About NASIG
|
North American Serials Interest GroupNASIG NewsletterVol. 20, no. 4 December 2005 ISSN 1542-3417 NASIG EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES Date: Oct. 29-30, 2005 Attending: Members-at-Large: Ex-Officio member: Guests: 1.0 Welcome (Page) Page called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m., welcomed Board members and guests, and asked that each person introduce himself or herself. Page reminded those present that because Board members have read all reports before the start of the meeting, only those reports requiring action will be discussed in the meeting. Page noted that the Board meetings are public with published agenda and minutes.
2.1 Board Actions Since May 18, 2005 Meeting 6/18/05 Board endorsed the Conference Planning Committee/Program Planning Committee theme for the 2006 conference: Mile High Views: Surveying the Serials Vista. 7/15/05 Board reached consensus on the desirability of supplying the Continuing Education Committee co-chairs with a list of the top rated conference programs. CEC would investigate the possibility of presenting some of these sessions ?on-the-road'. 7/18/05 Board endorsed idea of holding Thursday evening event at Red Rocks for the 2006 conference in Denver. 8/2/05 Board endorsed logo selected by Conference Planning Committee for the 2006 conference. 9/6/05 Board unanimously approved selection of Bob Alan as Continuing Education Committee Co-Chair for a term of two years, replacing Beverley Geer. 9/14/05 Board voted to keep members affected by Hurricane Katrina on the membership roster through June 30, 2006. All affected members will be eligible to register for the conference at the member rate. They should renew their memberships at the full annual rate by June 30th. 9/15/05 Board agreed to continue the Mexico Student Grant award for 2006 emphasizing that the time-line developed by the Awards & Recognition Committee must be closely followed. 10/13/05 Board agreed to accept the Awards & Recognition Committee's suggestion to reword the eligibility requirements for the Fritz Schwartz Serials Education Scholarship to emphasize the location of the library school rather than the home country of the student. The announcement must indicate that travel expenses would only be paid within North America. 2.2 Pending Action items from past meetings Tenney would like to know if committee chairs find the Chairs Manual to be useful and if they have any suggestions to make it more useful. ACTION: Liaisons will ask committee chairs about the usefulness of the Chairs Manual and report comments to Tenney Ginanni reported that the Awards & Recognition Committee requested a change in deadline for reworking the Champion award to be a nomination rather than an application. This task will be completed by the annual conference in May. Emery moved and Ginanni seconded accepting for NASIG use the Creative Commons language located at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/. The proposal passed unanimously. Emery will send the information to the webmaster to add to the NASIG Web site. This is a "no derivative works license" that restricts the ability for someone to take something like a NASIGuide and then turn it into an article, book, video, etc. on the basis of the material presented on the NASIG web site. Copyright would still remain with the author of the work Novak stated that the search for a qualified consultant, whose specialty is nonprofits, would be handled as part of the financial plan. Novak reported that stopping payment on checks with dates older than 2003 would not be cost effective. Carrying the checks forward would be less costly, and it was agreed that uncashed checks would simply remain on the books. . Naming conventions for conference programs remains a problem. Effective naming conventions help both speakers and attendees determine the nature of sessions. The action item concerning PPC discussion of naming conventions is ongoing. It was agreed that the terminology for program types - vision, workshop, or tactics sessions - was primarily to help speakers develop presentations in the appropriate format. Page indicated that the action item concerning a possible ALCTS/Synergies Task Force should be dropped because of the difficulty in artificially forcing a relationship. Chesler reported not getting a lot of responses from liaisons to other groups when he requested items for the NASIG Newsletter. 2.3 Board Items Status List The Board was reminded to periodically check the Board Items Status List in the Board Web space. 2.4 Revision of NASIG brochures. Conversion to PDF for web site. Dues amounts have been changed in the brochures but other rewriting needs to be done. In the past the Regional Councils were responsible for this task. The new Membership committee will assume responsibility for rewriting and reformatting NASIG brochures. 3.0 Treasurer's Report (Robischon) 3.1 Report from treasurer Robischon reported dealing on a case-by-case basis with people paying the old rate for membership dues. Charles Schwab had initially sent the wrong form to update officer's signatures but this has finally been straightened out. Robischon is working with Novak to investigate other financial firms to handle investment accounts. She noted that the organization should not have to use the Treasurer's social security number.
3.2 2005 budget and expenditures to date The total amount budgeted for FY2005 was $85,850.00; the actual total amount spent was $56,360.09 (as of the Oct. Board meeting). 3.3 2005 Conference Report Robischon reported that the 2005 Conference did make a surplus. She recently received an additional bill from St. Thomas University for copying. The Conference Planning Committee has agreed to use Kinkos for all copying for the 2006 conference 3.4 2006 Proposed budget The entries for Conference Planning budget for 2006 and Conference Planning Committee budget should be consolidated. Finance refers to the Treasurer, not to a committee, which was eliminated as part of implementing the Financial Plan. All agreed this budget line should be called Financial Administration. The Bylaws Committee asked for money in case a ballot measure needs to be created and mailed. Savage questioned the necessity of allocating this money when ballot measures are seldom voted on separately from the N&E ballots. Savage moved (Robischon seconded) that the Bylaws allocation be changed to $500 and if a ballot is needed an additional allocation can be approved. The motion passed unanimously. The Database & Directory Committee's only printing and postage costs should be for this year's renewal letters. A problem has existed with forwarding mail from the P.O. Box in Georgia. The Database & Directory budget must be examined to eliminate the directory printing costs and determine a realistic postage amount. Evaluation & Assessment cut back on their budget; they had a larger budget last year in order to purchase Apian software. In the Electronic Communications request, $7900 is for the Bee-net contract; it has an annual fee of $699 for software plus $600 per month. Step Schmitt, the Chief Technology Coordinator, is evaluating the services. Page will work with Schmitt on an RFP to look at other services. The forthcoming Technology Plan will address these issues. The Publicist's budget was reduced to $100 at the request of Savage. Novak noted that the Financial Plan does include a contingency fund of $5000. Parang moved (Tenney seconded) to place all amounts cut from individual accounts into a contingency account. The motion passed unanimously All financial reports from 1997 to date are in the current version of Quicken. Robischon will look for an updated version of Quicken that could make reporting easier. Administrative costs for NASIG are less than 30%, which is very low for a non-profit of NASIG's size. At present the deposit for the conference event at Red Rocks is in the Administrative account but it will be moved to the 2006 Conference account. This will reduce the Administrative expenses to 22% of the total budget. 4.0 Communication among board members (Page) 4.1 Conference calls Maxwell stated email is somewhat impersonal and occasional conference calls could help move projects forward. Chesler suggested setting action points to discuss each month; conference calls must have a definite point. Emery stated software exists for tracking topics, for example, a Wiki allowing all to see documents or instant messaging could be used; she thought the Wiki was a free service. Ginanni noted some web conferencing software is very effective. Page noted that WebEx had been investigated but was too expensive; she asked about the learning curve for wikis. Ginanni thought that NetMeetings might be free software. Novak stated that NetSpoke offers some form of web conferencing and a trial could be requested. ACTION: Robischon will request a trial of web conferencing software through NetSpoke. Board members living in differing time zones and with variable schedules must be considered in conference calls or web conferencing. Savage suggested asking past Board members to investigate possibilities. AOL Instant Messenger could have security problems for some Board members. Page summarized: When the Board has an agenda item to discuss, it will try to use some form of conferencing rather than waiting until the next meeting. Maxwell noted that the time between the May and the fall Board meetings is very long. Chesler asked why the Board meets in October. Novak explained the history of meeting at the same time as other events was initially a cost-saving measure. Savage reminded the Board of a planned fourth virtual meeting that could be held during the summer. The Board members are polled as to the best weekend to meet during the fall but in order to examine preliminary conference program information the meeting needs to be later in the fall. 4.2 Board mentor/mentee relationships These relationships were established last year on a casual basis. The group discussed whether this should be made more formal. Ginanni felt it was helpful to know someone was available to answer questions, while Maxwell mentioned a weekly ?checkin' email would be helpful. Tenney suggested the new members could create a checklist of useful information. Ginanni felt that Savage's welcoming emails were very useful; Savage explained he planned to create an orientation manual for new Board members. Ginanni volunteered to help Savage. ACTION: Savage and Ginanni will create a checklist for Board mentor/mentee relationships. 5.0 New Committees 5.1 Future of the Publications Committee (Page) What should NASIG be publishing? More and more publications have gone online but the Electronic Communications Committee should not be responsible for content. Savage reviewed the background of the Publications Committee: the committee was intended to facilitate publications not write them. Many difficulties resulted in the committee being unable to produce anything. Emery questioned if the provision against committee members writing publications should be dropped. UKSG has no provision against committee self-publishing; their publications committee has produced white papers. Savage noted that the prohibition on committee members writing publications was an attempt to avoid the appearance of favoritism or unethical use by committee members for personal gain. Page commented the Proceedings and Newsletter are the only regular publications. Emery recalled that in 1995/96 a document was published titled Serials 101. Frieda Rosenberg's publication on serials holdings took a long time to write but is useful outside of NASIG. Page wondered where ideas for useful publications originate and where should they be channeled. Emery questioned whether a publicity committee should be created to not only put out announcements but also to pursue publications. Simser suggested we could try to get conference presenters to produce publications based on presentations; these would need to be more specific than the write-up that appears in the Proceedings. Randall suggested poster sessions as possible sources of publications; these might need editorial support. Savage noted that member support for the NASIGuides has been overwhelming. Emery commented that some people want very basic information. Savage explained that the Publications Committee's charge was clear: solicit ideas, find authors, and facilitate publications-not author publications. Emery felt that the charge needed to emphasize the editorial role. The Executive Board creates committee charges; Page asked for volunteers to rewrite the Publications Committee charge. Tenney reported many people had asked about the mounting of the conference handouts. This activity is part of the Electronic Communications Committee charge. ACTION: Page will contact the former member of the Publications Committee who handled mounting the conference handouts for possible help with mounting the 2005 handouts. Tenney moved (Novak seconded) to create a pilot publications/public relations committee with the Publicist as liaison for the next year. Ten members voted in favor; two abstained. ACTION: Novak, Savage & Emery will create a charge for the pilot publications/public relations committee 5.2 Membership Committee, Library School Outreach and Continuing Education Committee (Maxwell, Emery) Maxwell will be the liaison to the Membership Committee. Savage wrote the draft charge for the committee using information from the financial plan. Maxwell will consider creating a spreadsheet showing where members come from, different sectors represented, how the membership has changed over time, etc. Savage reported that last year the Database & Directory Committee had suggested that management of the membership directory be moved to this new committee; if this is done, what would then be the responsibility of the D&D committee? A better name for the committee would be Membership Development Committee. There is a definite synergy between this committee and the D&D committee. ACTION: Maxwell will develop the charge for the Membership Development Committee, including the proposed three-year review and noting the synergy between committees. ACTION: Page and Maxwell will appoint members to the Membership Development Committee for an 18-month appointment in order to get the committee started; future appointments will be for the normal two-year term. Emery suggested the MDC could work with the Continuing Education Committee to garner new members at sponsored programs. Tenney pointed out the need to invite nonmembers who attend a conference; the Regional Councils used to send letters to these people. The Conference Planning Committee will have the statistics on the number of nonmembers attending. The MDC could still invite attendees from both Milwaukee and Minneapolis. The letter should come from President Page. Ginanni reported that the ALCTS membership committee sent thank you letters to every new person who joins ALCTS and inquiry letters to every person who doesn't renew their membership. NASIG's Database & Directory committee does email new members. Tenney suggested an Informal Discussion Group meeting during the conference for new NASIG members and Non Members of NASIG to discuss what NASIG can do to attract and maintain members. Maxwell inquired about the purpose of library school outreach other than to increase the visibility of NASIG. Board members indicated three purposes: recruit new members, partner with library schools on programs, and publicize student grant awards. Thus, library school outreach deals with the work of three committees and definitely must partner with the Publicity Committee. The Awards & Recognition Committee's Library School Ambassador proposal is great and will be included in an overall plan. The new Membership Development Committee will determine what other committees should be involved and will determine an appropriate structure. Savage stated the complexity indicates an independent group is needed. Maxwell suggested a task force of four people, one from each concerned committee. Novak requested a specific timeline, end date (the May meeting), charge stating what should be accomplished. The four people should be Maxwell plus representatives from Awards & Recognition, Continuing Education and Membership Development. Some working documents already exist. Savage moved (Parang seconded) to create such a task force with Maxwell as the Board liaison with a start date of Jan. 2006 and report due in May 2006; the Board unanimously approved the motion. ACTION: Maxwell will work with Emery and Ginanni to appoint members to the Library School Outreach Task Force, with preference given to current or former members of the A&R and CEC committees. Chesler suggested having vendors lecture at library schools and stress NASIG; he has done this in the past. Emery pointed out the Human Resources Directory that lists potential speakers was maintained by the Publications Committee but is currently out-of-date and has technical problems that the Electronic Communications Committee must correct. NASIG members should be encouraged to ask their vendors to join NASIG. 5.3 Development Committee (Novak, Savage) The draft charge for this committee is still in a draft stage. Board members were reminded of the background for this committee, the desire to create endowments for recurring budget items like grants and awards. The options to get money for endowments include various types of fundraising. The financial consultant for the initial financial plan stressed the necessity for hiring a financial consultant with experience working with non-profits. Separate management plans are needed for each endowment, each with its own charge. Tenney commented the Board should consider a three-year review built into the charge; this worked effectively for another organization she's work with in the past. ACTION: Board members email ideas about the draft charge for the Development Committee to Savage and Novak. ACTION: Board members email ideas about possible Development Committee members to Page; Page will also send a special call for volunteers to NASIG-L. Ginanni reported receiving an inquiry concerning what happened with the ideas generated at the Portland Town Hall. The membership needs to be informed that the success of the Town Hall resulted in the brainstorming session in Milwaukee and ultimately in the Financial Plan. Establishment of the Development Committee was included in the financial plan. Both new committees need to be added to the budget. Novak stated that contingency funds could be used this year and the committees could be included in the regular budget next year. 6.0 Pre-conferences, ALA and NASIG. 6.1 Co-sponsorship with ALCTS SS preconference on ERMS at ALA Annual 2006 (Page) Cindy Hepfer and Sandy Srivastava contacted Page asking NASIG to co-sponsor a pre-conference at ALA Annual 2006. NASIG would have no financial commitment but will need to publicize the pre-conference on NASIG-L. The NASIG name will be on the handouts. Page will ask to have the NASIG logo included and for the banner to be displayed. Novak mentioned the need to be certain this is not the same topic that has been proposed for NASIG pre-conferences. Novak moved (Emery seconded) that NASIG co-sponsor the ALCTS SS pre-conference on ERMS at ALA Annual 2006 if the topic and speakers differ from the proposed NASIG pre-conference. 6.2 Preconferences and Continuing Education Committee programming (Emery) Emery commented that proposed programs are generally bigger moneymakers for NASIG as pre-conferences than they are as CEC programs. Perhaps CEC should be looking at programs held elsewhere that could be re-staged as pre-conferences in order to make money. CEC could encourage presenters but also forward program ideas to the Program Planning Committee. Emery will notify CEC of the Board's enthusiasm for this suggestion. 7.0 Financial Plan (Savage) Savage stressed the importance of finding a qualified financial consultant. The Board needs to get more involved in managing the finances of NASIG. The Financial Plan lists additional reports that could track spending throughout the year and track longer patterns of spending. This would require restructuring the accounts in Quicken. The Treasurer needs to provide more information to the committee chairs to help in budgeting. ACTION: Savage will revise the chronology of the Financial Plan to make it more realistic. Each Board member should take the initiative to make the Plan work: read the plan and the summary as a starting point. One of the peripheral concerns mentioned on p. 15 of the Financial Plan was not to overburden the Treasurer. Having a Treasurer-in-training for one year should help, plus the immediate past-Treasurer should be available to answer questions. Another concern was to have a systematic, regularly scheduled review of all NASIG's committees. Page emphasized that a lot of time and energy was spent on creating the plan and the Board must be certain this review happens. Savage noted that establishing two new committees this year would count as part of this review. He also noted that the Plan could be modified as needed. 8.0 Technology plan (Page) Page described the tasks of a Chief Technology Officer. This year is a trial with Step Schmitt acting as the CTO. Technology for NASIG work should be coordinated among committees or tasks can be neglected, e.g., mounting of the conference handouts on the Web site. The work of the Database & Directory Committee in handling new members is dependent on the capabilities of the committee members. Item B (Succession Planning) under Heading III (Current Technology Needs) emphasizes the need for training for individuals assuming technology duties in order to assure continuity of services. Training should be done at the annual conference. Page noted that Schmitt had done an outstanding job analyzing the current technical infrastructure. Maxwell inquired if more conference activities scheduled on Thursdays would help members justify the expense of arriving early. Randall responded that if people are active in the association, should they be asked to give up program attendance as happens in ALA? Tenney wondered if this year training could be offered on Sunday afternoon, probably from 1-3 p.m. The call for volunteers needs to go out earlier and appointments need to be made sooner so that committee members can make appropriate travel plans. The call for volunteers needs to indicate which committees could involve training. ACTION: Page, Tenney, Randall & Novak will determine how to accommodate more thorough committee meetings and training at conferences. Schmitt asked for feedback in order to provide a more detailed plan for the January Board meeting. The Board had some feedback on the technology charts provided by Schmitt: Chart no. 1: Committee chairs do not always have a clear idea as to what other committee chairs do. Chart no. 2 appears to knock liaisons out of the picture. Chief Technology Officer seems too large a task for a volunteer; the Board needs to start thinking about outsourcing some technology tasks. Novak commented that as more tasks go online, outsourcing seems a necessity but a designated person will still be needed to interface with these tasks. Page summarized: Schmitt's recommendations provide an excellent starting point. Instead of investing more technology dollars in developing programs, NASIG should consider more outsourcing. Don't outsource list management but outsource online registration, SQL database tasks, etc. Bee-net is handling only the web and lists; it's basically storage. Currently NASIG has volunteers with technology skills but this may not always be true; plus, jobs may become more demanding and members won't have available time to volunteer. Maxwell noted that we should be asking volunteers to deal with content not necessarily with technology. Savage mentioned the Financial Plan would require the transfer of some current resources to pay for outsourcing. Tenney pointed out that time will be needed to investigate possible companies and next year's budget would be the one affected. Novak stated that a task force, including Schmitt, would be needed to write an rfp for tasks to be outsourced. Savage brought up the difficulty in finding volunteers with appropriate technology skills for such a task force. The Board's only reservation was the ability to fund outsourcing. Page stated that instead of asking Schmitt to develop one of the three proposed models further, the Board should ask her to work with someone on developing rfps for the various functions. A starting point could be to have a group consisting of one person from each affected area discuss what functions could be outsourced, determining how many and what kind of functions. We need to identify which functions require handoffs between committees to make sure tasks are performed. Emery moved (Chesler seconded) that the Board would set up a task force to investigate and create rfps for outsourcing technology tasks. ACTION: Page will appoint a task force to investigate outsourcing technology tasks ACTION: The Technology Outsourcing Task Force will identify what should be outsourced by May and have rfps written and ready by Aug. 2006 so the rfps can be discussed as the subject of a Board conference call in Sept. 2006 9.0 2005 Minneapolis Conference (All) Evaluations, Conference Planning Committee report, lessons learned The evaluations gave the Minneapolis conference a very high overall rating: 96% of respondents gave the hotel setting a 4 or 5 rating. Respondents did ask for more digital and electronic oriented sessions. The Program Planning Committee is getting proposals on the list of requested topics included in the last call for programs. However, they may not have enough ?visionary' proposals. The Board discussed whether the conference needed three big talks or would two be sufficient. A vision session could feature more than one speaker or a debate on some issue such as open access. To do this, the program would need people who can speak on their feet, are energetic, and have previous similar conference experience. The Board would prefer a new voice or, if a repeat speaker, a new topic. Several specific speakers and topics were discussed. A new conference dealing with electronic resources has been announced. The Board discussed whether this has been proposed because NASIG isn't offering enough relevant sessions. Emery noted this new conference is appealing to a niche. A conference blog reporting on programs of interest was supported. Workstations near the registrar could be available for blogging. The Horizon winner(s) could be asked to post to the blog. The blog must be advertised ahead of time to encourage attendees to bring their laptops and blog. ACTION: Novak will inquire if the Minneapolis hotel has information on how many attendees had internet service in their rooms 10.0 Program Planning (Garner, Graves, Novak) 10.1 Draft schedule The Board discussed the length of preconferences, two day, one day and half day and noted the necessity to watch the ending time of the Thursday pre-conferences. Chesler noted that programs should not be geared towards vendors; they want open-ended discussions where they can participate and also hear the user/librarian perspective.
11.1 Schedule, events, venues
The meeting adjourned for the day at 4:45 p.m. and resumed the next morning, Sunday, Oct. 30, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. 13.0 Committee Reports - Highlights of Committee Reports will be published in the Newsletter 13.1 Archivist (Parang) The Archivist should take digital photos of all memorabilia and then dispose of all items. If the past Archivist manual cannot be located, a new one should be created. Task force on archive policy (Page, Parang, Simser) will continue to work on determining exactly what should be retained. 13.2 Awards & Recognition (Ginanni) Mexican Student Grant - The purpose of the timeline for this award is to avoid outrageous expenses, for example, last minute plane ticket purchases. The Fritz Schwartz scholarship amount was increased as part of the budget approval. For Recommendation no. 1, possibly the membership could be surveyed to see if sponsorship should be sought for the Champion Award; the Development Committee will be involved in this type of activity. For recommendation no. 2, the Committee recommended naming the Paraprofessional Award after a deceased person who has been active in NASIG. Recommendation no. 3 was discussed as part of Library School Outreach. Recommendation no. 4 brings up the question as to whether NASIG includes the Carribean; Ginanni will research further and the Board will vote by email. 13.3 Bylaws (Maxwell) The Bylaws state that the Board agendas should be ?mailed' 30 days prior to a meeting. Page asked that the committee scan the Bylaws to locate such wording that can be interpreted to read "communicate to members". At some point in the future when a substantial bylaws change is needed, these minor wording changes can be added. 13.4 Continuing Education (Emery) Emery reported that the ERM workshop in Pennsylvania will not take place. 13.5 Database and Directory (Page) Page reported Jo McClamroch has done a terrific job. Some difficulties were encountered generating the renewal letters from the database. The committee members' names need to be included in all reports. The Board wanted clarification as to whether both new and renewal online membership was fully functional. McClamroch should send out an announcement to NASIG-L to renew online. Page should send out an announcement in December reminding members to renew in order to get the member rate for the conference. Chesler asked if the technology worked to allow people to join at the same time as they register for the conference. 13.6 Electronic Communications (Page) Page reported that the division of labor is working well between the list and web teams. Two separate Board lists have been created that will recycle to be odd and even years. The Membership Development Committee will rewrite the brochure and then the ECC will mount it on the Web site. The footer on NASIG-L [The focus of the discussion list is NASIG organizational issues. Persons wishing to participate in a serials content forum and/or to address matters of general interest to serialists should find another forum. For more information about NASIG-L, email the NASIG list manager:] should be limited to the first and last sentences. The Web spinner must have a backup. Rather than adjusting the calendar every year to fit a June or a May conference, there should be a note that committee should update their schedule to fit the date of the conference. Emery mentioned that calendar software or outsourcing could be helpful. 13.7 Evaluation and Assessment (Page) The 2005 conference evaluation reports were very well organized and easy to understand. Board members asked if comments could be listed by category of membership: academic, publisher, vendor. The Board discussed the possibility of a return to labeling programs by audience. The titles should reflect the content; Novak will discuss this point with the Program Planning Committee chairs. Adding the abstract from the program to the Evaluation would be helpful. The pre-conferences did not have many evaluations because the forms weren't in the packets. The Conference Planning Committee must receive the conference evaluation form by March 1. 13.8 Newsletter (Simser) Process and timeline for recruiting new editor (Simser, Novak, Page) A new Editor-in-Chief needs to be in place to work with Simser on the May issue. Review draft position description at http://nasig.org/newsed/positions/editor.in.chief.html. Skills and knowledge related to HTML are very important because of conversion issues from Word to FrontPage. ACTION: Simser & Novak will create a call for the Editor-in-Chief ACTION: Savage, Simser & Novak will constitute the search committee 13.9 Nominations and Elections (Savage) Anne McKee was unanimously appointed chair of the N&E committee. 13.10 Proceedings (Randall) In the future, Proceedings editors should ask authors to supply keywords. This year the Proceedings editors should ask this year's indexer to supply keywords for each paper and report. Haworth is willing to supply NASIG free of charge a PDF version of the Proceedings to mount on NASIG's Web site. The Board asked if the PDF would be searchable and indexable. If so, the HTML would not be needed. ACTION: Randall will ask if older editions of the Proceedings are also available and, if so, request the ECC to mount them on the Web site ACTION: Randall will write a call for Proceedings editors for next year, emphasizing the need for someone with editorial experience. ACTION: Randall and the editors of the current Proceedings will serve as a search committee to select a new editor(s). 13.10 Professional Liaisons (Chesler) Chesler and Schmitt are still working on establishing guidelines and expectations for the content of liaison reports. The frequency has been changed to be in sync with the Newsletter deadlines. The online form has been modified accordingly. Chesler noted he was not getting a lot of communications from liaisons. Maxwell asked if there was a technological way to harvest news from other organizations. Chesler suggested a blog might serve this purpose. Savage reminded the Board that we are asking people to report informally on another organization's activities; the information reported doesn't necessarily reflect the information that organization wants disseminated. Randall wondered if we should stick with a page of links to other organizations. Savage indicated the Publicist could group email all the public relations people at other organizations asking if they wish to send information to NASIG. ACTION: Chesler will look through the list of professional groups and identify those with Web sites of educational interest and send the information to Page who will have ECC set up a page of links on NASIGweb. 13.12 Publicist (Savage) Savage reported receiving no brochure requests; he sent out two calls for the Program Planning Committee. 14.0 Site Selection 2007 (Novak, Page, Tenney) Tenney reported that Louisville is willing to meet the same concessions as Richmond. The hotels available there would be the Gault House and the Marriott. Possible dates would include May 7-12, a Tues. through Sat. conference. This is the week after the Kentucky Derby and Derby-related activities may still be happening. Richmond will benefit from 2007 being the anniversary year of the founding of Virginia. We will negotiate with both cities and get the best contract for NASIG for a 2007 conference. The Board needs a faster schedule for selecting cities for future meetings. Now is the time to start the cycle for the 2008 and 2009 conferences in order to get a better choice of dates. Canada poses problems because passports will be required for re-entry to the U.S. starting in 2007. 15.0 2006 Conference registration fee (Novak, Tenney, Page) Tenney stated the Board should wait to set the fee until the tax situation is known. The budgeted expenses should probably be divided by 500 paying attendees to find the fee. 16.0 NASIG and advocacy (All) Traditionally NASIG has not taken a stand on issues; however, the Strategic Plan states that NASIG will be the voice of serials. 16.1 DLF report on e-journal preservation (Emery) Emery reported DLF did want to hear from other groups. LITA and WebforLibs have had discussions asking, "What is wanted?" Should NASIG state: We agree preservation of electronic journals is important and should be aggressively pursued. Chesler asked how NASIG would take a stand: should the Board act unilaterally or present a proposal for the membership to vote. Page noted that no precedent exists. NASIG wants to have a higher profile but is uncertain as how to achieve this goal. For example, Project Counter had no NASIG representation. How would representatives be selected and funded? NASIG's original mission was as a forum with a level playing field for all participants. As an advocate, NASIG would be expected to take a position. As an alternative, NASIG could sponsor summits for various people to meet and discuss important serials' issues or hold informal discussion groups. Such groups would need an appropriate facilitator. The Board could express support for continuing discussion by inviting people from the affected groups to lead discussions. Another possibility is continued development of the ?hot topics' session at the conference. We would need an expert facilitator who would establish the framework and then lead the discussion. ACTION: Novak will ask the Program Planning Committee to include a ?hot topic' program to be selected close to conference. At some point the Board may wish to survey the membership as to whether they would attend an additional day of conference activities. The Board could sponsor programs but must emphasize that the program is a ?discussion.' This type of program would need to be advertised extensively but could lead to a more dynamic conference experience. Novak will present these concepts to PPC. What does ?advocacy' in the strategic plan really mean? How should it be incorporated? 16.2 Institutional registry (Chesler) Chesler summarized the institutional registry discussion he had attended. Unfinished business. ACTION: Set a date for a Sept. 2006 conference call to review the Technology rfp There being no further business, Page adjourned the meeting at 11:55 am.
|
Quick Links
|
