22:2 (2007:05) Committee Annual Report: MDC
May 21, 2007 at 6:22 pm | In Committee Annual Reports, Membership Development | Leave a CommentMEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Marla Chesler and Tina Feick, Co-chairs
REPORT OF ACTIVITIES FROM NOVEMBER 2006 – APRIL 2007
| Name | Committee Position | Institution |
| Marla Chesler | Co-Chair; 2006 – 2008 | Library of Congress -FLICC/FEDLINK |
| Tina Feick | Co-Chair; 2006 – 2008 | Swets Information Services |
| Alice Rhoades | 2006-2009 | Rice University |
| Linda Griffin | 2006-2009 | Louisiana State University |
| Meg Walker | 2006-2009 | Taylor and Francis |
| Morag Boyd | 2006-2009 | OHIONET |
| Bob Boissy | 2006-2008 | Springer Science + Business Media Sales |
| Pam Cipkowski | 2006-2008 | Art Institute of Chicago |
| Zac Rolnik | 2006-2008 | nowpublishers |
| October Ivins | Consultant | Ivins eContent Solutions |
| Eleanor Cook | Mentor Group | Appalachian State University |
| Kathy Brannon | Mentor Group | Coutts Library Services |
| Kim Maxwell | Board Liaison | MIT Libraries |
NARRATIVE OF ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST REPORT FROM OCTOBER 2006
CONTINUING ACTIVITIES
- A draft of the revised NASIG brochure has been sent to the NASIG Executive Board for review. Morag Boyd, Alice Rhoades, Linda Griffin, Meg Walker, and Pam Cipkowski worked on the revision. We will produce one set of quick set of brochures using a color printer to get the revised brochures out quickly – by May 16. The professionally printed brochures will be available shortly afterward. (Strategic Direction #2 & 4)
- Tina Feick has been in contact with Tyler Goldberg, one of the Louisville Conference Planning Committee chairs to see if there were local serial-related groups that we could send membership brochures to encourage them to join and attend the conference. (Strategic Direction #2 & 6)
- Members of the MDC have volunteered to serve as mentors for the upcoming NASIG conference is Louisville, KY. (Strategic Direction #1 &2)
- We are still working on a survey to the NASIG commercial sector in order to determine what would keep NASIG relevant to the group and to increase participation in the commercial sector. (Strategic Direction #2 &6)
- After the conference, the MDC will contact attendees that did not join NASIG to see why they didn’t join and to encourage them to join for 2008. (Strategic Direction #2 &6)
- Mentor Group Activities
o The first announcement to sign-up for the Mentoring Program was sent out on April 3rd and it has been publicized in a number of other locations. The deadline has also been added to the conference important dates.
o At least two more reminders will be going out before May 14.
o Updated mentoring forms have also been made available from the main NASIG webpage and the conference page.
o A list of new members will be sent to us shortly and we will be sending a target announcement to them as well.
COMPLETED ACTIVITIES
- The MDC (Membership Development Committee) reviewed our membership and asked Alice Rhoades, Linda Griffin, Meg Walker, and Morag Boyd to accept reappointment of their committee membership for another two years. They all agreed.
- Tina and Marla met at ALA Midwinter in Seattle.
- In February 2007, MDC started sending out personalized renewal notices for members who had not yet renewed. We included their NASIG membership ID to facilitate the renewal process. (Strategic Direction #2 &6)
- The committee wrote up a report on the renewal process to submit to the Executive Board. It was suggested that the report be sent to the Database & Directory Committee since they are the group responsible for the renewals. (Strategic Direction #2 &6)
ACTIVITIES THAT SUPPORT THE NASIG STRATEGIC PLAN
The committee is involved in activities, which support Strategic Directions 1-4 & 6. Please see notes in Continuing Activities and Completed Activities.
ANY CHANGES OR EXCEPTIONS TO BUDGET
None
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
Renewal Reminders:
• Renewal reminders sent February 2007: 455
• Bad email addresses: 17
• Number indicating they had or planned on renewing soon = 31
• Number indicating they did not intend to renew = 21
• Non-renewed members as of 3/30/2007 = 380
• Number of members renewed after the reminders were sent = 75
ACTION(S) REQUIRED BY BOARD (IF APPLICABLE)
None
QUESTIONS FOR BOARD (IF APPLICABLE)
None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD (IF APPLICABLE)
After reviewing our charge, we would like to recommend that the following sentence be removed since we are a standing committee and are required to submit reports to the Executive Board on a regular basis:
The Committee will prepare a Membership Development Plan with specific action items for review by the Executive Board at their Fall 2006 meeting.
22:2 (2007:05) Committee Annual Report: LSOTF
May 21, 2007 at 12:22 pm | In Committee Annual Reports, Library School Outreach | Leave a CommentLIBRARY SCHOOL OUTREACH TASK FORCE
Sarah Sutton, Chair
Date of Report: April 24, 2007
Committee members: Linda Smith Griffin (Louisiana State University), Steve Oberg (Abbott Laboratories), Sarah Sutton (Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi), Paoshan Yue (University of Nevada, Reno)
Board Liaison: Kim Maxwell (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
NARRATIVE OF ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST REPORT
In October 2006, the Library School Outreach Task Force made a proposal to the NASIG Board for a Library School Ambassadors Pilot Project to be conducted between November 2006 and June 2007. The proposal was approved and a condensed version of it is included at the end of this report.
Below is a description of project results to date. Since the pilot project technically continues until the end of May 2007, any additional progress and accomplishments that are achieved will be reported to our board liaison who can present them to the board at their meeting in conjunction with the 2007 annual conference.
NASIG LIBRARY SCHOOL AMBASSADORS PILOT PROJECT 2006-07 RESULTS
1. Selecting Library schools for the pilot project
We met our pilot project objective for each task force member to select the library school(s) with which to work for the pilot project no later than December 1, 2006. The schools we selected are described in the table at the end of this report. Despite “warning ourselves” that taking on more than one school might be too much work, many of us did so. As we predicted, those of us who had chosen to be ambassador to more than one school found that we were unable to contribute as much time to each school as we would have liked to have done.
2. Making contact with the library schools.
We also set objectives to make contact with faculty and directors at each school, to make sure that they were aware of the opportunities for NASIG student grant awards, conference and continuing education events, and, when possible, attend a social gathering at the school. All of the task force members made contact with their library schools.
Our attempts at contact met with varying levels of success. In general, it seemed that in cases where the ambassador had an already established relationship with a library school (e.g. working in the campus library, alumni, current student) the ambassador received a warmer reception than in those cases where there was no relationship other than geographic proximity.
In some cases, prior commitments and responsibilities delayed contact with library schools until after the awards application deadline. Although two 2007 student award winners come from library schools with pilot project ambassadors, the overall number of NASIG award applications did not increase substantially over 2006. We did not provide for a systematic method for discovering conference and continuing education opportunities and communicating them among ourselves. Thus communicating them to our library schools was not as organized as we would have liked it to be.
3. Creating support materials
We set objectives that called for each ambassador to “select one new material for potential distribution to library school constituents and will take charge of its creation” and to “work with the ECC to create a web page which would describe the Ambassadors program and be a resource for ambassadors” neither of which we fulfilled. Although we had hopes of fulfilling them as well as all of our other objectives, these were our lowest priority. Most of the task force members underestimated the amount of time and effort that would be required to fulfill the combination of objectives we set for ourselves and so spent what time was available for ambassador work fulfilling higher priority objectives like establishing contact with our library schools and maintaining their awareness of NASIG awards and continuing education opportunities.
RECOMMENDATION: DEVELOP THE AMBASSADOR PROGRAM OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS
Based on the results above, the task force recommends to the NASIG Board that Library School Outreach become a standing NASIG committee. The committee’s primary charge would be to develop the Library School Ambassadors program based on the procedures described in the original pilot project proposal with the following refinements and goals for the next three years.
1. Committee member selection and responsibilities
It has been useful to have representatives from the Awards & Recognition Committee, the Continuing Education Committee, and the Membership Development Committee on the task force. We recommend that this be continued and that three “at large” members be added to the committee roster.
Beginning in 2007-08, we recommend differentiating between Library School Outreach Committee members and Library School Outreach Ambassadors in order to more evenly distribute the work load. Committee members would include the representatives from A&R, CEC, and MDC and the at large members mentioned above. Over three years, the committee members would gradually assume a more supervisory role over ambassadors as the number of library schools with whom relationships are established continues to grow. Committee members would be responsible for selecting additional library schools, creating support materials, and establishing assessment mechanisms, as described below.
Ambassadors, on the other hand, would be recruited from among the NASIG membership and would have the responsibility of establishing and maintaining a relationship with their library school. An “Ambassadorship” might be an opportunity for previous NASIG student award recipients to begin contributing to NASIG.
Committee members would not be restricted from also acting as ambassadors but would have the option not to do so if their other commitments don’t allow them to. As an example of the need for this, if NASIG became aware of the need for a speaker at a library school to which an ambassador had not been assigned it would be the committee members’ responsibility to seek a suitable and geographically convenient NASIG member will to speak at the school. Other committee member duties may include developing ambassador training and support materials and guiding ambassadors in their work as well as fulfilling the goals described below.
In 2007-08, the original task force members would slowly shift from ambassador duties to ambassador supervisory duties as they train the new committee members prior to rotating off the committee. Original task force members would have the option of continuing as ambassadors to the school(s) they selected for the pilot project if they wished. The goal for the year would be to develop a procedure by which ambassadors could to step down from their duties (since it is unrealistic to expect the same ambassador to continue indefinitely) and smoothly make the transition for the library school from one ambassador to another. Another goal for the year would be to recruit volunteers to serve as ambassadors if the original task force members wish to reduce or eliminate their ambassador roles.
In 2008-09, the original task force members would rotate off the committee. They would have the opportunity, however, to retain their ambassadorship(s). The senior committee members would again shift from ambassador duties to ambassador supervisory duties as they train the new committee members prior to rotating off the committee but would again have the option of continuing as ambassadors to the school(s) they selected for the pilot project if they wished. A goal for the year would be to recruit and train enough ambassadors to communicate with fifteen library schools. An additional goal might be to develop an ambassador training program.
In 2009-10, similar shifts and training would take place. The goal for the year would be to recruit and train enough ambassadors to communicate with twenty library schools as well as to determine what the optimum length for an ambassador’s term based on the previous two years’ experiences.
2. Selecting library schools
In 2007-08, continue relationships with the original nine library schools. The nine schools would be divided among additional committee members or non-committee member ambassadors if the original ambassadors feel that they will be unable to devote enough of their efforts to more than one school. Based on our experience, we recommend that library schools be matched with ambassadors who have an existing relationship with the school if possible.
In 2008-09, based on the additional year’s experience, expand the corps of ambassadors and library schools. Select additional library schools based on the availability of an ambassador with an existing relationship with the school and targeting schools that have not produced NASIG award winners. During this year, experienced committee members may begin shifting their responsibilities from working as ambassadors to supervising several ambassadors as the roster of library schools expands. A goal of adding six library schools this year for a total of fifteen should be achieved.
In 2009-10, again based on the additional year’s experience, continue to expand the corps of ambassadors and library schools. Continue making library school selection based on both the availability of an ambassador with an existing relationship with the school and targeting schools that have not produced NASIG award winners. During this year, experienced committee members should continue shifting their responsibilities from working as ambassadors to supervising several ambassadors as the roster of library schools expands. A goal of adding five library schools this year for a total of twenty should be achieved.
3. Support materials
We recommend that the new Library School Outreach Committee continue the work started by the task force on creating materials to support the ambassadors’ work with their library schools.
For 2007-08, we recommend setting a goal for committee members to work the Electronic Communications Committee to create a Library School Outreach Committee web page for sharing ideas, results, and materials that committee members and/or ambassadors have found useful in their work with library schools.
In 2008-09, as the committee gains more experience with the library schools’ needs, they can begin work with the Publications Committee on “creating (individually or collaboratively with other ambassadors and NASIG members) materials for distribution to library school constituents” as well as investigating formal methods (in addition to the committee web site) for communicating information about continuing education opportunities between the CEC, committee members, and ambassadors.
In 2009-10, the goal should be to create additional support materials and investigate new formats in which to provide them to library schools.
4. Evaluating the program’s success
It will be important to build in some measures of the success of the program, if for no other reason that to give the NASIG Board some evidence on which to base a decision whether or not to continue it.
For 2007-08, we recommend that the program’s success be measured by the number of additional award applications it generates. This is data that is already collected by A&R, who not only observes the number of award applications received each year but can provide award applicants’ responses to a question about how they learned of the award which is asked on every application form. The committee member representing A&R would obviously be able to take the lead on achieving this goal.
For 2008-09, success should again be measured by award applicants’ numbers and responses on their application forms. Additionally, the goal for the year would be to select or create one additional measure of the programs’ success in raising library school awareness of conferences (especially the NASIG annual conference) and other continuing education opportunities, perhaps in collaboration with the Continuing Education Committee.
For 2009-10, the goal would be to continue to carefully collect data for all measurements of success and to report them to the NASIG Board at the end of the year with a recommendation as to whether the program’s success warrants its continued operation.
ACTIVITIES THAT SUPPORT THE NASIG STRATEGIC PLAN
The development of the NASIG Library School Ambassadors program directly supports strategic directions #2 in the Strategic Plan: “attract and strengthen involvement of diverse and broad-based constituencies in NASIG” through outreach to both library school students and library school faculty.
ANY CHANGES OR EXCEPTIONS TO BUDGET
None
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
None
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY BOARD
None
QUESTIONS FOR BOARD
None
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOARD
See above.
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING REPORT
Sarah Sutton, on behalf of the Library School Outreach Task Force, all of whom contributed to this report.
PROPOSED NASIG LIBRARY SCHOOL AMBASSADORS PILOT PROJECT (CONDENSED)
OCTOBER 2006
1. Purpose:
(A) To test the efficacy of a cohort of NASIG Library School Ambassadors in accomplishing the charges to the task force: increasing awareness and knowledge of NASIG and serials professions among library school faculty and students, coordinating and promoting NASIG’s efforts to do the same.
(B) To develop a plan for a full-fledged NASIG Library School Ambassador program for implementation in the summer of 2007 based on feedback from Ambassadors, library school faculty and students, and the general NASIG membership about their experiences with/in the pilot program.
2. Procedures:
(A) Selecting library schools.
Current task force members will select two or three library schools to which they will serve as ambassadors based on physical proximity, existing affiliations, and data on which schools have and have not produced past award winners. We recommend that no task force member take on more than three library schools for the initial project and that they take into consideration all of the expectations described below in deciding how many schools they wish to work with.
(B) Expectations and duties of ambassadors.
We recognize that differences exist between ambassadors and between library schools. Ambassadors will be free to choose the methods of contact and level of participation with their selected library schools within the following parameters:
- Ambassadors will be expected to establish and maintain contact with the library school and use existing communication channels (e.g. listservs, electronic bulletin boards, etc.) to increase awareness of NASIG and NASIG-sponsored activities like awards, conferences, and continuing education opportunities.
o Points of contact with a library school may be formal, including the graduate student organization, the director of the program, and/or faculty members (especially those who teach courses that are likely to include serials related content) or they may be informal, including postings to a public listserv, MySpace or other social networking community where students and/or faculty gather (physically or virtually).
o Items to be communicated include information about NASIG and NASIG activities like continuing education opportunities (workshops, lectures, conferences, forums etc.), venues for learning about serials-related work and issues (potential locations for practical experiences and award and grant opportunities).
- Ambassadors will be expected to keep abreast of the needs of the faculty and students at “their” library schools and to seek out opportunities to promote serials work in general and NASIG in particular there. Ambassadors will be expected to use creativity to meet those needs but not necessarily to bear the entire burden of work themselves. Rather, an ambassador will have his or her finger on the pulse of the library school and then use that information to create connections between NASIG and the school however is necessary. For example, it may not be possible for an ambassador themselves to speak in person in a classroom in another city, but it would be possible for the ambassador to uncover the desire for a guest speaker on serials at the library school and to find a NASIG colleague who lives and works near the school and who would be happy to speak to a library school class. Opportunities may include:
o Mentoring
o Guest lecturing
o Sharing/presenting current research and issues in serials work
o Acting as a resource for information about serials work in general and their own serials related experiences and interests
- Ambassadors will be expected to participate in creating (individually or collaboratively with other ambassadors and NASIG members) materials for distribution to library school constituents. To begin with, ambassadors can make use of the NASIGuides and other public materials available on the NASIG website. Additional materials in a range of formats (print, audio, and interactive) can be created based on library school needs identified by ambassadors and existing ideas put forward by the task force. Those ideas include creating additional NASIGuides in cooperation with the Publications Committee, creating a brief podcast by the NASIG president about NASIG or about a particular project or issue given by an expert on that particular topic. Other ideas include a blog or wiki discussion of potential serials-related careers that students and faculty may not be aware of to which both students and NASIG members would contribute.
- Ambassadors will be expected to report on what works and what doesn’t work in their association with library schools on an ambassadors list and in conference calls with the group.
3. Evaluation:
The successes and failures of the pilot project will be the basis for the final development of a full fledged Ambassadors program. Evaluation will be based on achieving the objectives stated above, on the experiences of ambassadors as reported on their list and in conference calls, on anonymous data from award applications (e.g., the library schools that student award applicants represent and the number of applicants compared to prior years), on informal interviews with award winners, and on library school faculty or students in attendance or volunteering at continuing education events. The evaluation will be presented to the board in the form of a report at their meeting in June during the conference and to the NASIG membership in the form of an article in the summer 2008 issue of the NASIG Newsletter.
| AMBASSADORS PILOT PROJECT: Library Schools and Ambassadors | ||
| Library School | Previous award winners from this school | Ambassador |
| University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science | 11 | Steve Oberg |
| School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University | 0 | Steve Oberg |
| Dominican University Graduate School of Library and Information Science | 1 | Steve Oberg |
| Texas Woman’s University School of Library and Information Studies | 1 | Sarah Sutton |
| University of North Texas School of Library and Information Science | 4 | Sarah Sutton |
| School of Information, University of Texas | 5 | Sarah Sutton |
| University of Arizona School of Information Resources and Library Science | 1 | Paoshan Yue |
| San Jose State University School of Library and Information Science | 2 | Paoshan Yue |
| Louisiana State University School of Library and Information Science | 4 | Linda Griffin |
22:2 (2007:05) Committee Annual Report: D&D
May 21, 2007 at 11:55 am | In Committee Annual Reports, Database & Directory | Leave a CommentDATABASE & DIRECTORY COMMITTEE
Buddy Pennington and Lisa Blackwell, Co-chairs
Committee members: Alice Bright, Heather Cannon, Ann Ercelawn, Marty Gordon, Smita Joshipura, Julie Kane, Greg Matthews, Bob Persing, Mircea Stefancu
Board liaison: Adam Chesler
Members rotating off the committee after the annual conference: Smita Joshipura, Buddy Pennington, Mircea Stefancu
New Chair: Lisa Blackwell
New co-Chair: Marty Gordon
New Committee Members: Cecilia Genereux, Tzu Jing Kao, Suzanne Thomas
New Board liaison: Jeff Slagell
ACTIVITIES
• NASIG transitioned from a paper-based renewal system to an online-only renewal system for the 2006 renewal cycle. A contract was negotiated with Paul Seeman to make programmatic updates to both the public and committee renewal pages. Major updates included:
o Adding in a component to allow NASIG members to make donations.
o Adding an email manager component to allow the committee to edit the automated emails that are sent out to activated and renewed members. Previously members had to manually send emails to members.
o A new “view blank membership” line was added so that the committee could more easily delete the blank membership records. These tend to be created when someone repeatedly clicks on the submit button on the online forms.
o Streamlining the renewal process so that a member can be renewed with a single click. Previously, committee members had to manually edit a number of fields in the record and submit the changes to renew the member.
o Streamlining the activation process so that a member can be activated with a single click. Previously, committee members had to manually edit a number of fields in the record and submit the changes to renew the member.
• The open of the renewal season was announced on November 15, 2007 and repeated throughout the winter. The renewals lagged behind previous year’s figures. Below are some thoughts on why this might have occurred:
o Late announcement. The committee should work on opening the renewals in mid-September to give members plenty of time to renew before the ballots are sent out.
o Members may not be reading their email or the email may be blocked or treated as spam.
o Perceptions that online renewals meant members had to pay online. Some members voiced a concern about paying online.
o The announcement did not include membership numbers and some members may have had problems getting their number or didn’t want to deal with it if they did not have it in-hand.
• Board set voting renewal deadline to 1/26/2007 5 p.m. EST. Mailing label data was collected for 625 eligible members and sent to the Nominations & Elections Committee.
• In March, non-renewed members were deactivated. The inactive and active email lists were sent to ECC to update the NASIG-L email roster.
• The committee continued to run monthly new member reports and announce the new members on NASIG-L. The committee began to send contact information for individuals who had applied for NASIG membership but who were not activated to the Membership Development Committee so that they could follow-up with those individuals.
• Janet Chisman resigned her position on the committee and was replaced by Greg Matthews, Serials and Electronic Resources Cataloger at Washington State University.
• The committee website was revised and given a new look. Several procedures have been revised and the committee plans to continue that process of revising procedures to streamline steps and ensure accurate and timely processing of membership information.
RENEWALS
Online renewals first announced on NASIG-L: November 15, 2007.
Active members for current year (as of April 19, 2007): 781 active members.
Active members for previous year (from previous annual report): 1,038 members.
323 2006 members were deactivated on March 21, 2007.
MEMBERSHIP PROFILE
Active NASIG members in database: 781 (as of April 19, 2007)
Membership by library/organization type:
| Library/Organization Type |
Number |
% |
| A. University Library |
428 |
55% |
| B. College Library |
60 |
8% |
| C. Community College Library |
7 |
1% |
| D. Medical Library |
34 |
4% |
| E. Law Library |
32 |
4% |
| F. Public Library |
18 |
2% |
| G. Government, National, State Library |
32 |
4% |
| H. Corporate or Special Library |
32 |
4% |
| I. Subscription Vendor or Agency |
37 |
5% |
| J. Book Vendor |
4 |
1% |
| K. Publisher |
22 |
3% |
| L. Back Issue Dealer |
2 |
0% |
| M. Binder |
2 |
0% |
| N. Automated Systems Vendor |
6 |
1% |
| O. Library Network, Consortium, Utility |
8 |
1% |
| P. Professional Association |
3 |
0% |
| Q. Database Producer |
3 |
0% |
| R. Student |
18 |
2% |
| S. Retired |
7 |
1% |
| T. Other |
26 |
3% |
| TOTAL |
781 |
100% |
EXPENSES
The committee requested $3,000 to cover programming work contracted to Paul Seeman. The work involved making improvements to the online renewal form, including adding in a new form to allow NASIG members to make donations, as well as improvements to the web admin tools used by the committee.
The committee also requested $50 to cover potential printing of renewal forms for members by request. The committee did not use any of this money as no forms were requested. NASIG members could easily print out the renewal form themselves.
ANNUAL DIRECTORY
While the printed Directory was discontinued after the 2004/2005 year, the NASIG Board has made the decision to maintain a PDF version of the Directory and make that PDF version available for download to current NASIG members.
The latest PDF version was updated January 4, 2005. The committee is planning on providing an updated PDF version in time for the 2007 conference in Louisville.
OTHER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Committee considerations for contract work with Paul Seeman:
o Add an admin component to update the activation and renewal features. This is especially critical for the membership type field. Currently, the automated features use n07 and r07. Those will need to be changed after July 1.
o Add a “renewed date” field to the membership database and have the date automatically entered when the committee renews a member. This will help in providing statistical reports to the board.
o Remove unused fields from the Admin Tool and provide formatting and validation (such as phone numbers, etc.)
o Add pulldown menus to ensure consistent entry (country, state, ILS, etc.)
• Should the committee and NASIG Board consider letting members make updates to their membership profiles themselves? A considerable amount of time was used making updates that members could easily update themselves using an online form. If this were to occur, some mechanism would have to be developed to ensure that:
o Email changes were forwarded to ECC to update NASIG-L.
o Title changes were forwarded to the Newsletter editor.
o A minimum level of formatting and validation is used.
22:2 (2007:05) Speakers/Consultants Directory
May 19, 2007 at 6:12 pm | In News, Publications/PR | Leave a CommentSPEAKERS AND CONSULTANTS DIRECTORY
Marit Taylor, Co-chair, Publications/Public Relations Committee
Do you even seek speakers on a particular subject for a conference or meeting? Do you need advice or information about an unfamiliar area of serials management? Are you familiar with what was the NASIG Human Resources Directory, now renamed the Speakers and Consultants Directory?
This Directory is provided to help you find experts on various topics who are willing to travel and speak at conferences, or be consulted personally about their areas of special expertise. You can browse the Directory by name or subject area.
We on the Publications and Public Relations Committee are charged with maintaining and updating this Directory. We are aware that many of the entries need updating, and that the Directory as a whole might benefit by reorganizing and making entries more consistent.
We would very much appreciate your input in the following areas:
Have you ever used the Directory?
Do you think you might use it now that you know about it, or are reminded about it?
How would you like to see it improved?
Are you willing to submit a profile and add your name to the list?
Thank you in advance for any input and suggestions.
22:2 (2007:05) Calling NASIGuide Authors
May 19, 2007 at 6:07 pm | In News, Publications/PR | Leave a CommentCALLING ALL AUTHORS: GOT NASIGUIDE?
Linda Pitts, Publications/Public Relations Committee
Have you been looking for a way to help your fellow NASIG members AND benefit your career at the same time? Well, look no further–the NASIG Publications and Public Relations Committee has the perfect opportunity for you!
As many of you know, the PubPR Committee maintains a web page with links to guides on various topics of interest to NASIG members, such as the ISSN, license negotiations, and serial holdings. See the complete list of NASIGuides at http://www.nasig.org/publications/guides/.
The PubPR Committee is currently soliciting members to write additional NASIGuides. Some recommended topics are:
Electronic resources workflow
FRBR implications for serials
Claiming workflows
Pricing models
License negotiations
If you are interested in writing a guide, either on one of these topics or on something else pertinent to serials, please email Linda Pitts at lmpitts@u.washington.edu. Please note that we have people already working on guides for MARC Fields for Serials, Cancellation Workflows, Working with Subscription Vendors, and Serials in Institutional Repositories.
Remember, this is a great opportunity to contribute to NASIG Web and to see your name in print as an author (which can be even better than seeing it in lights if you’re applying for tenure). So do yourself and NASIG a favor and volunteer today!
22:2 (2007:05) Committee Annual Report: CEC
May 19, 2007 at 6:00 pm | In Committee Annual Reports, Continuing Education | Leave a CommentCONTINUING EDUCATION
Betty Landesman and Paoshan Yue, Co-chairs
Date of report: April 24, 2007
Committee members for 2006/2007: Betty Landesman (National Institutes of Health Library) and Paoshan Yue (University of Nevada, Reno), Co-chairs, Michael Bradford (Harvard Divinity School), Valerie Bross (University of California, Los Angeles), Cris Ferguson (Furman University), Jessica Gibson (Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois), Jill Grogg (University of Alabama), Tim Hagan (Northwestern University), Lei Jin (Ryerson University), Kay Johnson (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), Steve Oberg (Endeavor Information Systems, Inc.), Jayne Sappington (Texas Tech University), Virginia Taffurelli (New York Public Library), Sarah Tusa (Lamar University), Bob Schatz (Coutts Information Services), Board Liaison.
Committee members for 2007/2008: Valerie Bross (University of California, Los Angeles) and Betty Landesman (National Institutes of Health Library), Co-chairs, Michael Bradford (Harvard Divinity School), Cris Ferguson (Furman University), Jessica Gibson (Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois), Jill Grogg (University of Alabama), Lei Jin (Ryerson University), Steve Oberg (Endeavor Information Systems, Inc.), Jayne Sappington (Texas Tech University), Virginia Taffurelli (New York Public Library), Sarah Tusa (Lamar University), Kim Maxwell (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Board Liaison.
NARRATIVE OF ACTIVITIES SINCE LAST REPORT:
• CEC events successfully sponsored and completed: January – April 2007
– March 2007 – North Carolina Serials Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, led by Christie Degener et al. and coordinated by Lei Jin — $750
• Forthcoming CEC events and projects for May – December 2007
– May 10-11, 2007 – CAT21: Metadata Standards and Applications, Northridge, California, led by Helen Heinrich and coordinated by Valerie Bross ($1000)
– May 14, 2007 — SCCTP Electronic Serials Cataloging workshop, Cambridge, Massachusetts, led and coordinated by Michael Bradford ($1000)
– May 30-31, 2007 – NASIG Preconference Workshop on CAT21: Metadata Standards and Applications, Louisville, Kentucky, led by Diane Hillmann and Rhonda Marker, coordinated by Paoshan Yue
– Summer, 2007 – E-journals/E-resources Workshop, Starkville, Mississippi, led by Patrick Carr ($1000)
– September 2007 – SCCTP Distance Education Train-the-Trainers Program, led by Laura Kimberly of the Amigos Library Services and coordinated by Jayne Sappington ($1000)
The Amigos Library Services submitted a proposal for this program in March 2007 to request for the funding that was made available due to the withdrawal of the previously approved “CONSER Access Level Record for Serials: Training Material Development” program (see “Events Cancelled” below). The Amigos program proposal was approved by the Board in April 2007.
– Distance Education Development: a Pilot Project, led and coordinated by Betty Landesman ($1000)
In exploring the next steps for our proposed pilot project for developing an online course, we touched base with Virginia Taffurelli, Chair of the ALA ALCTS SS Education Committee and a NASIG CEC member. The new lead is to contact Christa Easton (Stanford University) and Trisha Davis (Ohio State University), who are developing online courses for e-resources and print serials for ALCTS, for possible collaborative opportunities.
• Events cancelled; funds reallocated
– CONSER Access Level Record for Serials: Training Material Development ($1000)
This program will not take place as it was proposed because Les Hawkins of CONSER formally withdrew his request for the grant on March 9, 2007.
• CEC Manual – A subcommittee within CEC has been formed to put a CEC manual together. The subcommittee will be meeting shortly to work on this project.
• Review of Committee Charge – In response to the request from the VP/Pres-Elect of NASIG, the CEC will discuss the committee charge at the annual meeting in June to see if it needs any adjustment or modification.
• New England Technical Services Librarians (NETSL) — Dodie Gaudet, the VP/President-Elect of NETSL, contacted the CEC in March inquiring possibilities of offering some programs in conjunction with NASIG. In response, the CEC requested additional information about the kind of projects NETSL had in mind and also provided two possibilities for NETSL to consider: 1) collaboration on a non-conference event such as co-sponsoring or jointly planning a preconference that is serials-related in a broad sense; 2) Some of the sessions that have been presented at NASIG annual conferences could be incorporated to NETSL conference, if interested.
STATISTICAL INFORMATION:
None
ACTION(S) REQUIRED BY BOARD:
None
QUESTIONS FOR BOARD:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD:
None
NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING REPORT:
Paoshan Yue and Betty Landesman
22:2 (2007:05) Committee Annual Report: Bylaws
May 17, 2007 at 6:05 pm | In Bylaws, Committee Annual Reports | Leave a CommentBYLAWS
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 bya mailballot. 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 distributedmailedto 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 bylawsBylaws Committee, or may be presented at any meeting of the membership. Proposed amendments shall be distributed to the membership by the committee responsible for bylawsBylaws Committeeat least thirty days prior to the call for vote. Voting shall be by____ 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 CommentAWARDS & 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 CommentARCHIVES
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.
