22:2 (2007:05) Committee Annual Report: Bylaws

May 17, 2007 at 6:05 pm | In Bylaws, Committee Annual Reports | Leave a Comment

BYLAWS
Adolfo R. Tarango, Chair

April 2007

Committee members: Janet Arcand (Iowa State University), David M. Bynog (Rice University), June Garner (Mississippi State University), Konstantin Gurevich (Co-Chair, University of Rochester), Elizabeth Parang (Pepperdine University), Sandhya Devi Srivastava (Columbia University), Adolfo R. Tarango (Co-Chair, University of California, San Diego), Veronica Walker (North Carolina State University)

Board Liaison: Katy Ginanni (EBSCO Information Services)

I am pleased to submit the annual report of the Bylaws Committee for 2006/2007.

The committee held its annual meeting at the NASIG annual conference in Denver, CO, on May 6, 2006. David Bynog volunteered to continue as the committee’s web liaison. The committee reviewed its past year’s work, its charge, annual report, and committee guidelines. In fulfillment of a specific charge by the Executive Board to systematically review the bylaws to identify language tied to past practices that may no longer be relevant, the committee began a review of proposed revisions suggested to date. This review has continued throughout the year. For this election cycle, the committee was able to submit four amendments to the membership for consideration (see Appendix A) as a result of this review. The ballot was mailed to eligible voting members on February 12, 2007, along with the Nominations & Elections Committee ballot for NASIG officers: the postmark deadline for the ballot was March 15, 2007.

Ballot results were as follows:

Amendment 1:  272 voting yes, 5 voting no = 98% approved

Amendment 2:  273 voting yes, 4 voting no = 98% approved

Amendment 3:  175 voting yes, 1 voting no = 99% approved

Amendment 4:  262 voting yes, 8 voting no = 97% approved

Per Article XII of the NASIG Bylaws, each having received a least a two-thirds vote in favor of adoption, the amendments became effective immediately.

The committee will continue with its ongoing review of the Bylaws.

As a concluding note, I my sincerest thanks to my fellow committee members, to my Co-Chair, Konstantin Gurevich, and to Katy Ginanni, our board liaison, for being such great group to work with.

BYLAWS COMMITTEE STATISTICS

Number of questions/proposals received: 0

Number of questions/proposals in progress: 0

Number of Bylaws Committee proposals submitted to NASIG membership: 4

APPENDIX A

NASIG Bylaws Committee Ballot
2007

Colleagues:

The Bylaws Committee presents the following four amendments for your consideration. A “yes” vote means you approve of amending the bylaw as stated. A “no” vote means you do not approve of amending the bylaw as stated.

Over the past year and at the request of the Executive Board, the Bylaws Committee has undertaken an extensive review of our bylaws. The Board especially wanted the Committee to review the bylaws for language that would be a barrier to adopting technological developments for carrying out NASIG business more effectively. The first two proposed amendments below address this by removing or changing text having to do with mailing ballots. This is proposed so that the Board can move forward with online voting. In the proposed amendments below, deleted text is struck out and in bold, added text is given in bold italics.
Amendment 1:  Shall Article III. Membership, Section 2. Dues and fiscal year, be amended to read:

Article III. Membership.
Section 2. Dues and fiscal year.
Dues, which shall cover a fiscal year of January 1 through December 31, shall be remitted to NASIG annually by individuals desiring active membership. Proposals for changes in dues shall originate with the Executive Board and shall be voted upon by the membership by a mail ballot. A two thirds majority of those voting shall constitute a decision. Corresponding membership shall be complimentary.

____ Yes

____ No

Amendment 2:  Shall Article VIII. Meetings, be amended to read:

Article VIII. Meetings.
An annual business meeting shall be called by the Executive Board, to be held at the site of, and in conjunction with, the Annual Conference. Other meetings as deemed necessary may be called by the Executive Board. Notice of meetings shall be distributed mailed to the membership at least thirty days in advance of the meeting and shall include notice of business to be transacted.

____ Yes

____ No

The Board also asked the Committee to address problems with committees being referenced by name in the bylaws. The issue is that anytime the specified committee changed its name, a vote would need to be taken to change the name in the bylaws. In the following proposed amendment, the reference to the specific committee is made general. This amendment also removes a reference to mailing a ballot. It also renames the article to better reflect its content and deletes the section header since it is not needed.
Amendment 3:  Shall Article XII. Bylaws, be amended to read:

Article XII.  Amendments to Bylaws
Section 1. Amendments.
Proposed amendments may be submitted in writing to the committee responsible for bylaws Bylaws Committee, or may be presented at any meeting of the membership. Proposed amendments shall be distributed to the membership by the committee responsible for bylaws Bylaws Committee at least thirty days prior to the call for vote. Voting shall be by mail ballot. Adoption shall be by two-thirds majority of those voting. An amendment shall become effective after adoption, unless otherwise stated.

____ Yes

____ No

The fourth proposed amendment completely revises Article VII by charging the Nominations and Elections Committee with setting an election calendar that accommodates the changing dates of the Annual Conference from year to year, gives the membership adequate time to seek nominations by petition, and shortens the period to challenge election results. The latter is made possible by current communication technologies that allow members to act more quickly. The revision also deletes reference to mail ballots and uses general language in reference to a committee. Because this article was completely revised, the original text follows after the question is called.
Amendment 4:  Shall Article VII. Nominations and Elections, be amended to read:

Article VII.  Elections and Nominations.

Section 1. Elections.
The committee responsible for nominations and elections shall submit an election calendar for the upcoming election cycle to the Executive Board no later than sixty days after the Annual Conference. The election calendar shall state the steps and deadlines for nomination to eligible offices and officers, and members-at-large of the Executive Board, of announcements for the pending and final slate of candidates, for receiving nominations by petition, and for execution of the ballot for said election cycle. The Executive Board shall approve the calendar and report it to the membership within fifteen days after submission.

The election calendar deadlines shall be set to accommodate the following time requirements:

1. Ballots for an election shall be distributed at least sixty days prior to the Annual Conference and completed ballots shall be accepted for thirty days after distribution.
2.  Persons seeking a nomination by petition shall be allowed at least fifteen days from the time of notice to the membership of the pending slate of candidates, to gather and submit their petitions to the committee responsible for nominations and elections.

Candidates receiving a plurality of votes cast shall be elected. In case of a tie vote, the committee responsible for nominations and elections shall decide the election by lot. Notice of those elected shall be communicated to the membership prior to the Annual Conference, with a declaration made also at the Annual Conference.

Section 2. Nominations.
Nominations may be made by committee, by petition, or by write-in.

Nominations by Committee: The committee responsible for nominations and elections shall present candidates for the position of vice-president/president elect, secretary, treasurer, and Executive Board members-at-large, as required. The committee shall endeavor to present at least two candidates for each office to be filled. Candidates shall be selected in such a manner as to insure as broad a representation as possible of NASIG constituencies and of the geographic distribution of the membership. As specified in the election calendar, members may submit nominations to the committee responsible for nominations and elections for the above stated positions.

Nominations by Petition: Nominations may be made for any open position on the Executive Board by petition. Such petitions shall include endorsement by at least ten active members of NASIG as well as the written acceptance of the candidate. The petition must be submitted to the committee responsible for nominations and elections by the deadline stipulated in the election calendar. Any nomination which meets the petition requirements shall be included on the official ballot.

Write-in Candidates: Space shall be provided on the ballot for write-in candidates for each office to be filled.

Section 3. Challenges.
Challenges to the election results must be made to the President within ten days of the announcement of the election results.

____ Yes

____ No

Original text of Article VII:

Article VII. Nominations and Elections.

Section 1. Nominations.
Nominations may be made by committee, by petition, or by write-in.

The Nominations & Elections Committee shall present candidates for the position of vice president/president elect, secretary, treasurer, and Executive Board members-at-large when required.  The Committee shall endeavor to present at least two candidates for each office to be filled.  Candidates shall be selected in such a manner as to insure as broad a representation as possible of NASIG constituencies and of the geographic distribution of membership.  A notification of the pending slate of candidates shall be sent to the general membership no later than January 15, along with a request for any nominations by petition.   

Nominations by Petition:  Nominations may be made for any open position on the Executive Board by a petition.  Such petitions shall include endorsements by at least 10 active members of NASIG as well as the written acceptance of the candidate, and must be submitted in writing or by email to the Nominations & Elections Committee by February 1, after the initial notification of the slate of candidates. Any nominations which meet the petition requirements shall be included on the official ballot.

Write-in Candidates:  Space shall be provided on the ballot for write-in candidates for each office to be filled.

Section 2. Elections.
Elections shall be held by mail ballot at least sixty days prior to the Annual Conference. Candidates receiving a plurality of votes cast shall be elected, and be so declared at the Annual Conference. In case of a tie vote, the Nominating Committee shall decide the election by lot. Notice of those elected shall be communicated to the membership prior to the Annual Conference.

Section 3. Challenges.
Challenges to the election results must be made in writing to the President within sixty days of the announcement of the election results.

22:2 (2007:05) Committee Annual Report: A&R

May 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm | In Awards & Recognition, Committee Annual Reports | Leave a Comment

AWARDS & RECOGNITION
Sarah Sutton and Clint Chamberlain, Co-chairs

Date of Report: April 24, 2007

Committee members: Chris Brady (Baylor University), Evelyn Brass (University of Houston), Patrick Carr (Mississippi State University), Clint Chamberlain (Trinity University) Co-chair, Susan Chinoransky ) George Washington University), Alan Diehlman (ACS Publications), Carole Ficken (Bierce Library, University of Akron), Marcella Lesher (St. Mary’s University), Smita Parkhe (George Washington University Law Library), Sarah Sutton  (Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi), Chair

Board Liaison:  Rick Anderson (University of Nevada – Reno)

NARRATIVE OF ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST REPORT
In February the committee reviewed and scored award applications.  The breakdown of applications received is as follows:

• 9 Student Grant Award applications
• 7 Fritz Schwartz Scholarship applications
• 4 Horizon Award applications
• 11 Serials Specialist Award applications
• 0 Marcia Tuttle International Grant applications

The committee of Mexican library school deans selected the recipient of the Mexico Student Grant Award and notified us of his name. 

The complete list of 2007 award recipients is as follows:

NASIG CONFERENCE STUDENT GRANT AWARD WINNERS
Toni Fortini, Southern Connecticut State University; Jessica Ireland, University of South Florida; Joann Palermo, Louisiana State University; Erin Sharwell, University of Washington; Barbara Shipman, Wayne State University; Sanjeet-Singh Mann, UCLA.

MEXICO STUDENT GRANT AWARD WINNER
Jorge Alberto Mendoza-Torres, Escuela Nacional Biblioteconomia y Archivonomia (National School of Library and Archive Sciences in Mexico City)

FRITZ SCHWARTZ SERIALS ECUCATION SCHOLARSHIP WINNER
Angela Slaughter, Indiana University

HORIZON AWARD WINNER
Chandra Jackson, University of Georgia Libraries

SERIALS SPECIALIST AWARD WINNER
 Rita Johnson, Wright State University

Award recipients were contacted and committee member Carol Ficken is currently making their travel arrangements to attend the 2007 annual conference.  Their NASIG memberships were arranged by the Database & Directory Committee to facilitate their conference registration. Their names were announced on NASIG-L and at the committee’s request, a section of the NASIG forum (nasig.org/conference/bbs/forum/default.asp) was arranged to further their communication with the committee, prior award recipients, and the general NASIG community.  Each award recipient will be paired with a mentor for the conference. Committee members who volunteer as mentor will be assigned to award recipients when possible.

Committee co-chair Clint Chamberlain is working with our supplier to purchase plaques and gifts and have them shipped to the conference site for distribution at conference events. 

Committee members Chris Brady and Patrick Carr took part in a virtual conversation with members of the Membership Development Committee regarding descriptions of NASIG’s scope and purpose used in award announcements (among other places).

Shortly we will be requesting that the treasurer send conference stipend checks to each award recipient.

Additional highlights of our year’s work include:

  • Collecting feedback from the 2006 award recipients which we reported on in the September 2006 NASIG Newsletter.
  • Conducting a series of email conversations among committee members on the following topics: increasing awareness of awards and alternative funding sources for awards, which resulted in a suggestion that the board consider seeking corporate sponsorship of awards.
  • Alan Diehlmann joined the committee to administer the Mexico Student Award.
  • Committee member Chris Brady compiled some interesting statistics about number award recipients which are summarized below:

Top 13 Library schools at which Student Grant recipients have been enrolled:
University of Illinois (11), Catholic University (7), Emporia State (7), University of Maryland (7), Kent State (6), Simmons (6), University of Texas (5), British Columbia (4), Louisiana State (4), UNC – Greensboro (4), UNC – Chapel Hill (4), University of North Texas (4), CUNY Queens (3).

Ratio of applicants to recipients:

Student Grant Award – ranged from 10% (1992) to 52% (1999), 25% in 2006
Horizon Award – ranged from 7% (2004) to 30% (1998), 14% in 2006
(Number of recipients dropped from 3 in the late ‘90s to 1 for the past four years except 2005 when the Horizon Award wasn’t given)
Fritz Schwartz Scholarship  – the ratio is fairly meaningless for this award since it’s a $3,000 scholarship, we can only afford to give one each year, but it is interesting to note that the number of applicants has dropped steadily from 14 in 2003 to 3 in 2006.
Mexico Student Grant Award – unfortunately, since the applications are reviewed by the team of library school directors in Mexico, we have no data from which to calculate a ratio for this award.
Marcia Tuttle Grant – very little data available for this grant, during the past four years we’ve had only two applicants (one in 2003 and one in 2004) and awarded only one grant (in 2004).
Serials Specialist Award – since this was “born” last year (five applicants), there’s not much data to report.
Champion Award – since this award is given every five years and was “born” in 2005, there’s not much data to report.

ANY CHANGES OR EXCEPTIONS TO BUDGET
With the Executive Board’s approval, the committee gave two more student grant awards than had been budgeted for using funds originally budgeted for the Marcia Tuttle International Grant (for which we received no applications this year).

STATISTICAL INFORMATION
None

ACTIONS REQUIRED BY BOARD
None

QUESTIONS FOR BOARD
None

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOARD
None

NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING REPORT
Sarah Sutton

22:2 (2007:05) Committee Annual Report: Archives

May 17, 2007 at 12:18 pm | In Archivist, Committee Annual Reports | Leave a Comment

ARCHIVES
Marie Seymour-Green, Archivist; Sheryl Williams, Archivist-in-Training
Joyce Tenney, Board Liaison

2006-2007

This is the first year of the archivist-in-training position, developed to ensure a smooth transition in the fulfillment of responsibilities of the position from one individual to the next.  We are working on defining the assigned duties of the archivist position, and how the archivist-in-training assists in those duties; all of this information will be included in an Archivist’s Manual.

This focus has led to the development of an archives policy and guidelines.  Still under construction, we have relied on committee minutes to determine the intention of the position; the correspondence with the Archives Department at the University of Illinois-Champaign (UIC) for the procedures for submitting archival; and procedures from numerous organizations and institutions as examples.  This document will include: 

1. Guidelines regarding the type of material to be retained in the Archives.
2. Procedures for processing archival material for shipment to the University of Illinois-Champaign.
3. Procedures for requesting materials from the UIC archives.
4. A timeline for requesting archival material from NASIG Board members and committees.
5. Other information as identified.

The policy will be available on the NASIG website.

A listing of NASIG materials is available on the UIC website:  http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/archon/index.php?p=collections/controlcard&id=3140&q=nasig

ACTION ITEMS 

1. Continue the development of the manual and policy, to be completed by September, 2007.
2. Retrieve materials and ship to UIC by September, 2007.

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.