22:3 (2007:09) Other Serials News: Mississippi State E-resources Workshop
September 6, 2007 at 6:50 pm | In Other Serials and E-Resources News | Leave a CommentMISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY HOSTS NASIG-SPONSORED WORKSHOP ON E-RESOURCES AND LIBRARIES
Reported by Patrick L. Carr
For a seventh year, Mississippi State University (MSU) Libraries hosted an e-resource workshop for information professionals working in libraries across the Southeast. Co-sponsored by NASIG, MSU Libraries, EBSCO Information Services, Haworth Press, and SirsiDynix, this year’s workshop was held at Mitchell Memorial Library on July 20, 2007. Titled “Black Cats & Broken Links: Dispelling E-resource Superstitions,” this workshop provided the approximately one hundred attendees with valuable insights and knowledge that will enable them to overcome the many challenges related to the role and management of e-resources in libraries.
The workshop featured four presentations given by leading innovators in the field of e-resources and libraries. Keynote speaker Stephen Abram got the workshop off to a lively and thought-provoking start with his presentation “Our User Experience: Puzzle Pieces Falling in Place.” Drawing on his experiences as Chief Strategist of the SirsiDynix Institute, Abram argued that libraries’ tools for information access and management must evolve in light of the changing needs and expectations of users. The presentation explored this topic by discussing the information environment in which libraries currently exist and highlighting the conceptual challenges that information professionals must overcome to succeed. Abram ultimately provided attendees with ten key recommendations that will allow their libraries to thrive in the future.
The workshop’s second speaker was Tim Bucknall, Assistant Director for University Libraries at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. In his presentation, “Are Consortium ‘Big Deals’ Cost-Effective? A Comparison and Analysis of E-Journal Access Mechanisms,” Bucknall provided attendees with detailed data regarding the various e-journal acquisition models that his library has explored in recent years. Comparing individual subscriptions, pay-per-view access, and consortium packages, Bucknall analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of each option, including cost-per-use and the impact on collection development at the library. Ultimately, Bucknall advocated that the advantages of consortial partnership for e-journal access—embodied in his development of the Carolina Consortium—can often provide a library’s users with the greatest amount of e-journal access at the lowest cost.
The workshop’s third presentation, titled “ERM on a Shoestring: Betting on an Alternative Solution,” was co-presented by Dalene Hawthorne, Head of Systems and Technical Services at Emporia State University, and Jennifer Watson, Head of Electronic and Collection Services at University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center Library. Hawthorne and Watson’s presentation provided attendees with snapshots of how two libraries with limited resources have developed innovative ways to use existing tools in order to effectively manage e-resources. Watson began the presentation by describing how her library has utilized three separate tools—a Filemaker Pro database, a MySQL database, and the Blackboard course management system—in order to successfully manage the licensing, access, and invoicing terms of her library’s collection of e-resources. Hawthorne’s portion of the presentation provided an alternative e-resource management strategy which utilizes the acquisitions module of her library’s ILS.
The workshop’s final presentation was given by Oliver Pesch, Chief Strategist at EBSCO Information Services. Pesch’s presentation, titled “Library Standards and E-resource Management: A Survey of Current Initiatives and Standards Efforts,” provided attendees with a whirlwind tour of the standards and initiatives which are currently shaping how libraries manage and provide access to e-resources. Among the topics that Pesch described in his presentation were organizations leading the way in the development of e-resource-related standards and the role that specific standards and initiatives play over an e-resource’s lifecycle.
Based on the enthusiastic evaluations submitted by attendees, this year’s workshop can be deemed a success. While Abram’s presentation inspired the attendees to contemplate the larger philosophical questions related to the evolving role of e-resources in libraries, the presentations of Bucknall, Hawthorne and Watson, and Pesch all brought to light specific tools, trends, and strategies that promise to shape the future of e-resources. Article-length write-ups of each of these presentations are to be published in an upcoming issue of The Serials Librarian. At present, the workshop speakers’ PowerPoint slides and handouts are accessible at http://library.msstate.edu/nasig/schedule.html. Audio recordings of the presentations, along with the presenters’ PowerPoint slides and handouts, are accessible at http://library.msstate.edu/nasig/schedule.html
22:3 (2007:09) Other Serials News: NC Serials Conference
September 6, 2007 at 6:40 pm | In Other Serials and E-Resources News | Leave a CommentNORTH CAROLINA SERIALS CONFERENCE
Reported by Rebecca Kemp
The 16th annual North Carolina Serials Conference took place in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, from March 29-30, 2007. The conference was sponsored by North Carolina Central University’s School of Library and Information Sciences with the aid of other partners. This year’s theme was “Serials at Warp Speed: Navigating Transitions.” Although most attendees hailed from North Carolina, several other states were represented. Academic, public, and special librarians as well as vendors attended and gave presentations.
This year’s conference was augmented by a half-day preconference, “Implementing an Institutional Repository,” presented by Carol Hixson, University Librarian, University of Regina. Hixson talked about planning for and implementing an institutional repository. Hixson indicated that it would be wise for libraries to create a business plan, including figuring out how long to support the IR. Although Hixson emphasized that IRs will not solve the scholarly communications crisis, she noted that IRs are an excellent way to keep university-related intellectual property together as a promotional tool for the university. She also discussed the considerable amount of marketing that accompanies an IR. It is necessary to have a good deal of technical expertise on staff to be able to troubleshoot problems, ensure compatibility with standards, install patches and updates, etc. Hixson outlined various methods of evaluating the success of the repository.
The conference proper began with the opening keynote, “The Changing Faces of Catalogs: Accelerating Access, Saving Time” presented by Karen Calhoun, Assistant University Librarian for Technical Services at Cornell University. Calhoun presented the “Net Generation” library users’ preferences: most students surf the Web to find information; the library website and catalog rank very low in the list of students’ information sources. Calhoun emphasized that the library can not assume that users will simply come to us; we have to put the library “where the user is.” Some new strategies for libraries are digitizing books, using WorldCat.org, partnering with other libraries to create larger (but fewer) catalogs, and innovating within the catalog. New catalog software such as AquaBrowser, WPOpac, and Evergreen are more user-friendly than older catalog models. New products on the horizon are ExLibris’s Primo, Innovative’s Encore, and an open source Extensible catalog.
The keynote was followed by a panel on Institutional Repositories called “Transporters to the Next Generation or Just Another Holodeck?” Panelists were Carol Hixson (University of Regina); Cat McDowell (UNC-Greensboro), Allan Scherlen (Appalachian State University), and Joseph Thomas (East Carolina University). Hixson argued that IRs will not change established modes of scholarly communication. McDowell concurred with this view, indicating that most of the IRs with a good deal of content in them are high research institutions, according to the Carnegie classification. She held the opinion that IRs are not the vehicles for change that initial proponents thought they would be. The other panelists brought forward other reasons for having IRs, though: Scherlen posited that IRs have overwhelming benefits for the participants, and that libraries ought to collect electronic faculty output as we do print. Thomas indicated that IRs require a great deal of administrative, library, and faculty buy-in, but that they are very useful for tenure review and storing university output of any kind, whether videos, art exhibits, performances, etc.
The next session was a general session entitled “Empowering the Library Search Experience.” This was a two-part presentation by Holly Johnson (Howard County Library, Columbia, MD) and Kristin Antelman (North Carolina State University Libraries). Johnson presented her public library’s effort to make the catalog more user-friendly. She demonstrated AquaBrowser catalog searches and features such as the “discover cloud,” which is a cloud of related terms to the search terms. She also demonstrated the faceted search for refining search results and a library databases search that is linked from AquaBrowser. Howard County Library has added selected RSS feeds, and it is also considering adding a “Buy it” link to bookstore websites when a patron would like to buy a copy of the desired item. Antelman discussed NCSU’s implementation of the Endeca-powered catalog interface and the issues that are still outstanding a year after implementation. Antelman raised a few concerns: serials still present challenges for relevancy ranking, and subject access is still a problem because of the disconnect between natural language searching for subjects and the LCSH terms for subjects. In the future, NCSU will implement RSS feeds and a search box that can be used in patrons’ browsers. Also, the Triangle Research Libraries Network (North Carolina State University, UNC Chapel Hill, Duke University, North Carolina Central University) will be instituting a consortium-wide Endeca-powered catalog.
The concurrent sessions followed the general session. A session entitled “Community College Libraries – How Far Do We Need To Go” was led by Marilyn Carney (Wake Technical Community College). Carney discussed a survey of area community colleges that had three objectives: to find out how community colleges are enhancing journal collections despite small budgets, how they are responding to increased e-journal usage, and how their libraries have been affected by the switch to more online journals.
Another concurrent session, entitled “The Right of Passage: Going from Print to Electronic – Is it the Right Move” was led by Barb Dietsch (Environmental Protection Agency Library) and Leslie Covington (EBSCO Information Services). Dietsch and Covington discussed the issues involved in the process of switching a library’s subscriptions from mostly print to mostly online. Covington was able to provide a vendor’s perspective of this process for a full view of the transition.
Yvette Diven (CSA) and Beth Bernhardt (UNC Greensboro) presented on “The TRANSFER Initiative: Helping Develop Guidelines for Journal Transitions Between Publishers.” The presenters discussed this United Kingdom Serials Group initiative to establish standard practices for title transfers between two publishers. Recent updates were provided, and Diven provided a publisher’s perspective on the challenges of title transfers.
Sandy Hurd (Innovative Interfaces) presented a session entitled, “Got Chopsticks? Get SUSHI.” Hurd described the Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) that will automatically gather COUNTER-compliant usage statistics and transmit these statistical reports to libraries’ information systems seamlessly. Hurd described work that has been done thus far and challenges that remain.
Another session, entitled “Implementing ERMS: Opportunities and Challenges” was presented by Rebecca Kemp (UNC Wilmington) and Jeff Campbell (UNC Chapel Hill). Kemp and Campbell described what an ERM module does and some of the challenges of implementation. These included customizing the ERM, organizing and creating documentation, workflow changes, training or retraining staff, and integration with already-existing practices and resources.
Rob Wolf (UNC Pembroke) led a concurrent session, “User-Based Serials Collection Development.” Wolf described how UNC Pembroke’s library has used innovative methods of collection development, including consulting reference librarians for their recollections of frequently requested journals as well as usage logs and interlibrary-loan requests.
The closing keynote was entitled, “To Boldly Go: Transforming Cataloging and Catalogs to Meet User Needs.” Presenter Regina Romano Reynolds (National Serials Data Program) first outlined the user needs of the Net Generation. Today’s students would like libraries to aspire to the ease of use and customer-friendliness of Internet search engines, bookstores and coffee bars. Reynolds then discussed how the library has historically responded to user needs, i.e., in the creation of metadata. Reynolds asked whether there is a way to reduce the duplication of metadata created for the ISSN program, ONIX, and library catalogs. Lastly, Reynolds discussed the new CONSER standard serials record as a case study in a new practice that has the potential to save cataloging time while still retaining a high standard of metadata creation. Reynolds ended with the hope that libraries will continue to determine how best to serve the user, given all the new technologies at our disposal.
22:3 (2007:09) Committee Annual Report: Evaluation & Assessment
September 6, 2007 at 6:23 pm | In Committee Annual Reports, Evaluation & Assessment | Leave a CommentEVALUATION & ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
Anne Mitchell, Chair
Committee members (2007): Anne Mitchell, Chair (University of Houston), Lori Terrill, Vice-chair (University of Wyoming), Joe Badics (Eastern Michigan University), Carole Bell (Temple University), Jana Brubaker (Northern Illinois University), Sarah Corvene (Harvard Business School), Susan Davis (State University of New York, Buffalo), Lee Krieger (Library System of Lancaster County), Martha Spring (Loyola University)
Board Liaison: Adam Chesler
In February the committee was informed that 2007 conference evaluations should again be available both in print and online so conference attendees would have a choice of evaluation format. To encourage use of the online evaluation form, the Executive Board authorized a drawing for a free 2008 conference registration; anyone who submits an online evaluation is eligible for the drawing.
In April the committee created the print evaluation forms for the conference, preconferences, and poster sessions. These forms were sent to the Conference Planning Committee for distribution. To further encourage attendees to use the online evaluations, individual conference packets will not include the evaluation itself, but will contain an insert with the URL for the online evaluations. A limited number of print evaluations will still be available on-site.
In May the committee developed the online evaluation forms. In lieu of the custom-programmed evaluation site used in 2006, the committee is using the hosted survey product SurveyMonkey to build the online evaluations. This tool requires no programming expertise and should greatly simplify survey creation from year to year.
The committee is working with the conference Web designer to provide a link from the conference site to the evaluations a week or so ahead of the conference. An announcement will be made on NASIG-L when the evaluations are available.
22:3 (2007:09) Committee Annual Report: Electronic Communications
September 6, 2007 at 5:54 pm | In Committee Annual Reports, Electronic Communications | Leave a CommentELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
Anna Creech, Chair and Dalene Hawthorne, Co-Chair
Committee members: Abigail Bordeaux, Jennifer Duncan, Eric Elmore, Tony Goodwyn, Tonia Graves, Jennifer Lang, Jonathan David Makepeace, Jia Mi, and Wendy Robertson; Board Liaison: Katy Ginanni
CONTINUING/NEW ACTIVITIES
Website:
- Jennifer L. continues to maintain the online photo album. Jennifer D. and Abigail successfully moved the Jobs section to a WordPress blog. Anna has updated the web pages regularly and has been involved in supporting several projects from other committees.
- Anna coordinated the purchase of the nasig.net domain name and hosting services via SiteGround for setting up a Moodle installation to be used at the annual conference.
- A one year subscription to SurveyMonkey was also purchased for the purposes of creating membership surveys and post-conference feedback forms.
- Anna and Abigail both worked with the task force collecting and evaluating RFP responses from ISPs and other vendors in response to the board’s decision to look for companies who can support the growing needs of the organization.
Lists:
- Dalene, Wendy, Jennifer L., Tonia, Jia, and Jonathan have all been rotating the monitoring of the listservs. The list managers also handle any inquiries from NASIG members, monitor the spam inbox, and resolve bounces from committee lists.
- Dalene adds new NASIG members, creates new committee lists, updates committee list membership, and updates forwarding email addresses.
- D&D provided lists of active and inactive members after the membership renewal. Dalene used these lists to update NASIG-L. Dalene is still working to remove mostly out-of-date e-mail addresses from NASIG-L.
COMPLETED ACTIVITIES
Many completed activities are now ongoing and included in the above section.
ACTIVITIES THAT SUPPORT THE NASIC STRATEGIC PLAN
Stimulate diverse communication channels:
- The Moodle installation will provide options for continuing discussions from conference sessions, and will more easily facilitate the distribution of handouts and other presentation material.
- SurveyMonkey will make it easier to create feedback channels for the membership.
Define options for using technology and employing support necessary to avoid volunteer burnout:
- A new host that meets the needs outlined in the RFP will allow NASIG to transition into Web/Library 2.0 models of communication and information organization, as well as provide better tools for managing older technologies such as the listserv.
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
Website (May 2006 – April 2007):
- Average hits on the site per month: 222,473 / home page: 4,770
- Average page views per month: 99,546
- Average visitor sessions per month: 43,480
- Average one-time visitors per month: 5,940
- Average returning visitors per month: 3,010
Full details – http://nasig.org/statistics/
Lists:
- 41 committee lists: 29 active
- 878 current subscribers to NASIG-L
- 37 active forwarding addresses
ACTION(S) REQUIRED BY BOARD
None at this time.
QUESTIONS FOR BOARD
None at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOARD
- It is possible to have the committee listservs set up so that e-mail attachments can be used by the committees. There is no additional charge for this, but it will require bee.net to move our listservs to another server. Dalene recommends that we ask bee.net to make this change for the convenience of the committee members.
- Dalene recommends that we change the policy that states that only committee members can be added to the committee listservs and that other NASIG members that are assisting the committees may be added to the committee listservs with the president’s approval.
22:3 (2007:09) Committee Annual Report: Conference Planning
September 6, 2007 at 5:38 pm | In Committee Annual Reports, Conference Planning | Leave a CommentCONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE
Tyler Goldberg and Angel Clemons, Co-Chairs
WRAP UP REPORT, 22nd ANNUAL CONFERENCE (2007)
Members: Angel Clemons, co-chair (University of Louisville), Deberah England (Wright State University), Tyler Goldberg, co-chair (University of Louisville), Steve Kelley (Wake Forest University), Jeanne Langendorfer (Bowling Green State University), Kat McGrath (University of British Columbia), Neal Nixon (University of Louisville), Peter Whiting (University of Southern Indiana), Danielle Williams (University of Evansville); Consultants: Connie Foster (Western Kentucky University), Joyce Tenney (University of Maryland, Baltimore County); Board Liaison: Alison Roth.
AV
One committee member handled the AV responsibilities. He contacted the hotel’s in-house vendor and three other companies for bids for AV services. The bids ranged from just over $19,000 to nearly $27,000. (One company was very upset that they had submitted bids for the NASIG conference three years in a row and never been selected. They argued that it was unethical to simply use their bid to try to get the in-house company to lower their price). The in-house vendor submitted the lowest bid, and provided what we needed for each room, including laptops, microphones, LCDs, screens, etc. They were very easy to work with, and very prompt at fixing small problems or making last minute additions. A different in-house company at the hotel handled Internet service. Due to the high expense of Internet connectivity, very few sessions were provided with Internet service. On the conference days the CPC member was available and checked on the set up in each room. We also rented a combination copier/printer from a local company in Louisville, which the CPC member in charge of AV arranged. The company was very slow to return a service call on the first day of the conference, which cost us a whole day’s use of the equipment we had rented from them. In addition, the CPC member arranged the rental of walkie-talkies for the CPC to use.
COST: $23,615.00
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- Make sure the CPC has access to a printer and copier. Although we didn’t use them much, they were invaluable when we needed them.
- With the proliferation of cell phones, consider not ordering walkie-talkies for communication between committee members during the conference. Even though we had walkie-talkies, we never used them. We only used cell phones.
CONFERENCE PACKETS
Conference totebags and lanyards were given to all attendees (see SOUVENIRS). Conference folders and ball point pens were donated by Hannelore Rader, Dean, University of Louisville Libraries. Folders contained all photocopied material that is listed in the NASIG Conference Planning Manual Appendix D. Photocopies were made at Kinko’s using a Kinko’s NASIG account. Lanyards and name badges (both purchased from the Louisville Convention Bureau), Louisville attractions brochures, and coupons were also stuffed into the conference totebags. Souvenir Louisville pins, also from the Convention Bureau, were included as well. Badges, copies of the itinerary, all special event tickets, and conference badge ribbons were put in envelopes and handed out separately from the packets. Conference packets were stuffed by local volunteers the Friday before the conference, and the Dean of the University of Louisville Libraries provided pizza for all the volunteers.
COST: $2543.62 (printed materials); NASIG ribbons: $96.91; preconference binders: $247.00
FOOD
All food decisions had to be approved by the Board and the food for some events (e.g., mentoring and breakfasts) were part of the contract with the hotel. Since the hotel costs were very high we tried to be very minimal with the break food. We were lucky that the hotel worked with us and the breakfasts were by consumption only. Attendees were given a meal ticket for breakfast (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) and went to the regular hotel restaurant. NASIG was only charged for tickets collected. The hotel also paid for the cost of the mentoring reception and they also provided, at no cost, lots of snacks for the registration desk workers. The hotel meal costs for 4 preconference breaks, 3 breakfasts, 2 lunches, 5 conference breaks, 1 late night social snack, and the food at the reception at the Frazier Museum (see OFF-SITE EVENTS) were budgeted at $89,914.00. NASIG was exempt from state tax. We made every effort to accommodate food needs, including vegetarian choices, gluten free and low-fat. Food was plentiful and everyone who had a special food request was issued a food ticket that they turned in to claim their special meal. The hotel provided water on the tables at the back of every meeting room refreshed after each meeting and bottled water free in other areas of the hotel. Therefore, NASIG did not provide bottled water.
COST: $64,603.08 (we did not see the final hotel bill for food events so this number is based on our estimated counts of attendees. It does not include the reception at the Frazier Museum.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- Although the Board requested a sit-down meal for the business lunch it was very difficult to find one menu choice that would please everyone in attendance. A buffet offers many more options and would be recommended, but it can be very hard to do in a timely manner with so many attendees.
- We let attendees indicate any kind of food preference they wished on the registration form, and some were very challenging for the hotel. Make this a “drop down” on the registration form; with choices your caterers can accommodate (e.g., vegan, gluten-free, etc.)
- The CPC recommended that box lunches no longer be purchased for Sunday’s lunch due to cost and the fact that there are now food/beverage restrictions on airlines. This was approved by the Board and the lack of box lunches on Sunday didn’t cause any problems.
FUN RUN
We had 20 to 30 people participate in an early morning run/walk along the Ohio River near the Galt House. Three committee members, Alison Roth, Kat McGrath and Peter Whiting, helped the participants navigate the course. Water bottles were provided to the runners/walkers. Prizes, a knapsack and two magnets, were given to the three winners.
COST: $41.82
FUND RAISERS
In addition to selling raffle tickets for a free registration, the CPC offered a “bourbon tasting” at the hotel. The event was sold out at 75 tickets.
PROFIT: $750.00 (bourbon tasting event); $374.00 (raffle tickets); souvenirs ($117.00)
HOTEL
Prior to the conference the co-chairs worked together with our primary hotel contact. She met with us, as well as the Food Subcommittee (this committee took care of all food separately). One of CPC co-chairs took care of room reservations. The hotel contact was particularly helpful when there were reservation issues due to the room blocks filling earlier than anticipated and the hotel’s new reservation system. The co-chairs didn’t get a room because we thought we could go back and forth every night.
COST: $0.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- The co-chairs should get a room, as it is very hard to go back and forth when the registration desk opens early and events run into the evening. In the end the hotel gave us a room for the last two nights.
- Stay on top of the room reservations for the speakers. The list should be given to the CPC as early as possible This year the room blocks had filled on some of the nights by the time the CPC co-chairs received the list.
LOCAL INFORMATION
We set up two tables opposite the registration desk for local information. Hosted dinners or “Dine-Arounds” proved to be the most popular reason for visitors at the Local Information Table. Attendees found printed menus attached to the dinner sign-up sheets most helpful when deciding on restaurants. Brochures of local attractions were on display, along with poster sized signs describing the nearby Riverfront Park and Fourth Street Live. Other materials available were a local church list, conference reception flyer, Internet access location sign and Fun Run flyers. The Local Information Table was staffed at heavy times, such as during breaks.
OFF-SITE EVENTS
The opening event was at the Frazier International History Museum, within walking distance of the hotel. The contract for the museum was signed by the board, so the CPC didn’t choose this venue, but we were very happy with the choice. The food was taken care of by the Food Subcommittee. The museum has 3 floors of exhibits and offers historical reenactments. We had an exhibition by Elizabethan sword masters, as well as an historical interpretation about Anne Boleyn. Entertainment was by the band “Hog Operation.” After initially intending to have the band in the rooftop garden, we moved it to another part of the museum to save on the cost of building a stage. We did have a shuttle bus (see TRANSPORTATION).
On Saturday night, attendees could register for a dinner cruise on the “Spirit of Jefferson.” (Normally the board likes to offer a baseball game to attendees on Saturday night, but the Louisville Bats were not in town that weekend.) The ship was docked within easy walking distance of the hotel.
COST: $24,032.50 (event at the Frazier International History Museum)
COST: $0. (dinner cruise). (We made an estimated profit from this event of $1200.00)
ONLINE REGISTRATION
This year online registration had a bumpy road with the death of the NASIG treasurer and a late start with the systems technician. Despite that late start we fortunately managed to have a good turnout at the conference.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- The registration form should be a one page form. Examples of registration forms to follow include the Charleston conference registration form.
- Tours and trips need to be on another separate registration form since a majority of institutions do not allow payment for extras.
- A preview pdf version of the registration form should be available so that registrants have an idea of what the form looks like.
- When a registrant signs up as a member the Database & Directory committee will have to be informed so that the registrant can fill out a membership form.
OPENING SESSION
The conference was opened by Denise Novak, President, NASIG. Hannelore Rader, Dean, University of Louisville Libraries, also welcomed the group. Denise read a plaque from the Mayor’s Office, welcoming NASIG to Louisville. The speaker was Dr. Tom Owen, a local historian, who did a great job providing an entertaining and concise overview of the city’s history.
COST: $250.00 (honorarium)
POSTER SESSIONS
Thirteen poster sessions were set up in the very spacious lobby area outside the plenary session hall. Hosting the breaks nearby brought lots of traffic through regularly and allowed visitors to circulate without crowding. The rental company was very accommodating in providing delivery and set-up on Thursday afternoon which ensured that presentations were in place with minimum fuss on Friday. Storage and security was not a problem. Take-down Friday evening was smooth.
COST: $625.00 for poster board, delivery, and set up
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- A single day for hosting the poster sessions is sufficient. A large, high visibility location is critical. Overtime/weekend labor charges can be a factor when sourcing suppliers. It is helpful to preview the boards as well as the space. Dark (black) boards provide an attractive backdrop to presentations. Presenters should be encouraged to provide a link to their poster content through the NASIG conference website (reduce paper, encourage follow-up).
PRECONFERENCES
Preconference registration ranged from 12 to 41 attendees for each of the four sessions. CPC purchased binders for the preconference manuals. CPC also downloaded the course information supplied by the PPC, had it photocopied at Kinko’s, and assembled the manuals. We had two on-site registrations which required us to return to Kinko’s for additional photocopying. Small snacks were provided for the attendees during each break but lunch was not included in the cost of the preconference. One instructor requested an Internet connection that had not been previously ordered. The registrations were as follows for each session:
Metadata Standards and Applications: 41
Publishing 101 — The Basics of Academic Publishing: 19
SCCTP Integrating Resources: 14
SCCTP Electronic Serials Cataloging Workshop: 12
COST: Costs of binders and photocopying course materials can be found under CONFERENCE PACKETS.
PUBLICITY
The logo for the meeting was designed by Michael Garzel, a graphic designer whose services NASIG had used for past conference logos. The board elected to not distribute postcards this year. All communications were conducted via the NASIG-L listserv and the listservs of pertinent local groups. Postings to NASIG-L were sent regularly to promote the meeting, advertise registration, and to inform the group of meeting details and items of local interest. Invitations to attend the meeting were sent to local groups in March and April.
COST: $500.00 (logo)
SOUVENIRS
The board determined that we would not purchase souvenirs for this year’s conference. This was due in part to the limited quantity of affordable quality souvenirs that could meet our allocated budget and the fact that NASIG has lost money on souvenirs at the four previous conferences. However, we did sell souvenirs left over from the 2006 conference, including tee shirts (sold for $5.00), cross stitch patterns (sold for $1.00 each) and water bottles (sold for $3.00 each). T-shirts and water bottles sold out, and the cross stitch patterns that were left were sent to Phoenix for next year’s conference.
Tote bags and lanyards were not considered souvenirs, per se, but were given out free of charge to each registrant upon checking in at the registration desk. These items were ordered by the Souvenir Subcommittee. Lanyards and name badges were printed and purchased from the Greater Louisville Convention and Visitors Bureau.
COST: $2323.68 (tote bags); $750.00 (lanyards)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- If you want a good bag (and we did), you need to pay for it. We looked at lots of cheap bags, and finally decided that these would not work. Bags cost $3.31 each (not including set up), and attendees liked them.
TOURS (PRE- AND POST-CONFERENCE)
We arranged tours using a local company. We worked with the company’s owner to pick sites we thought visitors would want to see, e.g. Churchill Downs. We arranged two four-hour tours (Thursday and Sunday), as well as one shorter tour to Louisville Stoneware, and one downtown walking tour. Unlike former years, the post-conference tour sold out, and the Thursday tours had respectable numbers. The tour company asked us to collect the fees as part of registration, which we did.
COST: $0. (We advertised through the conference website and listservs.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- As noted under ONLINE REGISTRATION, tours and other special events should be on a separate registration form.
TRANSPORTATION
Details regarding transportation to and from Louisville via air, car, train, and bus were posted on the meeting website. Attendees were responsible for their own transportation between the hotel and airport. The hotel had a fee-based shuttle service. Two events were held outside the hotel, but within walking distance. For the opening reception, transportation aimed at those who had limited mobility was made available by renting a 24-seat shuttle bus with a wheelchair lift from the shuttle bus vendor used by the conference hotel. For the dinner cruise volunteers were stationed to direct people to the boat dock and to escort anyone in a wheelchair if necessary. Those who indicated special transportation needs on their registration form were emailed directly and informed of the bus and escort service to the two outside events.
COST: $382.50 for shuttle bus rental.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- The CPC was asked to contact airlines about setting up a “conference airline.” This proved to be impossible. Louisville isn’t a hub for any airline, except UPS, and with so many ways for attendees to get cheap airline reservations, this seems to be a useless endeavor now. The CPC should no longer try to do this.
VOLUNTEERS
We received an excellent response to our calls for volunteers. A meeting was held April 17, 2007 to discuss the conference and potential volunteer projects. Most of our volunteers were University of Louisville employees, although some other NASIG members and local people were included. Eleven University of Louisville employees helped with the packet stuffing on May 25.
We had a good response for staffing the registration/local information desk. Thirty-eight people, including board members, CPC members, and volunteers from local libraries helped.
There were eight dine-arounds on Friday night and four on Saturday night. Two were canceled because of distance and time. All the others were well attended.
WEBSITE
While the website developed over time, all pertinent information was available online by March 1, 2007. Online registration for the conference began March 21 and closed May 17.
The website provided two versions of the conference program, a complete program and a quick guide, as well as electronic handouts for program sessions (provided after the conference using Moodle software). The conference webmaster used WordPress to administer the conference blog. NASIG personnel administered the forum section and the online evaluation forms were created using SurveyMonkey software.
Cost: $0. (But other NASIG committees may have incurred costs for SurveyMonkey, WordPress, and Moodle.)
22:3 (2007:09) President’s Corner
September 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm | In President's Corner | Leave a CommentPRESIDENT’S CORNER
Char Simser, NASIG President
Give them something to think about.
That’s from advice about great speeches. Ignore the fact that this isn’t a speech (let alone a great one), just my first president’s column. But still, by the end of this page I hope to leave you with something to think about.
Wow. My first president’s column. Let me extend greetings to returning members and tell our newest members that you’ve made a great decision to join NASIG. We have a strong tradition of excellent conferences and just celebrated our 22nd in Louisville, Kentucky, at the end of May/early June. In the coming months you will hear from the Conference Planning and Program Planning Committees with their plans to amaze us in Phoenix, Arizona, where we gather next June. NASIG has been – far and away – the most valuable conference for me, and I’m not saying that because I just took on the president’s reins this year! I learn something new at every conference and though no one has figured out how to nail the serial or e-jello to the wall, the innovative and creative ideas presented at NASIG always energize me.
This year’s conference also gave us some time to reflect. Board members listened thoughtfully to the information conference attendees and NASIG members brought to light during the brainstorming discussions, http://nasignews.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/223-200709-22nd-conference-2007-brainstorming-session/. As I mentioned in my initial e-mail to the list after the conference, we wanted you to guide the discussion that asked, “Why is it difficult to get people to run for executive office of NASIG?” I hope you will find time to read the notes from the board’s post-conference wrap up meeting, http://nasignews.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/223-200709-22nd-conference-2007-post-conference-board-wrap-up-meeting/, and the July conference call, http://nasignews.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/223-200709-executive-board-minutes-2/, in this issue of the Newsletter. The board IS paying attention! I think you will see evidence that we are responsive to your questions and have identified a number of items that we can address in the short term.
The entire board supports seeking ways to simplify and create transparency in the organization’s processes. One of our goals this year is to implement enhanced technology options, including a robust membership database that will ease our conference website set-up and registration processes and facilitate online voting. This has the potential to open up the elections process in the future in ways we cannot do in our current paper-centric environment. I will add a plug here: do consider running for the board! It is a great education to see how the organization works, to get an in-depth understanding of budgeting, decision-making, and committee interaction, and to help formulate a vision for NASIG. So nominate yourself or someone you know! A form is available at http://www.nasig.org/members/forms/nomform.html. If you don’t make the ballot, use our petition process!
The brainstorming discussions and wrapping up the site selection survey kept me busy in June and July and I only mention this because members have asked about the time commitment required of officers. I’m not sure we can predict what issues may surface in any given year that demand our time and attention. I have been on the board (as guest, ex-officio, and as vice president) for five years and rarely recall the level of communication being quite so high immediately after our annual meeting. I have logged an average of about an hour a day on NASIG business since early June, though some days it’s been 2 hours and other days 10 minutes. I have had many weekends completely free! (Now I’d like to hear some committee chairs chime in here! I imagine many chairs put in similar hours. I know I worked at least that much as Newsletter editor, though the hours were much more concentrated at certain times of the year. I often put in 10-15 hours in the week prior to publication of the html and pdf versions. I loved what I was doing so I never saw it as a burden.)
The months ahead look busy, too. Beyond the day-to-day activities as president (consulting with the board and committee chairs on the “regular” business of NASIG), I fully expect to contribute some time and energy to implementing the technology RFP, revisiting the strategic plan, http://www.nasig.org/public/strategicplan03.pdf, and moving forward with financial planning. That last item allows us to look at opportunities for paid staff (mentioned during the brainstorming) while providing contingency funds. As noted by former president Steve Savage:
“The key to financial health is stability and predictability of income and expenses, not luck. We’ve been extremely lucky, so far, that our conferences have not been affected by a major health concern (such as SARS), suspension of airline service over a wide area (as happened on Sept. 11 and 12, 2001), a major natural or manmade disaster at a conference site, or any other unforeseen crisis.” [link: http://www.nasig.org/newsletters/newsletters.2004/04dec/04dec_presidents_corner.html.]
While some have called for us to tone down the organization’s activities, to keep costs down, to reduce reliance on volunteers in order to avoid burn-out, please take a second look at our objective for a NASIG on a more firm financial footing. I am a firm believer that this is critical for NASIG’s future. We would love to hear your solutions!
We are listening! Contact us through comments on the blog, to email via the NASIG list or to the board at board@nasig.org, or directly to me at csimser@ksu.edu.
Now the question remains…. did I leave you something to think about?
22:3 (2007:09) 22nd Conference (2007): Post-Conference Board Wrap-Up Meeting
September 6, 2007 at 11:07 am | In Conference, Executive Board | Leave a Comment22nd CONFERENCE
NOTES FROM THE BOARD WRAP-UP SESSION
June 3, 2007, 1:00 p.m., Louisville, KY
Joyce Tenney, NASIG Secretary
- Novak reported on a fundraising idea that had come up during the conference. A possible NASIG cookbook. The idea is being investigated and Novak will report back on this idea.
- Creech reported that ECC had asked if NASIG-L was still needed, as we have several other venues of communication. After discussion it was decided that NASIG-L is still valuable and needed. Creech will relay that to ECC.
- Overall conference feedback so far has been very favorable. Minor issues were discussed and liaisons for next year’s PPC and CPC will report back to those groups.
- Timing of brainstorming session was discussed and ideas for improving next year’s experience with this.
- Schatz reported that Bylaws Committee has looked at the bylaws amendment for the term of the treasurer and had some questions. After some discussion on the implications of the term of the treasurer and treasurer in training, it was decided to continue the discussion during the July board conference call.
- There was a great deal of discussion on the brainstorming session and how to keep the discussion continuing with NASIG members. It was noted that there was too much input from past presidents and board members; the discussion needs to take place within the membership. It was decided that NASIG-L might be the best forum for this discussion.
- Many ideas were discussed for improving the process of N&E and Novak will continue discussion with N&E next year.
- Schatz suggested getting a NASIG table at ALA to get more exposure for the organization. There was agreement to look at the idea. Schatz will get info on cost and report back to the board.
22:3 (2007:09) Executive Board Minutes
September 6, 2007 at 10:56 am | In Executive Board | Leave a CommentNASIG EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES
Joyce Tenney, NASIG Secretary
Date, Time: July 31, 2007, 11:00 a.m. EST
Place: Conference Call
Attending:
Char Simser, President
Jill Emery, Vice President/President-Elect
Denise Novak, Past President
Peter Whiting, Treasurer
Joyce Tenney, Secretary
Members-At-Large:
Rick Anderson
Anna Creech
Kim Maxwell
Alison Roth
Bob Schatz
Jeff Slagell
Ex-Officio Member:
Kathryn Wesley, NASIG Newsletter, Editor-in-Chief
1.0 Welcome (Simser)
Simser called the meeting to order at 11:07 a.m. EST.
2.0 Review of Action Items from May 2007 (Tenney)
There was discussion of the various action items. Maxwell noted that for the action item dealing with Membership Development Committee (MDC) investigating the viability of NASIG offering institutional, organizational and corporate memberships, she had relayed the request to MDC and that Slagell is the new board liaison for that group and will report on their activities. Maxwell and Slagell inquired about the timeline for the review of ALA categories of job functions to be recommended for the renewal form. After general discussion, it was agreed that the categories should be added as part of the revisions required by the implementation of the Technology RFP. MDC should have their recommendation approved and ready to go when the rest of the database is ready. Slagell will relay this information to MDC and get an update on their progress.
Novak reminded everyone that there need to be many reminders of the renewal process for the membership when the renewal process opens for the year.
Schatz reported that the Bylaws Committee has reviewed the information on the term of the treasurer and reported back to the board. It was decided that the board will discuss this at the October board meeting.
3.0 Committee Updates
3.1 Committee Manuals (from Nov. 2006 board) updates (Simser)
Simser reminded board members that it was agreed in November 2006 to have all committee manuals posted in the public space of the committees on NASIGWeb. She asked each board member to follow up with their committees on this issue.
ACTION ITEM: All committees should have their manuals posted to the public space for each committee on NASIGWeb by the January board meeting.
3.2 Membership Development (Slagell)
Slagell reported that MDC has a draft document on the issue of NASIG offering institutional, organizational and corporate memberships. The document will be sent to the board for review.
4.0 Technology RFP (Creech)
Creech reported that she had been in touch with several of the potential providers that had not submitted a bid to the RFP. Most could only do one part of the process, so we are basically back to information from the May board meeting.
There is one more provider that Creech should be able to speak with this week. It was agreed that the most crucial components are online voting, membership database and online conference registration. Creech will submit a report to the board in the next week or two with final information and recommendations. Discussion will occur on the board listserv. It was agreed that a decision was needed before the October board meeting.
ACTION ITEM: Creech will prepare and distribute to the board a final report with recommendations on the Technology RFP within the next two weeks.
5.0 Brainstorming discussion on NASIG-L- action items (Simser)
Simser supplied a summary of comments from NASIG-L brainstorming discussion. After general discussion, it was decided to break the list into items that could be done in a short timeframe and directly related to the nomination process and items that should be tabled until the October board meeting and strategic planning meeting. Action items noted from the discussion on items that could be done in a short timeframe are as follows:
ACTION ITEM: Simser will address plans for online voting when the Technology RFP is implemented and updates to comments made on NASIG-L about the nominations and elections process in her president’s column in the Newsletter.
ACTION ITEM: Novak will ask Nominations & Elections Committee to post on NASIGWeb the documents that the committee uses. (Nominee Profile Form, Nominee Phone Contact Form, Nominee Evaluation Form and a calendar with relevant dates.)
ACTION ITEM: Emery will contribute an article for the Newsletter on running for office as a petition candidate.
ACTION ITEM: Board liaisons should encourage committees to nominate members for executive office.
ACTION ITEM: Wesley will interview some past board members for the Newsletter to get estimates on the amount of time that is required for the various offices and the skill sets needed for each office.
ACTION ITEM: Wesley will contact some past board members and officers and ask if they would be willing to act as contacts for members considering running for office. Names of the contacts could be posted on the Nominations & Elections Committee website and on the Speaker Resources Web page, so those who have questions can ask someone who has done the job for information on time commitments, type of duties, etc.
ACTION ITEM: Anderson and Emery will speak to CPC and PPC about finding time in the conference schedule for an informal session of past board members and officers speaking with members interested in running for office.
ACTION ITEM: Conference badges should note if person is a past board member or past officer. Roth suggested a possible logo for these badges of “Ask me about being a NASIG Board member”.
Anderson suggested that the job specs of the officers and board members be revised to include the possibility that members may call them during or after their term to get information on the time commitments and duties required in that position. The board agreed that this would be a good idea.
Schatz noted that online voting would open up the voting process and possibly allow for primary and general elections. As the Technology RFP process moves forward more investigation could be done into this type of election process.
Other items suggested by the membership will be discussed at the October board meeting.
6.0 Strategic Planning- initial discussion (Simser)
Simser reported that she is finalizing plans with the facilitator/consultant for an October 12 strategic planning session for the board members. There was a general discussion on desired outcomes from the planning session and how to use or not use the current strategic plan in the process. It was agreed that the current strategic plan would be used as a springboard for discussions and we will look at various sections of the current plan and see where it has been successful, where more work needs to be done, or if the idea needs to restructured.
The board agreed to have a document that was more targeted to strategic directions instead of a long detailed document. It was noted that the process should yield an outcome that is worth the effort with specific short term goals, as well as a longer term vision for the organization.
Some ideas for discussion topics were discussing the focus of the organization, do we need a change in direction; rebranding the organization; and possibly mandate contingency planning.
Simser will relay ideas to the facilitator and report back on needed “homework” before the meeting.
7.0 CPC suggestion on special event sponsorship (Anderson)
CPC suggested using corporate sponsorship to fund an evening event for the conference. There was brief discussion and it was agreed to continue the discussion on the board listserv, as we were at the end of the meeting.
ACTION ITEM: Anderson will start discussion on board listserv on CPC using corporate sponsorship for an evening event at the annual conference.
Simser adjourned the meeting at 12:33 p.m.
Approved 8/23/07
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.