ECPN July Meeting Minutes

The July minutes have been approved.


Monday, July 16, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Gwen Manthey (co-Professional Education and Training)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

LeeAnn Barnes Gordon (OSG Liaison)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Angela Curmi (Communications Coordinator)

Megan Salazar-Walsh (co-Outreach Coordinator)

1. Roll call – Eliza took roll

2. Minutes Approval – June meeting minutes were approved

3. Update from Regional Liaisons

  • Gwen has been in touch with Emily Gardner Phillips about being a CIPP liaison and she is interested. She will connect George and Emily Gardner Phillips.
  • LeeAnn commented that nothing has happened with the wiki this month and she has not been able to get in touch with Rachael.
  • Anisha has solicited blog posts from the regional liaisons, has given August 3rd as a deadline for their posts, and will put these on basecamp for review. She asked how often these should be posted, whether they should be a weekly series. Eliza and Carrie agreed that one post a week was best.
  • Anisha also started a writeboard about post-grad career paths and has asked that everyone review this, offer suggestions and recommend people.

4. July 26th webinar

  • Eliza discussed the July 10th practice run, which was a good opportunity to get acquainted with the technology and figure out how the conversation will go. One question that came up was how to make the webinar as interactive as possible. Debbie will have a powerpoint presentation, but we should also insert more interactive aspects – possibly including the polling function (once or twice in the webinar) – and integrate questions throughout. Only certain people will be able to speak; the audience will be muted. But there is a chat box – can audience members share questions that way?
  • Carrie pointed out that there is a “raise your hand” function and asked if we want the questions to be given beforehand or during the webinar. Eliza said we should have some questions prepared before and some throughout. Carrie responded that she had trouble getting her questions to be visible. Eliza announced that we will have a second practice session on Tuesday, July 24th at noon and encouraged everyone to join for audience practice. Ryan confirmed that he can attend this session. Eliza said that we should let her or Molly know in advance if we can participate so that they can send a link to join the session.
  • She asked for opinions on the polling question and Gwen thought it was a good idea, as it’s a way to interact anonymously. Angela asked if the poll questions/results would inform Debbie’s presentation and Eliza responded that we will have to test the poll to see how quickly results can be compiled. We will also need to decide what kind of questions we would want to ask, preferably nothing too involved.
  • Molly and Eliza need everyone’s help with the questions for Debbie and have to send these by July 23rd to Eric. Thus far, there are only two questions on the blog. Some think that more people would pose questions if they could remain anonymous. Angela asked if we could make an announcement giving people the option to email Eliza or someone else from ECPN directly with their questions and she can post it on the blog. Eliza will look into this.
  • Eliza asked if everyone reviewed the schedule for that week and everyone agreed on it. The document is on basecamp. She asked Ryan if there is a cut-off time for when people can get the invite to join the call. Ryan thinks it’s the day of. Eliza will ask Eric when he gets back and Ryan will see if he can find the answer on the website. Eliza encouraged everyone to get the word out on the webinar as much as possible. We will start getting more updates soon on how many have signed up for the webinar.

5. Discussion about approaching specialty groups about considering student representation on their boards

  • Carrie has been in touch with BPG and is awaiting a formal response. Gwen is working on CIPP. Gwen and Carrie have offered to approach each group with a letter about student representation. Eliza asked if these would be student members or emerging conservators. Carrie said probably students. Stephanie is more interested in student members on committees, since emerging conservators are already leaders in SGs and this would just prolong their time in what is a student position, not a professional position. This should be more of a training position than a junior position. Stephanie said this is also a good way to keep communication flowing with grad programs.
  • Eliza asked if there is a schedule planned for reaching out to the other groups. Carrie said they will use the BPG letter as a template and she and Gwen will split up and send it to the groups at the same time. She asked if there is a deadline for sending the letter out. Stephanie pointed out that transitions in officer positions are usually at the annual meeting and that groups will have to change their bylaws if formal positions are created, so we should not give the groups deadlines for creating these positions. Gwen and Carrie suggested sending the letters in September when the school year starts and acknowledging the efforts of groups that already have student representation. They will follow up with BPG.

6. Discussion about approaching specialty groups supporting emerging conservators at the AIC annual meeting

  • Gwen said that the paintings group has had sponsorships for the past several years for the reception, but asked if we are referring to sponsoring for the entire meeting. Eliza responded that it’s just for specific events. LeeAnn said that the objects group had considered using surplus funding for this, but it was never a priority. Eliza questioned whether it is important and how to pursue it. Gwen said she is happy to discuss this with Laura Rivers. Eliza thought it was a good idea to gather info.
  • Stephanie commented that when she was a student, people were given the option of sponsoring a student at dinners. Instead of asking SGs for funding, members could be given the option when they register for the annual meeting to sponsor a student. This is also a good networking opportunity. Eliza agreed this was a nice approach. Gwen said that Laura made sure the students were aware of who their sponsors were so that they could thank them. Eliza asked if we would need to propose this to the board and Stephanie responded that we shouldn’t have to; it is up to the SGs. Ryan agreed that this does not need board approval and liked the idea of calling these “donations.” With the paintings group, tracking registrations in the database became complicated. It would be good to know beforehand so that he can create something in the registration.
  • LeeAnn suggested the ECPN liaisons contact SGs and encourage them to create a donation fund. Gwen said we can draft something as a group and distribute it to the liaisons. Ryan commented that asking them for a reduced rate for students is different from asking them for donations (the former creates budget issues). Carrie responded that sponsoring someone also sounds more personal.
  • LeeAnn questioned how to decide who goes if there aren’t enough donations. Eliza suggested we first gauge how the SGs feel about it. LeeAnn is willing to contact the objects group. Addressing LeeAnn’s question, Eliza suggested a first-come first-serve basis or a random selection. It was also suggested that priority be given to students presenting papers or who are committee members. In response to a question about emerging professionals, Ryan explained that there is no assignment for “emerging conservators” in the database, so we should stick to “students” and “post-grad year”. Eliza concluded that we should continue thinking about this.

7. Student research resource

  • Carrie is in the process of submitting a revised proposal for their project based on feedback from the grad programs. They will submit this to the board for the August meeting. She also had a discussion about CoOL with Eryl Wentworth. And during the last call the group had a discussion on funding. In addition to CoOL, other platforms are being considered, including AATA on the Getty server (Amber Kerr-Allison had previously discussed this with the Getty) – but should student work be hosted on a platform with peer-reviewed works? Support for this student resource is strong, but the question is where to put it. Carrie, Gwen, and Rebecca are contacting AATA and in August will start approaching SGs for ideas about putting their work online. Eliza commented that Eryl said to gather as many possibilities as we can. Carrie said they may not have everything prepared for August but are working on it.

8. PR Toolkit

  • Molly asked Eliza to report that she had submitted the blog post. Angela is getting in touch with the SG chairs this week. Molly will also be submitting questions to the board.

9. Mentoring Program

  • Eliza explained that the next match cycle has started and that they went back through old applicants as well. They have 34 mentee applications and 18 mentor applications and are working to make those matches. They will have a call this week or next to create the matches.
  • Eliza is also thinking of putting out a call for mentors on the SG listserv, and if there are still unmatched mentees, contacting colleagues directly. The description of the program on the website and the application process are also being updated.

10. Eliza and Molly will be in touch soon about the webinar.

Next call: Monday, August 20, 2012 at 1pm EST

Respectfully submitted,

Angela Curmi