10:00 am - 4:00 pm
Conference Room
Association of Research Libraries
21 Dupont Circle, NW
Washington DC
In Attendance: Kathe Albrecht (VRA); Rachel Allen (MCN); Kimber Craine (NASAA); Susan Fox (SAA); Sandria Freitag; Lorna Hughes (NYU); Elaine Koss (CAA); Melissa Levine (Library of Congress); Joan Lippincott (CNI); Kathleen McDonnell (Getty Trust); Marc Pachter (Smithsonian); Ranya Sihweil (ArtsEdge/Kennedy Center); Kathlin Smith (CLIR); Winston Tabb (Library of Congress); Duane Webster (ARL); Steven Wheatley (ACLS); Pat Williams (AAM).
Apologies: Phyllis Franklin (MLA); ); Fred Heath (Texas A&M University Libraries); Charles Henry (Rice University); James Michalko (RLG); William Potter (University of Georgia Libraries); Kent Richards (Scholars Press); Robert Townsend (AHA).
The goals for this mid-year Board Meeting were first for the Board to approve, with any revisions, the first half of the Strategic Plan, as prepared by the Strategic Planning Working Group. Second, the Board was asked to give advice and direction to the Strategic Planning Working Group on the next stage of the plan: Program Planning; Membership Structure & Development; Financial Structure and Independence.
The executive director's report on NINCH's current core program (circulated separately) was met with approval and some comment on the importance of keeping all elements of NINCH's constituency equally involved in its activity. We were also encouraged to be conscious of, and take advantage of, new frameworks for thinking and engagement that the computer age can facilitate.
Prior to this meeting, the NINCH Executive Committee had approved the revised Mission Statement, proposed by the Working Group; approved the Working Group's resolve to pursue an independent legal status for NINCH; and had recommended NINCH formally clarify the level of support from its principal sponsors during the 3-year planning period.
The next stage of the Strategic Planning Working Group's work was the recommendation of a new organizational structure for NINCH: Forum, Board and Working Groups. The revised text of these recommendations, as approved by the Board on May 6, is as follows:
These changes will be added to the revised NINCH by-laws. It was agreed there should be a cap of 18 to the number of members on the Board.
The Board voted on the above in two sections. Discussion on the Forum, the Board and the Nominating Committee concluded with Duane Webster calling for a motion to approve, Susan Fox seconding and a unanimous vote to approve. Discussion on the text regarding the executive director was concluded with a motion from Susan Fox, seconded by Duane Webster, with unanimous approval of the revised text.
The Board approved of the five criteria developed by the Working Group to assess and prioritize NINCH activity. The Board felt the criteria could be valuable in mapping mistakes and potential projects as well as in assessing current activity. However, it recommended working further with the criteria, weighting them and developing a cost-benefit analysis of program where possible. Program activity (described at www.ninch.org/PROJECTS/programs.html) has been organized under these criteria in a matrix to assist in planning (see <www.ninch.org/ADMIN/ planning99/program_matrix.html>).
There was much discussion on the future of membership structure. The core issue was how to keep and attract new members at above minimum dues when, under our new organizational structure the level of membership dues is de-coupled from board membership.
Some suggested listing the membership benefits of NINCH; others felt strongly that NINCH membership should be sold as access to a coalition working to create a particular future. NINCH offers connection and access to a strategic agenda. Several noted that the Forum--a place for active debate of current issues and the formulation of future programming--could be our chief selling point.
It was proposed that we think about our target membership groups and of developing different arguments for different cohorts. One strong recommendation was to organize sessions at conferences that would be a give-and-take on NINCH membership: presenting NINCH's goals and programs in the light of specific organizations' or sectors' interests.
The issue of individual membership was debated. Although many thought it seemed inappropriate and would not work, others raised the question of how to include independent scholars and consultants into an active role with NINCH. The possibility of an "associate membership" was raised.
It was suggested that the Strategic Planning Working Group reach out to involve other Board members in this next stage of planning.
The Board reiterated the Working Group's understanding that the challenge was to establish a comfortable and realistic balance between increased membership funding, project funding and core program funding from foundations.
The exercise in building financial scenarios should be extended. They should include prioritization of alternate scenarios, should ensure core program support, and make provision for NINCH's ongoing infrastructure needs (staff, space, etc.).
The Board recommended that we clearly articulate the reasons for NINCH taking on its own legal identity. The Working Group was already examining models, including that of one 501(c)(3) nested inside another (the Independent Sector in fact had a working group examining the accountability issues of such arrangements).
The Strategic Planning Working Group met May 7th, took up these suggestions and appointed working committeess in the four areas discussed above. It will report back to the Board.