ECPN December Meeting Minutes


Monday 17 December 2012  

Molly Gleeson (Chair)
Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)
Angela Curmi (Communications)
Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach)
Genevieve Bieniosek (Student Liaison, ETC)
Megan Salazar-Walsh (co-Outreach Coordinator)
Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)
Gwen Manthey (co-Professional Education and Training)
Mina Thompson (OSG Chair)
Emily Williams (ETC Chair)
Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)
 1. November Meeting Minutes Approved
 2. Portfolio Seminar – updates and planning

  • Gwen and Carrie have invited the speakers and heard back from all but 2. They have commitments from a few and others have expressed interest. They will follow-up with those they have not yet heard back from. The schedule has been planned.
  • An email has also been sent out to the grad program liaisons and an invitation posted on the blog and facebook for portfolio presenters. So far, 1 student from Winterthur, 1 from Buffalo, and 1 from Northumbria have responded. Gwen and Carrie will re-visit this after the new year and maybe try a more grassroots approach. It will also depend on students’ academic schedules.
  • Molly asked if, for the more formal presentations, we have speakers for all topics. Carrie said that Suzanne Davis is interested in the “beyond the portfolio” topic. Gwen will be speaking about building the portfolio. Cher Schneider will be speaking about digital portfolios. They will now focus on finding someone for the networking/ interviews topic.
  • Molly asked Gwen if she had reached out to Richard McCoy, and Gwen said that he was interested but couldn’t commit at this time. She is now thinking of Kathleen Kiefer.Gwen thinks Kathleen would be good for this topic, but is less familiar with her work in outreach. While the topic should be defined, Gwen is also trying to keep the invitation a bit loose so the speakers can bring their own ideas to it. Speakers should be finalized by mid- to late January.

           Blog post on portfolios

  • Emily Williams asked if ECPN would be willing to recruit an employer and an educator to write a blog post on portfolios (the idea came up because they are re-doing the ETC education webpages). Molly suggested we ask 2 or more of the people involved in this session to write the post. Emily recommended Suzanne Davis. Carrie and Gwen will talk to her about this. And as soon as the speakers are finalized, they will ask about the blog post; however, we don’t have any educators among the speakers. Molly said we moved away from this because we didn’t want to invite someone from just one program. Gwen suggested that perhaps in the blogpost, it can be phrased as the viewpoint of an educator from a particular program. Emily recommended that rather than have just 1 educator for the blogpost, we approach all the programs (because there do seem to be differences) – Suzanne might be willing to help with this – and talk to several employers so that it’s not just 1 person’s opinion but a synthesis. Anisha suggested we create a survey to send out to the programs and streamline the information, then write a blogpost based on the results. Everyone agreed this was a good idea.
  • Molly will schedule a call in January to discuss the portfolio session and poster.

3. Webinar Q&A plans, feedback

  • Thank you to Eliza, Anisha, Ryan, and everyone who helped make the webinar possible. It was a huge success.
  • A follow-up Q&A is planned (using google hangout) for tomorrow morning at 11. There are 15 questions. Anisha will moderate the Q&A and Eliza will also be on the call. Each speaker has arbitrarily been given 5 questions. They will try to get through the questions as fast as possible (approx. 4 minutes each). The google hangout will be recorded and uploaded to youtube. Anisha said that the only issue is that it will be uploaded to her account if she records it. Molly asked if Ryan wanted the Q&A to be uploaded to AIC’s account. Ryan will discuss with Anisha later today.
  • Eliza asked Ryan if he was able to locate the recording of the program. Ryan responded that he had not, but he had emailed Eric about it and will ask him again today. It looked like it was saved on someone’s desktop or hard-drive, not within the account itself.
  • Eliza asked everyone about the audio quality. Carrie said it was great, but there was a bit of a lag between video and audio, though it didn’t disturb her at all. Not everyone saw the lag. Angela said it would be nice to go back and forth between powerpoint and live video. Eliza said we can try this in future and are gradually adding more technology to our toolkit.

4. Next webinar – topic, dates

  • Molly asked if we could have one more webinar before the annual meeting, sometime in the next 2-3 months. She will start a basecamp discussion on possible topics. Anisha thinks it is feasible. Though it was a lot of work, she never felt overwhelmed because the work was divided, and it resulted in a great discussion. Ryan agreed that it is more than worth the work and is great programming. Although it’s simpler with 1 speaker, the interaction between multiple speakers makes it worthwhile. Everyone agreed having 3 speakers was great, as opinions were varied, the speakers were able to feed off of each other, and the pressure is off each individual, which makes it less daunting to commit to.
  • Regarding topics, there is a lot of discussion lately on paid vs. unpaid internships (Rose Cull suggested this when she was chair). Molly asked how we can tackle this for a webinar in a constructive way. Everyone agreed this is a good idea and that it would be great to turn this into a constructive conversation. Molly will start a basecamp discussion – we will think about how to tackle this topic, what format it will take, and what kind of involvement everyone would like to have.

5. Mentoring program – updates, next steps

  • Over the past month Eliza has been able to make matches here and there and follow-up with people (for the 3-month follow-up on how mentorships are going). The latest group of mentee/mentor candidates included 9 mentee applications and 11 mentor applications (there are more mentors than mentees for the first time.) She would like to work on making those matches. Broader changes to the program have also been discussed and we can continue talking about this. Gwen and Carrie were not on the last call but can find the discussion in the minutes. Eliza asked Gwen how she felt about leading the match process with her assistance. Gwen feels comfortable taking it on with Eliza’s guidance. Carrie will take on the responsibility of the second officer (for the general resource).
  • Ryan explained that the new database/ website has a member-matching tool, so you can set up criteria for people to fill out and the system will automatically match them based on the criteria. So a lot of the arcane matching process using spreadsheets won’t be necessary anymore – it can be handled automatically through the website. This will launch when the new website is launched.
  • Eliza will follow-up with Gwen and Carrie about the changes to the program.

6. Wiki edit-a-thon in January and at annual meeting; Grad program liaisons – tie-in with Wiki event in January

  • The Wiki edit-a-thon is in January. They’re also organizing a live edit-a-thon at the annual meeting and we should try to get emerging conservators involved. Molly will be speaking to Rachael and Emily Williams about the PR Toolkit later today. We may want to work on the toolkit during the January edit-a-thon. Molly also asked for ideas for the live session and getting emerging conservators’ input for the wiki. One idea Rachael has is to contact grad programs (through the liaisons) and find out what they think they can contribute and if professors are willing to let them put coursework on the wiki.
  • Megan agreed it would be good to get students involved. Students will be on break in January, so they will have more time to contribute. But faculty members might be hesitant to put course material on there.
  • Molly suggested sending out a few questions to the liaisons – have they contributed to the wiki? What do they think they can contribute? Would their programs be interested?
  • Molly will get a list of topics from Rachael that she’s hoping to have fleshed out so that we don’t leave it too open – some are topics students may be working on in their courses. We should also be proactive in pairing up emerging conservators with more experienced conservators through the wiki (like a mentorship). Megan and Molly will work together on a letter to send the grad liaisons and will reach out to them in January.

7. Student representation
Letters have been sent to most SG chairs about student representation and supporting students at the annual meeting. Mina responded and is interested. Molly will reach out to the rest of the chairs within the week.
8. Next conference call:
2nd or 4th Monday in February, with a few project-specific calls in January (one about the annual meeting). Molly will follow-up.

ECPN November Meeting Minutes

ECPN Meeting Minutes

Monday, November 5, 2012


Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Angela Curmi (Communications)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach)

Avigail Charnov (Architectural Specialty Group Liaison)

Ruth Seyler (AIC Staff Liaison)

Rebecca Rushfield (ETC)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

Saira Haqqi (Graduate School Liaison – NYU)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Rachael Perkins-Arenstein (AIC e-Editor)



1. September Meeting Minutes Approved


2. Portfolio Session Planning – Molly will have Gwen send an email update. She is currently contacting potential speakers.


3. ECPN Annual Meeting Poster-Survey Plans

  • Angela is working on the survey revisions and will try to have these done by the end of the week. Ruth would also like to look over the survey. If it is going to all AIC members, she may want to ask additional questions, or create a series of surveys out of this. However, she cannot have this done by December 1st. She will talk to Eryl first. Ruth is also concerned about sending out too many surveys to people.
  • Molly asked how much time is needed to work on the poster, and Anisha responded that it would be best to have about 3 months with the data to work on the poster, using the last month for formatting and editing. This means data should be collected at the beginning of February. Angela and Anisha will make the revisions by the end of the week and send to Ruth. Ruth will then decide whether it should be 1 or 2 surveys.
  • Rachael agreed with Ruth that other questions could be incorporated since this is going to all AIC membership. They will be in touch.


4. Mentoring Program Restructuring

  • Eliza has been trying to streamline the program – one idea is to spread the work out among a few committee members: the vice-chair will oversee the program, one co-professional education and training officer will be in charge of pre-program mentoring, another in charge of post-graduate mentoring. A lot of pre-program mentees have similar interests and needs, so Eliza suggested we put together a series of documents in an accessible place (perhaps facebook?) where they can also share questions and have a dialogue. That way there will be a smaller pool of mentees. The document on basecamp outlines this plan and gives a timeline for implementation.
  • Molly suggested building the pre-program info on the wiki. Rachael responded that this would be an easy place to develop the documents and it can be constantly updated, but facebook would be a good place for dialogue once the documents have been developed. Anisha commented that this discussion should also be on the blog for those who don’t have facebook.
  • Stephanie asked about the timeline and whether we would no longer be accepting pre-program applicants starting in December. Eliza responded that phase 1 of the plan would be establishing the infrastructure (with the new roles to govern the program) and then by March the new structure would be in place. Ruth expressed concern about no longer accepting pre-program applications, and Eliza asked whether pre-program mentees should then remain part of the match process.
  • Stephanie commented that we should not say that the program is shutting down in December but that applications will not be accepted again until March. This will give us enough time to catch up and for the new vice chair and team to become familiar with the program. She said pre-program mentees usually require less work from mentors and shouldn’t be excluded.
  • Eliza proposed that we make the resources available, and then if this is not enough they can still apply to be pre-program mentees. She also explained that there is not a large volume of applicants that comes in. If an effort is made to keep up with each match cycle, then it’s manageable. Ruth commented that we should also make clear what this program can and can’t do, refine the description. Also, make the pre-program mentorship more scripted than the post-grad. Eliza will talk to past mentees and get their feedback on this. Stephanie asked about resources to help mentors as well. Eliza responded that she does share a list of helpful tips for mentors.
  • Molly suggested tying in the work on the wiki as good pre-program experience – people can be paired up. Rachael commented that pre-program and grad students often want to help but don’t know enough information, so they should be paired up with established conservators who know the content but don’t know how to use the wiki. Certain people might also get more out of certain topics – this should also be considered. The wiki can be a good vehicle for providing virtual one-on-one mentoring around content. This can be suggested as something mentors and mentees can do together.
  • Eliza is going to re-work the mentoring program description. She will outline the resources available, especially for pre-program, but the mentoring program will still be available to everyone. She will write a follow-up email on this.
  • Stephanie asked how long the relationships will last and Eliza responded that each is individual and we leave it up to them to decide when they have gotten what they need out of it. Contact with the program itself is not necessary. Eliza had sent out a survey and found that many mentors were ready to come back to the program and be matched again. In correspondence with mentors, she tells them to let us know when they have reached that point. She will write up more specific instructions.


5. New Grad Student Liaisons – Communications, Encouraging Work on the Wiki

  • Graduate student liaisons have been established with Buffalo, Columbia, NYU, UCLA, Queens, Winterthur (one or two liaisons each). They are always welcome to join our calls. Since we have a lot of project-based calls, we are now having conference calls every 2 months. This will need to be updated on the flyer and AIC website. We can also use facebook to let everyone know when calls are scheduled.
  • Molly said we will be communicating with the graduate student liaisons about the wiki – incorporating student papers or coming up with topics. This is something to think about in the near future. Rachael said students at Winterthur are using their assignments on instrumental analysis for wiki articles and the RATS group is interested in seeing this. Molly and Rachael will draft something. The list of liaisons will also be up on the website soon.


6. Updates from Liaisons

  • Avigail will work on getting liaisons from the Penn program as well.
  • Anisha had an update from Robin O’Hern – the committee on sustainable conservation practice is looking for someone for a student position. She will post this information.
  • Molly mentioned that there is a letter (re: organizing SG support at the annual meeting) on basecamp drafted by her and LeeAnn which she will share with the liaisons.


7. Student Research Resource Update

  • Carrie has arranged a call with Eryl next Tuesday.
  • Angela has been in touch with the SGs and will summarize their feedback in a document and share with the group before the call.


8. Webinar

  • Eliza asked Ryan if it would be possible to use the webinar program from 12-1 for the google hangout practice. Ryan has this scheduled. Eliza will send the list of people who will be participating.
  • Angela will post the webinar announcement tonight on the blog.


9. Next call: Monday, December 17th, 2012 at 1pm EST


ECPN Webinar: “Considering your future career path: working in private practice”

On November 30, 2012, the Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) held its second webinar – “Considering your future career path: working in private practice.” 80  registered participants called in to learn valuable insight into the world of private practice from Paul Messier, President and Head Conservator of Paul Messier LLC, Conservation of Photographs & Works on Paper (; Rosa Lowinger, Principal and Chief Conservator of Rosa Lowinger & Associates (http://, which specializes in the conservation of objects, sculpture, and architecture; and Julia Brennan, Owner and Chief Conservator of Textile Conservation Services (

The program began with a brief introduction from each speaker on their practice. Messier, who studied at the Buffalo State College Art Conservation Program, established his Boston-based practice 18 years ago and employs three full-time workers and two part-time interns. Lowinger, who is a graduate of New York University’s Conservation Program, has been in private practice since 1986. She employs three graduate-trained conservators and three full-time technicians in a practice with offices in Miami and Los Angeles. Brennan, who completed her training through apprenticeships, has been in private practice for 20 years and has a small, home-based practice, which employs one to three people depending on the project, as well as an apprentice and interns. Each speaker explained why they decided to establish their own practice – generally for personal reasons and a desire for greater independence – and how their businesses have grown and evolved over the years.

The speakers also discussed their work beyond treatment projects and how they balance various initiatives, emphasizing the importance of playing an active role in the field and not becoming isolated. Messier is focused on research, particularly on 20th-century photography, and has amassed an incomparable reference collection over the years, an aspect of his work which private practice has given him the freedom to take on. He is committed to educating the next generations of conservators through internships, and he is involved in a project at the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, where a photograph conservation department is being set up. Messier is also dedicated to working with AIC as a volunteer and has served as chair on various committees. Lowinger’s greatest interest is in working with artists and contributing to the discussion on conservation of modern and contemporary art and architecture. She also is involved in outreach initiatives throughout Latin America and the Caribbean and is particularly devoted to outreach in her home country of Cuba. Finally, she is an active writer on conservation for various publications and blogs and feels strongly that there is a need for conservators to tell our own story, rather than have it told by reporters. Brennan is involved in several local groups, as well as groups of related fields, such as conservation care and preventive conservation. A major part of her work is her outreach to Thailand and Laos and other countries throughout Southeast Asia and Africa, where she leads training workshops on preventive conservation and textile conservation, and has established a regional forum for the care of textiles. She, too, dedicates time to writing articles, being available to others as a mentor, and to getting involved in the broader family of cultural heritage.

The final discussion question asked for one piece of advice from each speaker for those considering going into private practice. Messier spoke on self-confidence, patience, and the importance of networking and building long-term relationships. Lowinger emphasized the importance of collaborating with and learning from others in private practice, even if from afar. Brennan advised taking a course in project management and learning to balance large with small projects, being passionate about your work, and investing time in your clients.

The next part of the webinar consisted of an audience Q&A and again the speakers shared great practical information and advice. Responding to a question on whether they ever worry about having too much competition in the private practice world due to the scarcity of jobs in institutions, all three speakers agreed that, while competition is always a concern in life in general, what is important is trusting your own experience and knowledge, as well as acknowledging your limitations and being willing to work with others. Other questions centered on establishing a client base at the start of your practice, as well as justifying the price of your work to your clients when you are new to the field. Each speaker emphasized that communication with clients is critical to establishing a loyal client base. Never delay in answering messages and always be calm and professional. Brennan suggested doing pro bono and outreach work – more work will come back to you as a result, she explained.

All three speakers also stressed that even emerging conservators must be scrupulous about what they charge and should try not to undercut to gain work. Not only does this have a negative impact on your own practice, but it also undermines the value of our profession. Rather than charging less than their worth, emerging conservators should limit their scope and recognize their capabilities in the beginning of their practice, and must be willing to work with others.

Responses to unanswered questions will be available soon. ECPN will keep you informed on where this can be accessed once it has been posted.

ECPN would also like to emphasize that Conservators in Private Practice (CIPP) is a specialty group of AIC that exists to provide its members a forum to exchange information, suggestions, and tips on running private practice conservation businesses. CIPP has a discounted $5 student rate. You can find more information about CIPP and how to join it, along with useful resources and links, by following this link:

For more information on ECPN’s webinar series, please visit

Reminder: ECPN Webinar Friday – “Considering your future career path: working in private practice”

The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) is looking forward to our second webinar  “Considering your future career path: working in private practice”  which will take place Friday, November 30, 2012, from 1-2pm EST.

The program will feature Paul Messier, President and Head Conservator of Paul Messier LLC, Conservation of Photographs & Works on Paper; Rosa Lowinger, Principal and Chief Conservator of Rosa Lowinger & Associates, which specializes in the conservation of objects, sculpture, and architecture; and Julia Brennan, Owner and Chief Conservator of Textile Conservation Services.

The webinar will include a moderated discussion and Q&A session, where we will learn about our speakers’ experiences establishing their businesses and their evolution, how they have learned to balance various initiatives and projects, and their advice for those considering going into private practice.

Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions before and after the webinar here on the AIC blog. Please submit your questions as comments to this post, or email them to Anisha Gupta at anishagupta72[at]gmail[dot]com. Questions will be accepted until the morning of the forum. During the webinar, your questions will be posed anonymously. All answered questions will be followed up on after the program in an AIC blog post.

Attendance is free and open to all AIC members. Registration is required and will be open until the forum starts. To register for the webinar, please visit


ECPN September Meeting Minutes

ECPN conference call

Monday, September 17, 2012


Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Ruth Seyler (AIC Staff Liaison)

Ryan Winfield (AIC Staff Liaison)

Lee Ann Barnes Gordon (OSG Liaison)

Emily Williams (ETC Chair)


1. Mentoring program discussion:

Eliza explained that after the matches were made following the June deadline, she has been reaching out to the matches to get a sense of how the process works. She said that the process is long and she has written up this process, which she has shared with the committee via email.  She would like to discuss the application processing time and the sustainability of the program, with the understanding that it is unavoidable that some of this work will be time-consuming. How can we make this program more efficient? For her as a leader it has been challenging to manage and see all of the matches through. Eliza said that the recent implementation of a dropbox folder for sharing the mentoring program applications has worked well.

As far as changes, Eliza raised the possibility of putting the program on hold for awhile to work on necessary changes. Ruth said that whenever something is put on hold it takes more energy to get it going again so if there are any matches that can be made, we should go ahead and make them. The match is important but it ultimately ends up being what both parties put into it. She suggested that we do the best we can to put time into the matches but we can’t promise a perfect match.

To address putting the program on hold for awhile, Stephanie suggested that we could establish a series of submission deadlines-so instead of saying that the program is on hold, we can say that we’ll be making the next round of matches on XX date, and that we’re not accepting applications at this point. Emily asked when the next regular deadline is, and Eliza replied that we just took in the September applicants and the next deadline is in December.

Eliza raised the possibility of another change that could be implemented, which is that we could bring on someone to head up the mentoring program. Ryan’s preference is to work with someone on the committee already and he also suggested that bringing someone new on board while the program is being revamped may also be a challenge. Stephanie reminded everyone that Eliza will be coming on as Chair at next annual meeting so she will need to turn these responsibilities over to someone at that point. Ryan said that one of the Professional Education and Training officers would make sense and Stephanie agreed and suggested that one of these officers could be in charge of education at the annual meeting and the other in charge of the mentoring program. Eliza said that this person could start off handling the match cycle. When Carrie steps down we could advertise that the person filling her role take on this role, or we could ask Gwen if she is interested in taking on this responsibility since she has been involved for awhile. Stephanie reminded everyone that we had a member-at-large position, which was Gwen, who was helping out with the mentoring program in this role. Ryan suggested that we consider inviting a former mentee to be a member-at-large on the committee and then take on this role.

Eliza brought up another suggestion, which is to divide the program into pre-program and post-graduate. For the pre-program mentees we could consider offering a series of resources-a reading list, suggestions for how to get more experience, etc. In Eliza’s experience many of the pre-program applicants are interested in the same things, so these customized documents could address the needs of the pre-program applicants so that the program could focus on the graduates and post-grads. Facebook could be a natural place for this information. Emerging Freelance Conservators have a similar set-up with docs and resources and their wall functions as a place for people to ask questions.

Ryan asked if it would make sense for 1 of the Professional Education and Training officers to be pre-program focused and 1 to be graduate/post-grad focused. Emily asked if ETC could take on a larger role with the post-grads. She isn’t sure if it would split the program too much-but having ETC work on this does fit into some of the professional development training that they already have an interest in. Eliza said that she sees the natural divisions being: someone being in charge of preprogram, someone in charge of making matches, and someone leading the program and in charge of making broad changes (and this could be divided into 3 or 4 positions). Stephanie said that we could look at the existing ECPN committee and see who might be able to take on different tasks-for instance, our Communications Officer could be in charge of promoting the program, one of our Professional Education and Training Officers could oversee the match process, and then possibly the Vice Chair could broadly oversee the program. Eliza said that she will write up descriptions for 3-4 roles, and then we can share with everyone on the committee and see what might make sense.


2. Next webinar: Next webinar in late fall. Tentative dates: Nov. 12-14 or Nov. 26-30. Topic is private practice and the idea would be to invite three private conservators from different specialties–Paul Messier, Rosa Lowinger, and Julia Brennan are the first group to ask. Possible format of webinar: Each speaker could speak for 10 minutes, followed by 30 minutes of Q&A. Ruth encouraged checking with Paul and Rosa early especially since they travel a lot. It would be nice to collaborate with CIPP in some way on this…Julia is a CIPP member. Eliza and Molly will draft an invitation to share with everyone this week. Roles for the webinar will be discussed over email since so many are missing on this call. Ruth and Ryan will check with Eric about these potential dates.


3. Student research database: Molly will ask Carrie if she can update everyone on the conversation via email.


4. PR Toolkit: Molly will be speaking to Rachael this week about restructuring the toolkit wiki so it can be navigated more easily. Recently, Stephanie recommended working towards creating mini toolkits, building towards a larger toolkit. Molly will work with the group to outline the structure for these mini toolkits with input from Ruth.


5. Letter to grad. directors: Megan began drafting a letter. Perhaps this could be sent out by the end of Sept.? Should we also encourage the PA application in this same letter? Molly will follow up with Megan about this.


6. Update from liaisons: Lee Ann communicated that she’s been thinking about how she can do more in her liaison role. Perhaps she could write a brief summary of ECPN’s calls to share with the OSG listserv, including information like check out ECPN’s meeting minutes and tease out highlights from the call. All agreed this would be great and she can feel free to do this independently, reaching out to ECPN with draft messages when there are questions. In July, ECPN talked about how the specialty groups could support emerging conservators at the annual meeting. Has there been further discussion about this? Not really, we need to follow up on this again.


7. Change in monthly call schedule: Discuss over email.


8. Annual meeting:

a. Informational meeting: Ruth will email Molly some suggested times. It’s difficult to find a time that doesn’t overlap with something else.

b. Angels project: Ruth is close to pinning down the Angels project, which will give us more time to promote it and solicit funds for supplies. She’s been working with the Franklin Historical Society–has 5,000 textiles, a large space, approximately 40 people would be ideal for the project, they are willing to accommodate a project on Sunday, the 2nd, so this doesn’t interfere with annual meeting activities.

c. Happy hour: Conference hotel has a sports bar with a private room–could be convenient for the happy hour, reasonable prices, has a nice look and feel, people could drop in easily. Would be good to include this info. in the annual meeting brochure, so by Oct. 1st.


ECPN Webinar on November 30: “Considering your future career path: working in private practice”

The Emerging Conservation Professionals Network (ECPN) is pleased to announce that our second webinar “Considering your future career path: working in private practice” will take place on Friday, November 30, 2012, from 1-2pm EST.

The program will feature Paul Messier, President and Head Conservator of Paul Messier LLC, Conservation of Photographs & Works on Paper; Rosa Lowinger, Principal and Chief Conservator of Rosa Lowinger & Associates, which specializes in the conservation of objects, sculpture, and architecture; and Julia Brennan, Owner and Chief Conservator of Textile Conservation Services.

The webinar will include a moderated discussion and Q&A session, where we will learn about our speakers’ experiences establishing their businesses and their evolution, how they have learned to balance various initiatives and projects, and their advice for those considering going into private practice.

Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions before and after the webinar here on the AIC blog. Please submit your questions as comments to this post, or email them to Anisha Gupta at anishagupta72[at]gmail[dot]com. Questions will be accepted until the morning of the forum. During the webinar, your questions will be posed anonymously. All answered questions will be followed up on after the program in an AIC blog post.

Attendance is free and open to all AIC members. Registration is required and will be open until the forum starts. To register for the webinar, please visit

ECPN’s first webinar was held in July and featured Debra Hess Norris in a presentation and discussion on self-advocacy and fundraising for independent research. With over 90 registered participants from 6 different countries, the webinar was a great success.

For more information, please visit

ECPN August Meeting Minutes

 The August minutes have been approved.


Monday, August 20, 2012

Conference Call Attendees:

Molly Gleeson (Chair)

Eliza Spaulding (Vice Chair)

Angela Curmi (Communications Coordinator)

Gwen Manthey (co-Professional Education and Training)

Carrie Roberts (co-Professional Education and Training)

Anisha Gupta (co-Outreach Coordinator)

Avigail Charnov (Architectural Specialty Group Liaison)

Stephanie Lussier (Board Liaison)

Ruth Seyler (AIC Staff Liaison)

Robin O’Hern (Committee on Sustainable Conservation Practice)

Genevieve Bieniosek (Student Liaison, ETC)


1. Minutes Approval – July meeting minutes were approved


2. Webinar Series – discussion about schedule and topics, general vision

  • Gwen gave positive comments on the experience of watching the webinar on youtube.
  • Molly felt that the attendees didn’t have many opportunities to participate (as we were still getting used to the technology) and would like to see more interactivity in the future. Gwen thought it was promoted well (through facebook and the blog), and Carrie said she had 2 colleagues watch the webinar (both of whom were over 10 years into their profession) and they found Debbie’s suggestions very practical and relevant. Molly agreed that the presentation was useful not just for emerging conservators, but also others looking for these tools. There were over 90 attendees and many were established conservators.
  • Commenting on the youtube video, Molly said we will have to check with AIC and Eric to see if this is a sustainable program. The next webinar should take place in late fall, possibly November. Eliza remarked that the beginning of November (before Thanksgiving) might be best. Ruth responded that mid-November would be better, as early November is difficult for AIC.
  • Angela asked if there was a planned number of webinars per year and Molly responded that it would perhaps be 3 per year, though we have to work with AIC to see if it is sustainable in terms of costs for staff and technology. Stephanie has emailed Ryan to discuss funding moving forward. A possible $5 registration fee was brought up, but Ruth explained that this could actually create more administrative work and would discourage people from joining, so it probably would not bring in enough participants to make it worthwhile. Molly remarked that Debbie Norris said to let her know if we need financial support (Tru Vue?). We should first see what the costs are.
  • There is a list on basecamp of topics for the next call, one of which is conservators in private practice. Eliza said we had discussed each webinar being geared towards a certain demographic. The last was applicable to everyone (though mostly post-grad). Perhaps we can make it more structured next year when we have a better handle on it.
  • Molly asked if anyone had any other topic ideas and said that she liked the private practice idea. Angela asked if it was possible to have multiple presenters, and Molly said we could have 2 or 3 presenters to discuss how they got started, what their work is like, etc. One speaker was easier to manage for the first time, but next time she would like to have multiple presenters and more questions prepared. Carrie commented that private practice is currently a hot topic, so this webinar would be timely. Molly felt that all career levels could connect to this topic. Stephanie mentioned that there is a FAIC online course this fall on private practice, which could be complementary to this.
  • Molly concluded that this discussion should continue on basecamp and that we will also talk about the budget.


3. Newsletter/ e-blast schedule

  • The last e-blast went out in early July and the next will be in October. Molly would like to use it to advertise the November webinar and said that we should start thinking about what to include in that newsletter.


4. 2013 AIC Annual Meeting

a. Portfolio Session

  • Gwen emailed the board on the portfolio review session. It will be a 90-minute session: 2 or 3 presentations and portfolio review (for different programs and specialties). There was a discussion on whether this should be a workshop.
  • The speakers will discuss: 1) how to put together a portfolio (or how this speaker put together his/her portfolio), 2) developing it beyond grad years and tailoring it to different jobs, 3) refining the CV and cover letter, 4) digital portfolios.
  • Carrie commented that the interactive session is probably the best format. The other possibility is to make it a workshop. However, we don’t want it to be a “how-to”, since the graduate programs would be opposed to this. Stephanie pointed out that the workshop is also a competitive process and people have to pay. Ruth responded that this should be the ECPN session and shouldn’t involve the workshop approval process. The CIPP seminar is on the workshop day but it isn’t a workshop. This can fit into that model, which would give us the freedom to craft the program as we see best. She asked if we will be limiting the number of people. She also mentioned that they are working with Tru Vue on a sponsorship package – they would like to sponsor the ECPN happy hour for $750, but we could also have them sponsor this session instead (for AV costs, etc.) The workshop day is Wednesday, May 29th.
  • In response to a question on format, Ruth said it should be 90 minutes, less interactive (seminar), and a varied session with different speakers.
  • Avigail mentioned that she would like to work to fit in the architectural conservations students, and asked if there would be one member from each grad school or SG. Carrie said we can bring a larger group of people and include as many as possible. Genevieve said she presented her portfolio for the past 2 years and got useful feedback, which others could have benefited from. There was some talk of having people who review portfolios discuss/ give tips on what they look for in a good portfolio (for internships, etc.) Carrie said they will have a speaker for this. There will be a follow-up call to discuss the structure.
  • Ruth said October 1st is the deadline, though it’s okay if it’s a few days after. She suggested scheduling the session as late in the afternoon as possible so that it can go right into the happy hour. Everyone agreed this was a good idea.
  • Molly asked if this would replace our informational meeting or would be something separate. Should the informational meeting be later in the week? She will send out an email to discuss scheduling.

b. Poster

  • The deadline is October 1st. Anisha said we have a writeboard going to discuss this – the idea is to send out a survey on the use/ availability of conservation information online. Angela is going to discuss this with Nancie Ravenel and asked who the survey would be intended for. Megan said conservators in general (AIC membership) and that we can figure out where people are in their careers and how that affects their answers.
  • Molly suggested we craft a goal/ abstract, how to achieve this (with the poll), and what the questions will be, and then present this to Nancie.


5. Liaisons Program

a. Graduate program liaisons

  • Molly thanked Anisha for posting the definitions and said we should continue to refine these and determine what is the goal for establishing graduate program liaisons, what we want to do in terms of inviting them, which grad programs (just in North America or outside as well?)
  • Megan asked if we should recruit people who are already involved. Stephanie said it’s best to go through the grad programs and Molly agreed we should give everyone an opportunity. Then, if no one responds, we will approach individuals. Carrie said they will be reaching out to the grad programs in September. Megan will work on the letter for that.


6. Student Research Resource

  • Carrie is gathering information on the platforms, Eliza is working with Ruth and Ryan, Rebecca and Carrie are talking to the Getty (scheduling a call with Cameron Trowbridge sometime in early September), Angela is working with the SGs to get their thoughts.
  • Ruth said Eryl would like to be on the call with the Getty.


7. Mentoring Program – update on matches

  • Eliza said they have made 8 matches, and have 20 mentees and 6 mentors they are working to match. Then they will put out a call for mentors with descriptions of the mentees, or reach out to people individually. Molly remarked that if anyone knows someone who might be interested, let Eliza know.


8. Tony Smith Wikipedia Project

  • Anisha explained that the goal is to get people to find the Tony Smith sculptures closest to them and document them, and then put their information on Wikipedia and images on flickr. The project is summed up on the INCCA site and our facebook page. Richard McCoy asked if we could advertise this through our facebook page and blog. Anisha and Megan are also asking the liaisons to participate as a group. The goal is to document the sculptures by September 23rd. Molly said to contact Richard if anyone has any questions.


9. The next conference call will be Monday, September 17th, 2012 at 1pm EST. Megan will be travelling so she will not be able to make it. If anyone has a schedule conflict, let Molly know.


Next call: Monday, September 17th, 2012 at 1pm EST



Respectfully submitted,


Angela Curmi




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

ECPN Webinar with Debra Hess Norris on Self-Advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research

On July 26th, ECPN held its first webinar, which featured Debra Hess Norris, Chair of the Art Conservation Department and Professor of Photograph Conservation at the University of Delaware. In a presentation and discussion on Self-advocacy and Fundraising for Personal Research, Norris offered a wealth of advice valuable to both recent graduates and professionals new to the field, as well as experienced conservators.

Norris continually stressed the importance of networking, of keeping in touch with mentors and peers, and getting involved in AIC and other conservation groups. Interestingly, though, she also suggested looking for opportunities outside of conservation. Attending meetings of groups in related fields or speaking at their conferences, writing for publications outside of the conservation literature, and connecting with local universities for lectures or adjunct teaching positions are ways to not only gain experience and expand one’s network, but also to advocate for conservation and educate those outside of the field about the work of conservators. The interdisciplinary nature of conservation should be utilized to increase the visibility of the profession.  She emphasized that we should think globally and explore opportunities offered by the US State Department or World Bank, become US correspondents for IIC or ICOM, apply for the ICCROM fellows program, or find sponsorship for the Fulbright program.

Norris also encouraged the audience to volunteer and get involved in community-based projects. She suggested, for example, serving on committees, becoming CAP assessors, or visiting collections that lack conservators and offering to help with grant proposals.

Norris gave useful tips on the grant application process and highlighted funding sources that conservators do not always take into account. She recommended considering residencies at cultural institutions which conservators seldom apply for, identifying non-profit sponsors or partners, inquiring with undergraduate universities for legacy funding, and competing for Stout or other AIC specialty group funding, particularly if you are volunteering to help at the annual meeting. In response to an audience question, Norris also advised that if you do get a grant, you include it on your resume, as it demonstrates your abilities to successfully acquire funding sources, even if just for yourself.

In addition, she discussed building skills by taking workshops or seminars to strengthen your negotiating proficiency or taking business classes (especially if you intend to pursue a private practice), obtaining certificates in grant-writing or project management, or considering a doctoral degree in an allied field.

Finally, Norris once again encouraged the audience to be advocates for our field, to share our vision and enthusiasm, to communicate the ethics, philosophy, and interdisciplinary nature of conservation, and to always welcome opportunities to speak to the public.


For more information on this webinar, and to view audience questions with Norris’ responses, as well as research funding opportunities, resources, and tips, please visit the following blog posts:


Have any ideas for future webinar topics? Please post them below.



ECPN June Meeting Minutes Posted

The June minutes were approved today.


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. 1st 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 1st 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.
7. Communications (Molly)
  • Newsletter – Based on feedback from the annual meeting, Molly found that a lot of people are not aware of the e-blast sign-up and that not everyone uses facebook. Thus, she brought up the idea of sending out a regular newsletter, which could be sent out via e-blast and posted on the blog. ECPN will write them and will need Ryan’s help sending them out. Ryan confirmed that this is a feasible idea, and Ruth agreed but indicated that they did not want to overwhelm members with too much information and sometimes have to combine e-blasts. Molly asked about the possible frequency of the newsletter and suggested sending it out 3 times a year, which Eliza and others agreed was the best option. Molly said we would begin working on the 1st newsletter and set a tentative schedule for when it would go out (with Ryan’s input on when would be the best time to send it out). The newsletter would be a good alternative to members checking the blog or facebook. Molly also suggested possible topics for the 1st newsletter, including the annual meeting survey list, list of officers, mentoring program advertisement, and member discount to CIPP.
  • General Communications/ Outreach via Email – Molly asked about other thoughts on communications and Priscilla responded that it would be useful if there was a way for members to manage everything they subscribe to and only receive emails from groups they subscribe to. Ruth indicated that this might be possible with the new website and they are hoping to achieve this. Molly also asked about communication with specialty groups and Priscilla mentioned that her group’s board had been discussing how to use their email list, which she feels is currently under-used, though they want to avoid over-using the list. She said that it would be reasonable to have other groups submit email posts to their list but would need a more explicit policy, which will require further discussion with her board-we should expect to hear more from her on this soon. Anisha pointed out that regional liaisons are concerned about outreach within their own areas and she asked if there was a way to store emails by location or if separate regional liaison email lists based on location should be created. She also brought up the use of twitter, but Molly felt that twitter was not the best method. Molly suggested a general message be sent out indicating that if one is in a certain region, one may contact his/her specific regional liaison, and then the liaisons can maintain their own lists and reach out however they prefer. Richard suggested the regional liaisons partner with regional conservation guilds, as the guilds maintain good email lists. Molly agreed this is a good idea and felt some guidance should be provided to the regional liaisons on how to approach the regional guilds. She asked Anisha to work on providing tips to the liaisons on contacting and partnering with the guilds. Richard asked if AIC has a list of all active regional guilds, and if there was still an organized annual meeting of the guilds in coordination with the AIC annual meeting. Ruth responded that AIC does have a list of the guilds, and that there used to be an annual meeting of the guilds but this was organized by them without AIC’s involvement for the most part. Ruth said that we should discuss this idea further. Molly suggested brainstorming before we approach the board more formally with this idea.

8. Forum Call/ Webinar (Molly, Eric) – (It was decided that this would henceforth be referred to as a “webinar” rather than “forum call”). The 1st webinar is confirmed for July 26th. Debbie Hess Norris will be talking about self-advocacy and fund-raising for independent research for recent grads. (Debbie had stated that 55% of grads go into private practice and she would like to discuss ways for them to network and continue their research outside of institutional support.) Molly sent out a document with talking points for Debbie and asked if anyone had additional suggestions on topics to be addressed. Molly asked if the list of questions should be posted to the blog, and the group agreed that it would be a good place for others to contribute their own questions. Molly also indicated that the announcement should be discussed in the next week, as Debbie wants the questions ahead of time. Angela will post a follow-up blog after the webinar and people can add additional questions to this. This will be a moderated talk and Eric suggested that the moderators and speakers be on a formal conference line, with other participants using voice-over IP so that they can be muted by the moderator. Molly and Eliza will discuss this further. Molly also asked if this is going to be advertised to all AIC members and Ruth responded that this would be a member benefit-so for AIC members only. Molly asked Eric if people would need to RSVP to join the call and Eric responded that an invite would be sent out with a link to register and receive log-in information for the webinar. Molly indicated that they would continue planning this and formalizing the announcement, as well as having Debbie approve everything, in follow-up calls or emails. Eric said that a time should be set up with Debbie for a dry-run. Molly responded that this could be done a week ahead of time and she will send out an email.

9. Announcement from International Network for the Conservation of Contemporary Art-North America (Richard) – Richard made an announcement on the INCCA-NA summer project in collaboration with the Tony Smith estate, which involves finding and documenting all 120 Tony Smith sculptures, and conducting research to be turned into Wikipedia articles. They would like to partner with ECPN on this project. Molly responded that ECPN would promote the project and find interested participants.

10. Next Call (Molly) – The next call will be on July 16th at 1pm and Eliza will lead this call.

11. AIC Wiki Event Announcement (LeeAnn) – LeeAnn announced that another AIC wiki edit-a-thon event will take place in July and she would like to encourage everyone to get involved. Molly responded that we will promote this event.


Next call: July 16, 2012 at 1pm EST


Respectfully submitted,


Angela Curmi