert to work with the team.

Area 2 #3747 W-2s & 1099 MISC Electronic filing

McElroy asked that this proposal recommending free electronic filing of the Form 1099 MISC, Miscellaneous Income, be separate from the other information return recommendation and the Joint Committee agreed.  Taxpayers who file fewer than 20 Forms 1099 MISC should be allowed to do so through the IRS website electronically without cost.  Marker said the issue needs to be stated more concisely and more information added to the background.  Wright observed that more and more issues are arising about electronic filing and Karwin suggested TAP needs to understand what the IRS’ long term plan is as far as electronic filing.  It was suggested that this issue be resubmitted without further investigation of IRS’ long term plan for electronic filing after Area 2 makes some grammatical and wordsmith changes to the referral.
Decision:  Area 2 will revise the #3747 Form 1099 MISC referral and resubmit to Joint Committee.

Kasturi asked that the Joint Committee adopt a policy that every referral be quality reviewed before it is brought before the Joint Committee and it should also be posted on TAPSpeak for at least five days before it comes before the Joint Committee.  Every member should have input to recommendations, not just the chairs.  Motza agrees every member should have input but that is the Chair’s responsibility to represent their committee and bring its members’ input to the Joint Committee meeting.

Area 2 #3736 Revise EFTPS Registration Procedure

The registration process for the Electronic Fund Transfer Payment System (EFTPS) for individual taxpayers is not simple to use and requires, at best, a two-week wait time.  The registration process for businesses and preparers offers short cuts not afforded to individuals. 
Schneider said he used the system a few years ago and the system worked wonderfully.  He has never had to wait two weeks so something must have changed.  Why was it easier three years ago than it is now?  He also added that he feels the bank verification is extremely important and should not be eliminated.
Decision:  Area 2 will do more research on the 3736 Revise EFTPS Registration Procedure referral as to what changed in the three years and address the change as a barrier.  After revision, the referral will be resubmitted to the Joint Committee.

Area 2, #3702 Pub 393 – Final Household Employment Filing

Woo explained the Household Employment Filing Issue.  The publication concerning household employment does not adequately explain to taxpayers when to stop filing employment tax forms.  The proposal gives specific recommendations on how to clarify the issue.
Decision:  The Joint Committee reached consensus to elevate the Area 2, #3702 Pub 393 – Final Household Employment Filing

Area 1 #3571 Schedule D – Carry Forward Line

Area 1 is recommending adding two lines to the Schedule D, (Form 1040) Capital Gains and Losses to report capital loss carryover information so it is readily available to the taxpayer for the calculation of their capital loss or gain.  Some minor wordsmith editing in issue and goal statements needs to be made.
Decision:  The Joint Committee reached consensus to elevate Area 1 #3571 Schedule D – Carry Forward Line.

Area 4 #3670 Forms-Draft Changes IRS Responses

Schneider state that Area 4 elevated the draft forms recommendations because the website does not show what changes are made and it is hard for practitioners and others to know what has changed.  Some grammatical changes were suggested.
Decision:  The Joint Committee reached consensus to elevate Area 4 #3670 Forms-Draft Changes IRS Responses.

Return preparers regulations (licensing)

Taxpayers do not have a way to learn if they are paying qualified individuals to prepare their tax returns.  The Commissioner asked for feedback on regulating paid tax return preparers.  TAP recommends licensing which would include a basic background check and set a minimum standard of knowledge.  Kasturi asked if the committee took a look at the NTA testimony before drafting this document.  Marker replied that they did as well as looking at other testimony. Kasturi was troubled that the subcommittee looked at what the NTA said but did not mention it in this report.  Marker replied that the committee wanted to skew it from TAP’s position.  Duquette agreed with Marker.  The Commissioner asked for TAP’s position and already has the NTA’s.  Brubaker added that to be a volunteer tax return preparer, you have to be certified.  The testing materials have tiered levels and there is a basic test that must be passed by all volunteers who prepare tax returns.  He asked how IRS can require less from paid preparers.  The volunteer certification process already exists, so why not adapt it for paid preparers.  Combs, Fireman, Marker and Barbara Toy will work on the subcommittee to rewrite this paper and present back to full committee. 

Private collection agencies (parceling out of “old” debts to collect on behalf of the IRS)

IRS doesn’t have the current resources in budget or personnel to achieve their goals in collections and believe the outsourcing of some debts to private debt collections is a process that will bring in as much as $7.7 billion in unpaid taxes to help reduce the national deficit.  The authors wanted to represent the taxpayers’ viewpoint and it is related to what people are looking for in government.  The team’s basis for this is that taxpayers would probably say the two most important functions of government are to protect them from invasion and a fair and equitable tax system.  The team tried to convey those thoughts.  In addition, TAP would like to partner in the process if it is decided it is in the IRS’ best interests to outsource collections.  Woo has strong feelings about saying there are the two most important functions and suggested changing the wording to:  two of the most important functions.  Other suggestions on rewording and formatting the paper were given.  Kasturi asked why the paper did not mention that the House passed a law that outright bans the use of private collection agencies and why wasn’t this included?  Wright replied that the team didn’t want to endorse outside source opinions but wanted to express TAP’s opinion.  Wright, Woo, Karwin, and Walker will form the team to rewrite this paper for presentation to the full committee. 

The direction of VITA and TCE (as Taxpayer Assistance Centers) decline, what role VITA/TCE will serve

Schneider reported that Area 4 has not yet finished this report.  It will be finalized at the face-to-face meeting in July.  He asked those who attended the meeting if the Commissioner has asked for feedback only on VITA or on TCE as well.  Brubaker replied that the Commissioner only mentioned VITA.  The document will be ready for review at the August meeting.  Schneider, Amos, and Duquette will form the team to rewrite this paper for presentation to the full committee. 

The availability of “FreeFile” for taxpayers

Lee Stieger presented the FreeFile position paper.  Area 5 has been working on the FreeFile issue for a very long time.  The team first asked for input from all the TAP members and gathered any additional information they could find.  All the comments they received are attached to the report.  The comments show confusion about the FreeFile program for tax preparation and submitting a tax return for completely free.  Most people do not mind paying for the tax software but object to an additonal fee for submitting the return to the IRS.  Some believe anyone should be able to submit a tax return to the IRS electronically for free.  Combs said the commissioner asked about the FreeFile consortium.  Should there be a cap of $50,000 adjusted gross income or not.  Perhaps this information on filing electronically for free should be a part of the paper but it doesn’t address his original question.  This paper will need to have a different focus and should be rewritten and presented again in August.  Stieger, Brubaker, McElroy and Patti Robb will form the team to rewrite this paper for presentation to the full committee.

Review IRS Responses

04-054 – Expanding 3rd Party Authority Term

04-055 – Third Party Designee, Notices Automatically 05-054 – Additional Tax Waiver Request – Closed Implemented

05-052 – Consolidated Presidential Declared Disaster Area Information

05-051 – Form 656, Offer in Compromise Criteria

Wright reported that Area 3 reviewed and accepted the IRS responses to all its issues then closed all the issues.  Area 3 will take a further look at some of the recommendations and put them in a clear and more succinct manner and then resubmit the recommendation to the IRS.

Annual Meeting
Staff is interested in any comments members have on what went well and what didn’t go well.  The committee meetings at the all TAP meeting are considered to be the first face-to-face meeting.  One purpose is to bring the new members up to speed. 

Suggestions received from the Joint Committee on the annual meeting:

• Area and Issue Committee Chairs should be part of orientation.
• The motivational speaker should be eliminated because it did not add anything.  
• Use more members as presenters.  Judi Nicholas said that the motivational speaker does tend to start off conference on a high note that carries throughout the conference.  Members conceded this was true but suggested having Nina Olson be the kick-off speaker.
• Too much time for program owners.  Time would be better served if we ask program owners how much time they would like to speak and let them know what TAP wants to hear.
• Social hour place was not ideal; difficult to get into and too crowded
• The election process didn’t work well.  

A discussion on the election process followed.  Wright wondered why we wait until the Annual Meeting to hold elections.  Woo thinks the preliminary ballots should be ready for the election before the Annual Meeting.  Most people have thought about chairing a committee before the Annual Meeting.  Motza believes that new members should build into becoming a chair after working in TAP for at least a year.  Selecting chairs prior to the annual meeting leaves new members out of the process, but others felt that being a chair required at least one years’ experience. 
 
The chair reports are very boring.  It is more important to have that time to extend the committee meetings or let new members talk to returning members.  The chair should give a brief overview at each committee meeting; everyone doesn’t need to know what other committees did.

Wright said TAP needs to ask “What the expected outcome from the meeting is and how do we equip all members to hit the ground running and be a good member?”

• What are differences for area committees and issue committees. 
• It would be nice to hear from the Commissioner or some of the program owners of the value that TAP provides to IRS.

The Joint Committee considered having a subcommittee address the election issue; whether it should be done before or at the annual meeting, and whether or not there should be a nominating committee.  Instead of forming a new committee, each chair was charged with bringing the issue back to their committee and request their feedback. 
ACTION:  Combs will draft questions for chairs to ask at their next meeting regarding changing the chair/vice chair election.
ACTION:  Chairs should put the Chair/vice chair election topic on their next meeting’s agenda and report back to the Joint Committee on their thoughts.

TAP will have the same Issue Committees as last year although membership will change.

Coston said as far as workshops go, the outreach and communication workshop is an excellent vehicle to get information to the new members.  Coston would like to utilize members from the Communication Committee to teach this class.  TAP used to offer six or seven choices of workshops but found this didn’t work as well as having fewer choices and longer workshops during the time frame that one half of the membership is attending their area or issue committee meeting.  Woo suggested not have a three or four hour meeting and maybe offering members a free time slot to recharge or socialize.  Motza agrees but thinks it’s valuable to have an outreach workshop, but the workshop on what it means to be a TAP member workshop was not valuable.  Nicholas said that staff didn’t intend to offer the same workshops and the Communication Committee will brainstorm and come up with some ideas for workshops.  All members who have suggestions on workshop topics should contact Nicholas or Meyers.  Kasturi suggested workshops not run longer than one hour and that they should be conducted by a current member.  Consider information overload as a factor.  Motza suggested a hands-on workshop for TAPSpeak and thinks it would be handy to develop a roadmap to TAPSpeak which could be used as part of the training. 

TAB Issue

Combs asked how the Committee wanted to respond if the TAB team asks TAP for help.  Do we want to set up a potential committee to respond?  Duquette liked Coston’s suggestion that this opportunity be expanded to all TAP and not just limited to the Joint Committee.  Wright said this opportunity won’t happen again so TAP needs to take advantage of it.  If the TAB report is available in October, TAP should review at the annual meeting and provide feedback to the IRS.  The annual meeting would be ideal since the Joint Committee will be meeting with the Commissioner and will be able to provide feedback on the TAB report. 
ACTION:  Fireman, Karwin, Duquette and Motza volunteered to review the TAB report after it is issued and provide feedback to the Joint Committee on its contents. 

Closing
The five teams met separately to revise the position papers for the Commissioner.  Three of the position papers for the Commissioner will be discussed Saturday morning; the others will be discussed at the August meeting.

Saturday, July 1, 2006

Commissioner Issue Discussion Continued

Section 7216 Issue Recommendation

Kasturi would like to add a paragraph that the IRS should explore the need for legislative changes to address the consent and disclosure issues.  Disclosure is a big problem and is going to get bigger.  Combs clarified that this discussion will be substantive issues today; send wordsmith edits to issue author and Toy who will work with Combs to finalize the letter.
Decision:  Section 7216 Issue Recommendation was approved by consensus for elevation after the wordsmith edits are completed.

Tax Preparer Licensing

Karwin said due to the complexity, are we creating a false sense of security with this information?  Duquette replied that from his experience with VITA/TCE which has three levels of certification:  basic, intermediate, and advanced.  The courses are very comprehensive regarding tax law, tax changes, as well as administrative issues.  The testing is also very comprehensive.  In order to go from basic to intermediate, there are two scenarios that must be completed and to pass only two of the ten questions can be missed.  Schneider added that by requiring certification, IRS eliminates a good deal of the incompetent preparers such as car dealers and other retail outlets.  Stieger added that there is no real way to ensure everyone who passes the certification will do a perfect job.  Just like doctors, some are good and some are not as good.
Decision:  The Tax Preparer Licensing Recommendation was approved by consensus for elevation after the wordsmith edits are completed.

Outsourcing of Collections

McElroy read that the IRS does not have the budget or personnel to collect this debt and that there is a potential to collect $7.7 billion.  Wright said that is what IRS is saying.  What we are saying is that the debt collections function should be limited to the IRS only and IRS could outsource other functions that do not have direct taxpayer involvement.  Kasturi did not feel the paper, as written, presented a strong opinion for either TAP supporting or not supporting IRS using outside debt collectors.  Karwin said the reason private businesses turn to private collection is that it is self funding and does not require a budget allocation.  But, for how IRS is planning it, it will still require a budget allocation.  If TAP wants IRS to discontinue private collections, it should also recommend that IRS fund their ability to collect using IRS personnel. 
Decision:  The Outsourcing of Collections Recommendation was approved by consensus for elevation after the wordsmith and format edits are completed.

TAP Operations

When does TAP Year End?

The term for members rotating off will end November 30, 2006.  Chairs will attend the annual meeting in December and their term will end December 15, 2006.

Miscellaneous

Former members who want to reapply to be a panel member can apply after one term off.  (Three years).  They will go through the formal application process.

It was suggested the staff schedule the first face-to-face meetings, with a backup date.  This will help avoid overlapping.
ACTION:  Staff will set up face to face meeting schedules for all committees; each with backup date(s) by September, and also name suggested locations.

Duquette said that it is hard to know what document(s) are posted on TAPSpeak from the email notification.  Motza noted that TAP staff did not have the capability to change the subject line.
ACTION:  Staff will place the name of the document in the email notification text box as well as the location of the file on TAPSpeak in case the link does not work.

Kasturi feels referrals should be put on TAPSpeak so all panel members have the opportunity to review the referral and make comments for four days before the referral goes to the Joint Committee.  Comments can be forwarded to the subcommittee and they can make adjustments as necessary.  Motza said that the area chairs should make sure the committee members know about what issues are going to the Joint Committee and represent their members at the meetings.  Also, the chair should let the members know that just because they express an opinion, does not necessarily mean that the referral will be altered to fit that opinion.  It was noted that the request to change the referral should go back to the full area committee and not just the subcommittee that authored it. 

Continuous Operation of TAP

Committees should not stop working issues because some members are rotating off.  The work should be continuous and issues will be worked at the committee meeting during the annual meeting.  Schneider suggested there needs to be a break, a sigh of relief, or something and recommended not have a meeting in November.  There will be committees that will charge on, but there needs to be some finality.  Motza replied that there is a natural break during the holidays.  Woo thinks the committees should continue working as usual.  There can be an acknowledgement of achievements but work should still continue.  Karwin said that since members rotate off at the end of November, he thinks we need some closure.  There really won’t be a down time.  Stieger suggest having some type of wrap-up for the non-returning members. 

Brubaker said that every new panel member that attended Area 2’s last teleconference meetings last year as a member of the public were much more comfortable at the annual meeting.  Each new member had an assigned mentor.  Our committee really got a jump start because of this and he suggested other committees do the same.

Coston reported that TAP is in the process of wrapping up interviews and will probably submit the list of potential members to the NTA by early August.  TAP must also get Treasury approval.  TAP is also required to do a fingerprint check, a tax check, and a subversive name check.  The name checks means running the names through to a database to determine if the person has had any ties to a terrorist activity or any activities against the government.  This check can take from six to eight weeks. 

Role of Alternates VS New Applicants–replace during year, serve remainder of term or new three year term

Coston stated that alternates may serve a little under three years or could serve a little over three years because they will rotate off at the same time the other members of their “class” rotate off. This year was different to help achieve the one third attrition; the decision was made not to fill vacancies with alternates.  This will change next year; if we have an alternate available, TAP will fill the vacancy.

Using Volunteers Balancing Time and Benefit

There are some volunteers who are putting in way more time than they thought they would and some feel overwhelmed.  They are struggling with the time commitment.  Perhaps our model isn’t what it should be.  Some members aren’t participating in one committee but are very active in their other committee.  Stieger said given any situation, some people are more committed than others so there will always be this discrepancy.  The “doers” need to learn to say no, and the ones who aren’t contributing need to be asked why.  Brubaker said TAP is good about telling volunteers the number of hours, but it needs to be put in a context people can understand, and they need to be aware that some of that time comes in lumps; such as the face-to-face and the annual meetings.  To be a good active committee, we need active participation from everyone.  Marker suggested assigning a mentor to a new person that is not participating.  McQuin said she is struggling with how the panel should look; do we only want people that can devote a huge chunk of time?  Some of the members do not have the flexibility to commit to all the calls and meetings.  Stieger can understand that some may not be able to attend every meeting but they should notify the chair prior to the meeting.  Woo, as someone who does have a full time job, would be supportive of setting some threshold level of participation.  Motza said the chairs have an obligation if there is non participation or a problem, to call the member to find out what is going on.  If a conflict comes up, the committee and staff can work with the member and possibly change the schedule.  Everyone needs to be involved because everyone adds value.  The Communication Committee will be calling all the new members to do the survey this year and will report the results at the August meeting.  Wright said having an alternate pool is critical.  He has tolerated non-contributing members because there was no back-up to fill a vacancy.  It was suggested that TAP not pick people for the panel who can’t make the time commitment.

Prospective members need to understand that they will have to fund their travel expenses upfront and receive reimbursement three to four weeks after travel because it can get expensive.

How did Mentoring Program Work

Duquette said that the mentoring did not work well in his area; one of the new panel members wasn’t receptive to mentoring.  This same member also missed the annual meeting.  McElroy suggested asking a person who can’t make the annual meeting to wait until the next year.  The mentoring program worked well in Area 2.  Each new member had a mentor.  Stieger said that was a good point about not being able to attend the annual meeting, but things do come up.  A mentor helped him before the annual meeting but discontinued after the annual meeting and since Steiger missed the annual meeting it was difficult.  He suggested that the mentoring continue for several months into the year.  Duquette will not give up on mentoring but might try another process that will be predicated on the individual being mentored.  Stieger suggested having the mentors assigned on a volunteer basis and only if the new members want a mentor.
Decision:  Consensus reached to continue the mentoring but only on a voluntary basis.

Quality Review Teams Evaluation of Success and Changes Needed

Marker thinks this should be mandatory.  Woo reminded the committee that they had initially talked about having a rotating membership on this committee.  Toy asked if it is practical for someone to reviewing their own issue.  Woo volunteered to help the Quality Review Committee.

October Face to Face meeting

Last year almost the whole meeting was devoted to practicing for the annual meeting.  Since the chair reports were eliminated, the Joint Committee will have more time to work on the issues.  The face-to-face meeting is in Dallas, October 11-14, 2006.

Closing

• Meeting went well covered big agenda
• Good
• Moved well through packed agenda
• Never being here before or even at a call before so was surprised how much was accomplished and how efficiently the meeting went.  Got a lot of insight into the panel.
• Compliments to the current Joint Committee.  This meeting bears no resemblance from the Joint Committee of last year.  This configuration is a much better group.
• Impressed with the quality of the membership of the Joint Committee this year as well as their interests in the issues and the overall participation
• Well done and a great meeting
• Full of surprise and I appreciate the efficiency
• A pleasure the way the committee allowed the shifting of the agenda to make better use of time and compliments on giving constructive criticism
• It was a good meeting and easy to take minutes
• I was a little scared coming in especially with packed agenda and thanked committee for adjusting agenda
• Enjoyed very much, met many of you at chair training in San Diego which was an excellent prelude to this meeting and encourage TAP to continue that practice.  Enjoyed the talk about motivating those people who are not motivated
• I haven’t worked on any panel or group that people worked together so well.  The Chair training was very important since the committee met only briefly in Washington and it is because of that training that the committee works well together and do not attack people, just the issues.  The training also helped the bonding.
• Committee members are poised and ready to work; were organized and took on challenges 

Combs thanked everyone for their hard work.

Meeting Adjourned

Next Meeting is Wednesday, August 2, 2006, at 1 pm ET

Attachment 1 - TAP Director, National Office Update
Attachment 2 - Notice Committee Synopsis for Joint Committee Meeting
Attachment 3 - TAP Communication Strategy