<p>Midwinter 2012 Draft Minutes Revised - March 1, 2013</p><p>Association of College and Research Libraries Board of Directors Meeting II Midwinter Meeting Monday, January 28, 2013 1:30 – 4:30 p.m. Seattle Westin, Grand Crescent Room</p><p>DRAFT Board II Minutes </p><p>Present: Steven J. Bell, Trevor A. Dawes, Joyce L. Ogburn, Lisabeth A. Chabot, Mark Emmons, Julie Ann Garrison, Irene M.H. Herold, Marilyn N. Ochoa, Loretta R. Parham, Ann Campion Riley, Mary Ann Sheble, Maggie Farrell, Cynthia K. Steinhoff, Mary Ellen K. Davis (ex officio)</p><p>Guests: Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, Alexia Hudson-Ward, Karen Williams, Thomas Abbott, Martin Garnar, Barbara Immroth, Mario Gonzalez, Courtney Young, Gina Persichini, </p><p>Staff: Lindsay Bosch, Mary Jane Petrowski, Kathryn Deiss, Kara Malenfant, Margot Conahan, David Connolly, Irving Rockwood</p><p>14.0 Call to order Bell called the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m.</p><p>15.0 Opening remarks Bell welcomed the Board and meeting guests.</p><p>16.0 Adoption of the Agenda The Board requested adding to the agenda a discussion about the status of the Budget & Finance Committee’s Subcommittees. It was suggested that the item could be added to agenda section 21.0 Budget and Finance. </p><p>Action: The ACRL Board of Directors adopted the agenda as revised. </p><p>17.0 ALA Board liaison update Bell welcomed Alexia Hudson-Ward, ALA Executive Board Liaison to ACRL. Hudson-Ward noted that she would give the Board a brief overview of ALA activities and rely on Councilor Maggie Farrell to assist with communicating details. She invited Board members to connect with her via ALA Connect or email with any questions about her report. While there had been an initial concern over registration numbers for the Midwinter Meeting, ALA reports 10,588 registrants to date. This is approximately 500 less than the San Diego meeting but 500 more than Dallas. Hudson-Ward reported that the ALA Emerging Leaders hosted a successful day of service to help the homeless in Seattle on Sunday January 27, 2013. She emphasized that the 2012-2013 Special Presidential Task Force on School Libraries has become a top priority for the organization, and a time sensitive issue due to government budget cuts. As part of this effort, the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) is looking forward to continuing its joint committee with ACRL and to examine a clear articulation of information literacy in the K-20 core curriculum. The Task Force will be launching a new national campaign in Spring 2013. Hudson-Ward thanked ACRL for taking a leadership role in linking dues increases to outside indices, such as the HEPI index. She said that this model has continued to inform ALA thinking on the issue. ALA Leaders are working closely with the Digital Content Working Group, which has released two substantive reports on e-book business models and e-book public library circulation models. The organization seems to be 1 Midwinter 2012 Draft Minutes Revised - March 1, 2013 gaining traction on the issue. Maureen Sullivan has been publically advocating for library interests related to e- books. She has taken part in a number of fruitful discussions, stemming from her September 2012, Open Letter to America’s Publishers. ALA released an Advocacy Toolkit in November, to assist members in self-organizing in support of issues relating to publishing accessibility and privacy. The ALA will also introduce a series of Community Engagement Conversations, a new initiative created to promote long term thinking and aspirations for the shared library community, based on the ideas of the Harwood Institute founded by Richard Harwood. The conversations will be the advance stage of The Promise of Libraries Transforming Communities, a presidential initiative, supported by the Institute for Museum and Library Services.. The program will offer tools and training for community engagement and innovation, and the ALA expects to call on ACRL soon for participation. Hudson-Ward concluded her report by welcoming Michelle Harrell Washington, new Director of the ALA Office for Diversity, and reviewing the progress of reaching a fundraising goal of $15 million through ALA’s ongoing 15X15 planned giving campaign. Hudson-Ward noted that there are 37 members of ALA’s Legacy Society.</p><p>18.0 Communities of Practice (CoPA) Implementation Task Force Lis Chabot introduced the discussion on the work of the Communities of Practice (CoPA) Implementation Task Force, and shared her hopes that today’s discussion would lead to a virtual vote sometime after the Midwinter Meeting. Since the Board’s January Virtual Meeting the Task Force revised its report (Doc 8.1) to include language which provided an exception to the every three years renewal requirement for sections that have been in existence over ten years at the time the policy is enacted.</p><p>The Task Force has been working to communicate with section stakeholders. Marilyn Ochoa participated in the virtual meeting of the Asian, African and Middle Eastern (AAMES) Section to share the FAQ and answer questions about the transition. The section stated their interest in engaging in membership building activities, though they also acknowledged that they may not reach 400 members. The African American Studies Librarians Section (AFAS) Executive Committee discussed process, timelines and governance issues with Task Force representatives at Midwinter. The group agreed they would talk privately about their future plans, and recognized that 400 members was a challenging goal, as they have struggled with attendance and programming in the past. </p><p>Mary Anne Sheble spoke with the Slavic and Eastern European (SEES) Section after Leadership Council. The group reported that they are actively pursuing a merger with the Western European Studies Section (WESS) and was well organized in terms of moving the process forward. Sheble noted that WESS and SEES had reservations about the recommendation that: “Sections desiring to merge and create a new section must also submit a petition with signatures of 2/3 or 400 members of the each section’s membership, whichever is less.”</p><p>SEES and WESS believe that there is a great deal of membership overlap between the two groups and that a call for a 2/3 approval vote would result in a large number of members needing to cast two votes of approval – one for each Section. The Section Executive Committees are unsure of the response rate this would elicit. SEES and WESS propose two alternative options:</p><p>1) A simple majority vote for each sections or 2) A joint action articulating a merger process brought to the Board by the Executive Committees of both sections. </p><p>The Task Force members thanked Sheble for bringing this to their attention and acknowledged that they had not addressed the issue of section overlap in the merger process. Sheble clarified that these sections were eager to complete the merger and would like to work out a process that allows them to move forward with it in the near future, rather than in the three year timeline laid out in the Task Force Report. The Board agreed that they would like to put forward a process that would facilitate merger, rather than become a hurdle. </p><p>2 Midwinter 2012 Draft Minutes Revised - March 1, 2013</p><p>It was discussed as to whether the Board should set a specific policy exception for the SEE /WESS merger, or create a more general precedent that could apply to all Sections. Board members favored creating a policy that could apply to all sections. Lisabeth Chabot agreed that the Task Force would take the two proposed changes to the merger process and update Task Force recommendations and FAQ. The revised document will be brought before the Board for official vote prior to Annual Conference. It was clarified that once the merger occurs the newly formed Section will be subject to the CoPA guidelines, and no longer grandfathered in to allow a smaller Section size. Mergers may be something that other Sections will consider and this process will apply to all sections. The Board is in favor of keeping a more stringent process for Interest Groups that want to become Sections, as Sections are more resource intensive and Interest Groups were formed with the idea that they would form and disband as the interests of the communities changed. The Board would like to encourage only truly active Interest Groups with a topic of enduring professional focus to make that change. </p><p>19.0 Section Funding Model Assessment Ann Campion Riley briefly recapped the history of the Section Funding Model Assessment that had been discussed in depth in Board Meeting I. The assessment determined that the distributed funds had been used well under the new model, and the revised model was to go into effect in Fiscal Year 14. The Model Revision has been met by fairly widespread support in the Sections and will not adversely affect Section management </p><p>Motion: That the ACRL Board of Directors approve a Section Basic Services funding model that provides a base of $1,000 plus an additional $0.75 per section member over 400.</p><p>Discussion: The Board thanked the working group for providing solid data and evidence in support of these funding revisions.</p><p>Action: The ACRL Board of Directors approved a Section Basic Services funding model that provides a base of $1,000 plus an additional $0.75 per section member over 400.</p><p>22.0 Councilor’s update Because the Board had moved more rapidly through the agenda than anticipated Bell recommended that the Councilor’s Report be moved to this available time slot as the guests who will represent the Core Organizational Values Task Force had not yet arrived.</p><p>Councilor Maggie Farrell reported that on January 27 ALA Council passed a new school library accreditation policy with updated language. She further anticipates three resolutions to come before Council at the next meeting. A Resolution on United States funding and participation in UNESCO and a resolution regarding The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) continue to have broad support. A resolution regarding First Sale Doctrine has generated a good deal of discussion. Farrell emphasized that ACRL needs to continue to educate members on First Sale rights, and believes this will be an important emerging topic at ACRL National. </p><p>ACRL has emerged in Council discussion as a model for dues change structure as ALA reviews its own possible dues change. Farrell reports that the discussion regarding the ALA dues changes has been highly charged, but Councilors remain professional and respectful as they try to come to a decision on the matter. The debate has centered on whether members should always vote on raising their dues or whether that decision can be given to the elected leaders. Many councilors feel strongly that the decision regarding a dues increase should be placed directly with the membership rather than made through executive decision. Farrell anticipates that the Executive Board will present a revised proposal to Council, which would create a 3 to 5 year trial period for the dues model linking dues to an index with a decision resting with the Executive Board. This trial period would include a mandatory review with metrics for assessing the impact of the change. Farrell shared her desire to see the proposal as it exists brought before the membership for a vote. The ACRL Board communicated its own support of this process. Farrell anticipates that this issue will reach the ballot in some form in the next election period. </p><p>3 Midwinter 2012 Draft Minutes Revised - March 1, 2013</p><p>20.0 Structure for Core Organizational Values Bell opened the discussion on the Structure for Core Organizational Values by calling for any overall questions or discussion. Joyce Ogburn began by offering Board members some background on the issue. The Task Force was created as a follow-up to the major committee restructure ACRL undertook last year. In order to maximize Board resources, sixteen standing committees were eliminated. The decision of whether to continue the Intellectual Freedom and Ethics Committees was placed on hold pending further study and the options presented by the Task Force. Ogburn noted that the Board charged the Task Force with providing recommendations regarding how to integrate these values into our organizational structure and work, recognizing the professional and symbolic value members place on these issues.</p><p>Turning to the four Task Force recommendations the Board quickly agreed that option three [Designate an ACRL Staff Liaison] and option 4 [Establish an ACRL Intellectual Freedom and Ethics Blog and/or Online Forum] were not the correct paths at this time. Option three weighed heavily on finite staff resources and option four was a content based rather than structural. Board discussion then turned to weighing options one [Create ACRL Intellectual Freedom Liaison and ACRL Ethics Liaison Positions] and two [Create an ACRL Division- Level Committee and/or Create an ACRL Intellectual Freedom and Ethics Task Force.] The Board expressed strong overall support for the creation and strengthening of ALA Liaisons in Intellectual Freedom and Ethics. However, the Board seriously weighed the matter of whether these Liaisons should be supported by a standing committee. </p><p>A number of Board members underscored the strong feeling within ACRL that there is important symbolism in having a standing committee on core values. Members put forward that the maintenance of an Ethics Committee is a standard part of the offerings of a professional organization. However, some questioned whether an ACRL committee would simply be duplicating the efforts of the ALA Committee of Professional Ethics and the Office for Intellectual Freedom. There was concern over creating a duplicate structure. It was countered that the ACRL Committee would be particularly and uniquely focused on issues related to higher education. Some Board members maintained that the creation of a new committee seemed a reverse of the streamlined process to which the Board had been striving. These Board members noted that the ALA Office has been doing an excellent job in sheparding activities around these core values and that effective liaisons could work just as efficiently to move projects from the ALA level to ACRL. It was noted that the creation of a division level committee includes the appointment of a both Board and a staff liaisons, and the use of these resources should be taken into account. Board members who had met with the existing committee were impressed with the group’s passion and commitment to the issues and so spoke in support of the committee continuance. The Task Force revealed that some members had concerns that communication and turn over would challenge the effectiveness of a “liaisons only” structure and some Board members believed a committee would be the best structure to address these concerns. </p><p>While the issue of whether or not to have a standing committee was not fully resolved, the conversation turned to the charge for a possible Intellectual Freedom and Ethics Committee. In the past the Core Values committees were largely focused on programming; creating panels and webinars that bumped up against our current process for competitive selection. It was suggested that a revised charge be proposed, should the committee exist, that focuses more on policy and advocacy than programming. The Board then discussed the best way to move forward, agreeing that they could not vote on the creation of a Committee without a charge. It was decided that two votes would be held.</p><p>Motion: That the Board support the establishment of one or more ACRL liaisons to ALA Committees relating to ethics and intellectual freedom.</p><p>Discussion: It was clarified these liaison positions were not dependent on the existence of a Committee.</p><p>Action: The ACRL Board of Directors approved the establishment of one or more ACRL liaisons to ALA Committees relating to ethics and intellectual freedom. 4 Midwinter 2012 Draft Minutes Revised - March 1, 2013</p><p>Motion: That the Board support the establishment of a committee to address issues relation to intellectual freedom and ethics.</p><p>Discussion: It was clarified that the Board would not be voting today to create the committee, but rather to express their support on the creation of the committee, pending a revised charge.</p><p>Action: The ACRL Board of Directors voted in support of the establishment of a division-level committee to address issues of intellectual freedom and ethics.</p><p>The Board agreed that a Working Group should be convened to develop a charge for an ACRL Intellectual Freedom and Ethics Committee. Maggie Farrell agreed to convene the working group and Mark Emmons, Ann Campion Riley, Mary Ann Sheble and Joyce Ogburn offered to serve on the group. It was concluded that after the charge is complete the Board will hold a virtual vote on accepting the charge, creating the new joint committee, and disbanding the existing committee. Bell thanked the assembled Task Force members for creating and conducting the member Survey, compiling these recommendations and for all of their thoughtful and excellent work on behalf of the Board.</p><p>21.0 Budget and Finance Committee Cindy Steinhoff reported on the Fiscal Year 14 Budget, indicating that some previous areas of ACRL revenue are changing and no longer performing as they used to. ACRL continues to look for new sources of revenue. Following the assumptions laid out in Doc 4.0 FY 14, as a non conference year, does have a built-in deficit to account for 2015 conference development expenses. The ACRL budget reflects the general challenging economic conditions for higher education. Steinhoff reported that we continue to monitor expenses and achieve reductions where we can. The organization maintains plans to keep two staff positions vacant for another year and is looking to new areas of fundraising revenue for FY14. ACRL continues to budget for its strategic Initiatives as detailed in the Plan for Excellence and plans to continue advancing the association’s work in spite of budget reductions.</p><p>The Board than took up the matter of the Friends Fund Subcommittees, which had arisen in the joint Board / Budget and Finance Committee Meeting. Both subcommittee chairs have been forthright with Budget and Finance that that their work is largely routine and staff assisted. The Friends Fund Disbursement Committee reported more regular work, but also evidenced difficulty with recruitment and participation of its members. It is the feeling of the Budget and Finance Committee that there may be another way of handling disbursing Friends Funds that more directly supports the Plan for Excellence.</p><p>Motion: That the ACRL Board of Directors dissolve the two subcommittees of the Budget and Finance Committee (Friends Fund Committee and Friends Fund Disbursement Committee) effective at the close of Annual Conference 2013. </p><p>Discussion: It was discussed that Committee members would be informed prior to the volunteer deadline so that they could consider appointments elsewhere. Members also requested that the Committees continue to follow through with their work plan and post-year reporting. </p><p>Action: The ACRL Board of Directors voted to dissolve the two subcommittees of the Budget and Finance Committee (Friends Fund Committee and Friends Fund Disbursement Committee) effective at the close of Annual Conference 2013.</p><p>23.0 Candidates “Open microphone” The following ALA Candidates addressed the Board about their vision for ALA.  Clara Boher (Candidate ALA Treasurer)  Courtney Young (Candidate ALA President) 5 Midwinter 2012 Draft Minutes Revised - March 1, 2013</p><p> Mario M. Gonzalez (Candidate ALA Treasure)  Barbara Immroth (Candidate ALA President)</p><p>24.0 Plus Delta At its 2012 Strategic Planning and Orientation Session, the Board affirmed its commitment to the practice of evaluating each meeting briefly by identifying what went particularly well and what can be changed to improve future meeting effectiveness. In addition, one or two targeted questions regarding the effectiveness of the Board meeting may be discussed. In accordance with this determination President Steven Bell led the Board in a plus/delta assessment of its work during the Board meeting. </p><p>What worked well at this meeting?  Board Member conversations were frank, open, and honest.  Joyce Ogburn made good use of use of flip chart to effectively synthesize motions related to Core Organizational Values.  There was flexibility in agenda schedule to accommodate Friends Committee discussions.  Mary Ellen Davis assisted Board in organizing its thoughts related to Core Organizational Values.  Maggie Farrell was able to explain issues surrounding ALA dues change with care and sensitivity.  Board members were willing to step up to participate in working group.  Cindy Steinhoff’s joint Board and Budget and Finance meeting was well run.  People listened and kept conversations impersonal when debating Core Organizational Values.  Excellent participation on the issue of Core Organizational Values.  Thank you to Lisabeth Chabot for continuing to revise the CoPA Recommendations.  The Board accomplished a lot of work in the last few days – the process has moved along and the Board has kept goals in line.</p><p>What would we change when we meet again  Board members welcome visits from ALA candidates but would like to limit their time.  The Board will continue to work on the clarity of the issues at hand. There was confusion over how to move the discussion forward when reviewing the Core Organization Values recommendations.  There was not enough time allotted on the agenda for that discussion. The Board will continue to review what can be accomplished outside of meetings.  The Board noted that having coffee or tea for late afternoon meetings would be nice.</p><p>25.0 Adjourn Prior to adjournment the Board discussed expectations for their participation in the 2013 ACRL National Conference in Indianapolis. Bell clarified that the Board role would be as hosts, meeting member guests and thanking exhibitors and donors for their participation. Davis promised to send an overview and schedule of events to the Board members.</p><p>The meeting adjourned at 4:46 p.m.</p><p>6</p>