Category: Emerging Conservation Professionals

 The August minutes have been approved.

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

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 29^th.
• 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 1^st 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 1^st. 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 23^rd. Molly said to contact Richard if anyone has any questions.

9. The next conference call will be Monday, September 17^th, 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 17^th, 2012 at 1pm EST

Respectfully submitted,

Angela Curmi

The July minutes have been approved.

ECPN MEETING MINUTES

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 3^rd 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 26^th webinar

• Eliza discussed the July 10^th 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 24^th 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 23^rd 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

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.