ECPN June Meeting Minutes Posted

The June minutes were approved today.

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

Monday, June 18, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Angela Curmi (Communications Coordinator)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Gwen Manthey (co-Professional Education and Training)

Avigail Charnov (Architectural Specialty Group Liaison)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

Ruth Seyler (AIC Staff Liaison)

Amanda Holden (Textile Specialty Group Secretary)

Robin O’Hern (Committee on Sustainable Conservation Practice)

Priscilla Anderson (Book and Paper Specialty Group Chair)

Kristen Adsit (Indianapolis Museum of Art)

LeeAnn Barnes Gordon (OSG Liaison)

Richard McCoy (International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art-North America)

Eric Pourchot (AIC Director of Institutional Advancement)

 

1. Roll call – each attendee announced her/his name and title

2. Officer update – welcome to new Communications Coordinator, Angela Curmi

3. Minutes Approval – April meeting minutes were approved

4. 1^st Forum Call/ Webinar with Debbie Hess Norris (Molly) – to be discussed later when Eric Pourchot joins the call

5. Annual Meeting Follow-up (Molly) – Molly had previously drafted survey questions, which everyone had reviewed. No additional suggestions were offered during the conference call. Molly will email the final list of questions to Ryan, and Ryan will assemble this into a survey monkey survey. There was also mention of including a link to this survey in the newsletter. Molly indicated that she would like to get the survey out by the end of the month.

6. 2012-2013 Ongoing Project Goals

• Mentoring Program (Eliza) – The program had made good progress in cleaning up old business and, going forward this year, Eliza would like to create a clear framework and advertise the program more. She found at the Annual Meeting that many people did not actually know about the program. Carrie mentioned that she had referred someone to the mentoring program information on the AIC website; however, there had been some confusion over the deadline. Carrie asked if there is a way to let people know that the program is still open, in case they received a message saying it is closed. Eliza agreed, and Molly suggested including it in the 1^st newsletter, also asking about other ways to advertise it. Ryan suggested including it in an e-blast and posting it on facebook.
• Student Research Platform (Carrie) – They are currently in the process of revising their proposal into a more simplified version, which can be found on basecamp. The goal is to have it ready for presentation to the board by August. Carrie said, however, that some points may not be complete by then.
• Regional Liaisons (Anisha) – The regional liaisons held a conference call a couple of weeks ago and found that there was a lot of interest in the program. Anisha said that they now have liaisons in most of the big cities and some smaller cities. Events (including lab tours, museum lectures, dinners and happy hours) were going well and attendance was high. The liaisons also have good ideas for other events. The main concern among the liaisons is communication, getting the word out outside of facebook, which only reaches a narrow audience. Anisha asked if there are other avenues they can be using. Another concern is finding venues for events. Museums and other institutions have been suggested, but these depend on the location where the liaisons are based. Anisha and Megan will be writing a blog post soon. And they intend to collaborate with the Emerging Museum Professionals Network, which is an extensive group. Molly asked about soliciting blog posts from the regional liaisons, and Anisha said they would invite specific individuals to write blog posts.
• Liaisons with other AIC Committees – goals for continuing collaboration
• o Publications Committee (Angela) – Angela talked about her conversation with Nancie Ravenel on current topics being discussed in the publications committee, including discussions on postprints and online publishing. Nancie had expressed an interest in the perspectives of students and recent graduates as the committee considers advances in publications technology and had suggested the possibility of a poll to see where students are accessing literature online and whether they are using any reference management software. Angela will follow up with Nancie regarding the poll. Nancie also mentioned getting students involved in publication reviews and will let Angela know if her committee decides to pursue this. Molly suggested that there may be some overlap here with the student research group.
• o Conservators in Private Practice (Gwen) – Gwen sent out a letter to George Schwartz and he was not very receptive to her mentor request, though she had tried to emphasize that mentors do not necessarily have to dedicate a lot of time to the program. George gave good resources for better business practices for recent grads, and promoted the discounted ($5) membership. Gwen also discussed with George the possibility of creating ECPN-CIPP liaisons and is waiting to hear back from him. She asked if she should draft a letter to ECPN about the resources George gave and the member discount. Molly agreed that she should and this should be sent out in an e-blast. Gwen asked if she should approach individuals she knows personally who could potentially serve as ECPN-CIPP liaisons and Molly agreed that she should. George’s only stipulation was that they be members of CIPP. In response to the discussion on requests for mentors, Avigail brought up that there had been some confusion in the Architectural Specialty Group over the requirements for mentorship. Some ASG members did not apply because of confusion over who can be a mentor and Avigail asked if this could be explained more clearly. Eliza appreciated this feedback, as she had thought it was explained clearly on the AIC website, but was just not advertised enough. Avigail responded that many had not learned about the program from the website but through word-of-mouth and had felt that they did not qualify to be mentors.
• o Architectural Specialty Group (Avigail) – The ASG had been grateful that ECPN presented to them and students from the architectural conservation programs had expressed an interest in getting more involved. Avigail indicated that she would like to offer ways for them to get involved as soon as possible to maintain their interest before they graduate. Molly asked about sending out an email on creating student liaisons from each program. Carrie felt it would be a good idea to encourage collaborations with these programs and their directors and to engender relationships early on. Amanda enthusiastically agreed. Molly suggested charging student liaisons with specific tasks, such as distributing the newsletter and other promotional materials among their programs. She also felt this discussion should be continued on basecamp. Avigail responded that students had already approached her asking if they could be liaisons, and Molly stated that Debbie Hess Norris had been encouraging student participation as well. Molly asked if an email should be drafted on how to reach out to students, and Eliza responded that Megan might have some ideas, as she is currently enrolled. Molly explained that some direction would need to be provided on how we want students to get involved, and she asked when students should be approached. Carrie suggested coordinating with the programs’ start-up in the fall, and Molly agreed that this would be organized towards the end of the summer.