NCCCLRA Executive
Board Conference Call
February 13, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Attending:
Cathy
Campbell Craven
Stephanie
Bowers Pitt
Deborah
Foster
Calvin
Craig Gaston
Ruth
Bryan System Office
Libby
Stone Gaston
Kat
Clowers Lenoir
Michael
Rose Rockingham
Marsha
Proctor
Susan
Williams
Previous Minutes:
Stephanie
noted that she was sent no corrections or additions to the posted minutes from
the last Executive Board meeting on January 30, 2008. The
motion was made and seconded to accept the minutes as they stand—the motion was
carried.
Treasurer’s Report:
As the
previous meeting was held only two weeks ago, there were no new balances to
report at this time. However, Deborah
noted that a few new checks had recently come in, and confirmed that she was
now up-to-date on sending out all district reimbursements.
Web Site Update:
Calvin
announced that, after five years of doing Web site maintenance, he is stepping
aside as NCCCLRA Web Editor, to become effective on April 4 (at the
end of the upcoming conference). Allen
Mosteller has volunteered to take his place, and Calvin will remain available
to him to smooth the transition.
In his
formal letter of resignation addressed to the Executive Board and sent via e-mail
on February 11, Calvin extended his thanks “for the opportunity to assist the
organization and provide the first web presence of the Learning Resources
Association.”
Membership Committee Update:
Kat
reported that the Membership Committee has been talking with other membership
organizations in and out of state, and has come up with some proposed revisions
to the NCCCLRA application process and membership fee structure. These changes would have to be voted on by
the membership at the April conference.
Kat sent out a letter prior to the meeting outlining the proposed
changes, summarized as follows:
Membership
Term—Instead of running from “conference to conference” as is the current
practice, membership would run from date of receipt of the annual fee by the
membership chair to one year following that date.
Membership
Dues—New membership categories would be introduced with corresponding annual
fees:
Retired
Library Personnel, Paraprofessional Personnel, and Students: $10.00
Non-library
Personnel: $15.00
Professional
Staff: $25.00
Corporate
Membership: $75.00 (this would include a
listing on the NCCCLRA site as a corporate
sponsor)
This
proposed fee structure would replace the current practice of charging an annual
membership fee of $10.00 for salaries under $15,000; $20.00 for salaries
$15,000 and above.
If this
proposal were to pass it would have to be decided if corporate members would be
allowed voting rights; Kat noted that her committee did not specify the
exclusion of any members from voting.
Regarding
the issue of membership term, Deborah said that it would be an “accounting
nightmare” to allow members varying renewal dates throughout the year. Kat reminded us of the confusion in
dues-paying that ensued from changing the date of the conference last year and
said she thought this would make things easier for members. She felt that it might “encourage membership”
if potential members were able to join at any time, and pointed out that NCLA
memberships go from date of receipt to one year after. She said she envisioned the Membership Chair
taking a more “active role” in membership receipts, such that membership
applications as well as fee payments would go first to the Chair, who would enter
member information into a spreadsheet and then send payments on to the
Treasurer. Renewal reminders would be
sent out by the Chair throughout the year when appropriate.
Deborah
expanded on her earlier objection by stating that she thought it would be
easier for members to keep track of their membership term if they knew it was
conference to conference (no matter when the conference may fall), and, if the
fees were to be separated, some conference-goers might think that they had
already paid for membership when all they’d really paid for is conference
registration. Along these lines, a lot
of members would likely prefer to pay both conference registration fees and
membership fees at the same time, which also makes it easier for the Treasurer
to keep up with incoming monies. Deborah
concluded by saying that she would bow to the decision of the Executive Board,
and that she would send Kat all the membership information she currently has.
The motion was made and seconded
that the Executive Board put before the membership for vote the proposed change
in NCCCLRA membership term from “conference to conference” to “date of receipt
by Membership Chair to one year following that date.” The motion was passed with a vote of 10 in
favor, none opposed, one abstaining.
Regarding
the issue of new membership categories, Deborah raised the caution that we
would want to find out if having a corporate membership category would affect
the non-profit status of the NCCCLRA.
Further discussion touched on the reasons a company would even want to
be a corporate member—it was explained that it would give vendors a way of
showing support and advertising themselves.
Michael voiced the concern that it would probably not be a good idea to
allow vendors to vote on Association issues and many in the group agreed.
The motion was made and seconded
that the Executive Board put before the membership for vote the proposed change
in NCCCLRA membership fee structure and categories from “$10.00 for salaries
under $15,000; $20.00 for salaries $15,000 and above” to “$10.00 for retired
library personnel, paraprofessional personnel, and students; $15.00 for
non-library personnel; $25.00 for professional staff; $75.00 for corporate membership,
not to include voting privileges.” The
motion was passed unanimously.
Nominating Committee Update:
Michael
reported that he had so far received only one nomination from
Bylaws/Constitution Committee
Update:
Allen
Mosteller was unable to attend the meeting due to a doctor’s appointment, but
Myra commended him for the work he has being doing on revising the officers’
position descriptions and thanked the committee for their efforts in participating
in this “huge process” that is so important to our organization. Marsha noted that this type of thing is
extremely hard to organize as we are all so spread out across the state and
always so busy since our limited staffs are usually stretched very thin.
District Reports:
District 2—Kat reported that there is a
meeting in the works for February 29, to be held at Lenoir CC and being
organized by Dr. Stephen Hawkins.
District 3—Michael had nothing new to add to
his last report two weeks ago.
District 4—Marsha reported that her school
has been involved in a “One Book, One Community” program and this year is
reading Blood Done Sign My Name, the
work of NC author Timothy Tyson, who is an excellent speaker and has given
several talks in the Cape Fear area. The
work is set to become a major motion picture, possibly to feature Gwyneth Paltrow. Marsha urged everyone to support this author
however possible as he is a big supporter of libraries.
District 6—Susan has been working with A-B
Tech to organize a district meeting to be hosted there. She said she’s been told that they have
recently experienced a huge increase in foot traffic (from 87,000 to 113,000)
as well as an increase in circulation and other services—they have somehow
transformed their library into a “student destination.”
Marsha
noted that her foot traffic has increased as well since computer use is up, but
her circulation numbers are down. Michael
added that his foot traffic is also good as his is the only academic library in
the area, but circulation is also down, partly because certain assignments that
used to require print resources are no longer being given and a majority of
Rockingham’s students are in developmental programs. Marsha wondered if this means that we should
just stop buying books.
Cathy
suggested that this issue might make a good topic for a session at the
conference and asked Marsha if she could moderate a discussion on how schools
such as A-B Tech are able to collaborate with their faculty and “get people
in.” Marsha agreed to do this.
Looking Ahead to Conference 2009:
If we
were to take them up on this offer, the DLA would do all the work of planning,
booking the vendors, arranging the meals and hotels, etc., and would just “work
us in” to their program. We would still
have our own sessions and possibly our own separate registration (although this
would need more checking into—
Deborah
asked if this was envisioned for every year.
She noted that we did have a collaborative conference in 2004 and it
seemed to work out well—there were more opportunities for off-site
activities.
A
concern was brought up as to how this might affect the “branding” of our
organization and whether or not we would really want to be absorbed in this
way. The suggestion was made that we
might want to participate in a joint conference only on an every-other-year
basis. Marsha wondered if the DLA would
even know who we are, and
A
further concern was with the relevance of a distance learning agenda to the
needs of all libraries in the community college system, as every library seems
to be organized a bit differently in regard to their school’s distance learning
department.
It was
noted that registration fees for this type of conference would likely be
significantly more expensive than those we currently charge, although session
offerings, speaker choices, and conference activities would be on a grander
scale than what we are able to afford on our own. Additionally, the NCCCLRA would save money by
not having all the usual expenses of a solo conference.
A
suggestion was made to form a study group to look into the particulars of this
idea further, so that more information could be made available to the
membership before it would be brought up
for a vote. We would want to know
exactly what our positioning would be and what we would be able to do as an
organization. For example, would our
members have to pay the higher registration fees?
The motion was made and seconded
to present to the membership at the upcoming NCCCLRA Business Meeting the idea
of holding a combined conference with the DLA in 2009. The motion was passed unanimously.
Closing Business:
As an
extension of the discussion on distance learning issues, Marsha noted that at
her school she is on the distance learning committee but the actual distance
learning department is outside the realm of the library. Her library participates in developing
distance learning resources “to an extent.”
Cathy will talk with her further on developing the conference session
mentioned earlier, perhaps along the lines of how the library can position
itself as part of a collaborative learning community.
Michael
reported that he has software installed to see where the traffic on his library
blog is coming from and has lately had “visitors” from several foreign
countries such as the UK, Italy, Spain, and Brazil, although the majority are
from India (as well as other cities around the U.S.). It is interesting to speculate on why this is
occurring—it was suggested that some could be students who are currently in the
military.
Cathy
asked Ruth if she had found a co-presenter for her proposed conference session
on consistent survey reporting, and she said that she had not, although she
feels it is a much-needed topic since there are two mandatory surveys that must
be filled out every year and there are often questions on every aspect of what
the survey is asking. Some new directors
go into “panic mode” when faced with the task, and some discard the survey or
never know when it arrives as it is likely not addressed directly to them or is
being sent to another department on their campus. Although a glossary of definitions is
provided, many people seem not to read it.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45
p.m.
Submitted
by:
Stephanie
Bowers,
Secretary