In Attendance: Stanley Katz, Joan
Lippincott, Christine Sundt, John Unsworth, Duane Webster, Steven
Wheatley, Patricia Williams
Apologies: Susan Fox, Charles Henry,
Kathleen McDonnell, Samuel Sachs
SUMMARY
FULL REPORT
Program
Update | Governance | Financial Report | Membership | Forum | Other Business
1. SUMMARY
- 1. Program reports
and discussion included the
following:
- Copyright Town Meetings 2000: this successful series concluded in
May and the board considered next steps,
including: publishing the papers and proceedings;
considering a next generation (or a continuing
series) of meetings; undertaking national policy
work and preparing for a large national
conference; and convening one or two smaller
conferences to identify an action agenda on
copyright-related issues inhibiting successful
networked cultural heritage. The Advocacy Working
Group would make recommendations as to how we
should proceed.
- The
Guide to Good Practice: this Getty-funded project is
currently delayed through contract negotiations
with the University of Glasgow. We expect the
contract to be signed shortly.
- The International Database of
Digital Humanities Projects has an agreed upon structure, 100
NEH records, and commitment from the University
of Michigan and Rice University to produce a
demonstration prototype; the board offered
solutions to a current stall in the project in
finding the correct individuals to add necessary
project information to the database.
- The
Computer Science and Humanities conference series will
proceed, probably commencing in the spring of
2001, with funding now assured from the Carnegie
Corporation.
- Building
Blocks: The
first part of this Rockefeller- and NSF-funded
project is moving energetically forward with
workshops scheduled for September 21-24, 2000, in
Washington, DC.
- Museums-Libraries Conference: A collaboration was announced with
the Council on Library and Information Resources
to mount an IMLS-funded conference in February
2001 on joint issues facing museums and libraries
creating digital collections, organized around
the consideration of new business models.
- 2. Governance: Revisions to the new bylaws were made;
these will be submitted before June 30 for claiming
501(c)(3) status.
- 3. Financial
Review: with a balance
forward of $7,735 from FY99 and several project grants in
hand, the current situation looks good. A reserve of
$10,000 had been started with a view of reaching 10% of
budget in a few years. However, there is a real need to
push forward with membership, especially as there have
been a few lapses.
- 4. Membership Plan: although an overall membership committee
has not yet been created, the board voted to pursue
sectoral development, with separate campaigns to attract
museums, learned societies, university presses and
humanities computing centers. Corporate membership was
discussed; a meeting with a consultant to develop a
fund-raising plan would be arranged.
- 5. Forum: The Board decided to hold the meeting
December 1-2 at the University of Virginia,
Charlottesville.
- 6. Other Business: a nominating committee was appointed (Chuck
Henry, Samuel Sachs, and John Unsworth); Stan Katz would
appoint an evaluation committee.
FULL REPORT
Stan welcomed the group and gave an
overview of what he would like the Board to cover during the
meeting.
1. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1999 MEETING (see
online).
Pat Williams moved to approve, Duane
Webster seconded, and the motion was passed.
2. PROGRAM UPDATE.
David Green described the programs of the
active working groups, which are the core of the NINCH program.
Copyright Town Meetings 2000 -
This series of 6 meetings, now complete,
were very successful, from several points of view. The program
built on a series originally developed by the College Art
Association and ACLS. There was active participation by all
working group members (representing CAA, ARL, AAUP, AAM and VRA)
and advisers Kenny Crews, Georgia Harper and Martha Winnacker.
Attendance at the town meetings ranged from 60-220 people. Local
committees assisted, some more actively than others. Chris Sundt
said that it was a brilliant idea to continue these workshops
since people are just beginning to pay attention to these issues.
Some attorneys are citing information from these meetings in
their papers and Ms. Sundt suggested we consider publishing the
papers and proceedings, even though they are on the website.
David added that there was a noticeable shift from communities
being defensive about fair use to taking steps to build their own
community resources. When the workshops were announced publicly,
David received many requests from campuses to host additional
workshops. Stan suggested that we come back to this issue later
in terms of the role of NINCH in the intellectual property arena.
David said one possibility is a next round of town meetings.
Another possibility is to call one or two small conferences to
create an action agenda, something more focused on practical
results.
The discussion continued on the increased
importance of campus-based intellectual property education.
Branding and marketing would be good directions for NINCH. Some
suggestions - publish papers from the town meetings; hire someone
to coordinate workshops, using local campus people,
teleconference - an effective device to get out a common message
that can then be followed up on the local level; develop a
framework for local follow-up, (for example, do a town meeting
and then a meeting with local organizers to train them to do
local follow-up and provide materials). Pat suggested we think
about a legislative focus to plan an agenda. Stan reminded us
that we need to focus on networked cultural heritage issues.
David elaborated on his idea of doing a
conference to identify an action agenda; issues included, for
example the difficulty in clearing rights for large amounts of
digital material, especially non-text material. Stan supported
the idea, suggesting such a meeting would need to be invitational
and in the fall. John Unsworth suggested that it should be
broadened to other types of legal issues, e.g. property law,
contract law. International aspects are also important,
particularly in the art field. David suggested a focus of how
researchers are being prevented from doing what they want to do
due to copyright and other laws. John said that might be too
limiting to focus on users, and not also include perspectives of
producers. Stan suggested a focusing on what kind of world we
would like ideally for networked cultural heritage property. We
discussed potential funders for the conference. David suggested
we refer the development of this concept to the Advocacy working
group.
In summary, the Board:
- expressed interest in doing national
policy work;
- supported the idea of a next
generation of town meetings;
- asked David to consider
university-based workshops using a travelling team of
experts;
- encouraged the identification of an
action agenda developed through an invitational
conference;
- considered the offer from Georgia
Harper to write a short book on "Copyright for
Children" to be published by NINCH.
NINCH has received an invitation from the
American Assembly to join a project "The Arts, Technology,
and Intellectual Property." Stan described the American
Assembly and some of its past projects. He feels it is important
for NINCH to participate in the project on its Steering Committee
and to help shape it. David will accept the invitation.
Guide to Good Practice.
This guide is being developed to address a
need in the community for understanding good practice for
digitizing and managing cultural material across various
communities. The Getty is funding this project. An RFP was issued
in July 1999; we had six good responses and the working group
identified the Humanities Advanced Technology and Information
Institute team at Glasgow University and began to negotiate a
contract. The working group and HATII team met at the end of
October but since that time have run into some contract
difficulties regarding IP. We have a new schedule and expect the
contract to be signed shortly.
International Database of Digital
Humanities Projects.
This database will include information on
software and methodology, which would make it very useful to
others. John Price-Wilkin at Michigan and Rice University have
made a commitment to the project. They have a prototype of the
database structure and a database of 100 records from the NEH
that can be added to the database, but additional information on
projects has to be gathered and added to the records. They are
stalled on this point. John offered to manage a graduate student
to gather information and enhance records if he could get a small
amount of funding, e.g. $5000. David suggested that the project
needs to form a smaller core working group to plan for the next
phase of pulling in sets of records from other funders. John said
originally that practitioners would both be the primary audience
and primary contributors, but it would be a better strategy to
ask funders to add records since it would be useful to them.
NINCH could also ask funding agencies to contribute enough funds
to add their records to the system. Target agencies could be NEA,
Getty, DLF, NSF.
Computer Science and Humanities
conference.
Stan and Chuck Henry made a follow up visit
to the Carnegie Corporation and we expect to receive funding from
Carnegie for the first year with the proviso that we can then
request funds for the next two years. The conference planners
will make use of the reports from the fall Building Blocks
conference. Participants will include institutional leaders such
as provosts.
Building Blocks.
A meeting was held meeting at NAS a few
years ago and identified the need for humanists to develop a
language to express their needs to computer scientists in a
productive way. This is an attempt to address this by discipline.
Part 1: 5 field workshops will identify
needs that could be addressed quickly. The product would be an
outline of two or three proposals that would be cross-society and
perhaps cross-field.
Part 2: Long-term research agenda. This
part of the project will identify what practicing humanists feel
they would like to do that they are unable to do.
John suggested we avoid the language of
"helping" and use language that focuses on identifying
overlapping areas of interest for both communities.
The project began with seven fields but two
fields were unable to get leadership and have been dropped.
Part 1 has been funded by the Rockefeller
Foundation and NSF. A meeting on Sept. 21-24, 2000 in DC will
host 5 field workshops with 17 people per field. Field committees
are meeting to develop the agenda for the meeting. NINCH has had
over 200 responses to an online survey that will prepare
participants for the discussion. A website will be developed to
include preliminary reading, current exemplary projects and a
reporting area. The product from the fall conference will be the
outlines of a small number of projects that will be further
defined by the disciplines and by the Humanities and Computing
Steering Committee. There will also be an outline for Part 2.
Steve Wheatley asked whether computer scientists would be
included in the fall conference; David replied that the fall
conference is for humanists to define their needs but there will
be an average of two computer scientists in each field workshop.
David feels that this is the most important thing NINCH is doing
although it has been difficult to explain to funders. When the
field committees met, he had a real sense that this is the only
venue where they have been given the opportunity to discuss these
issues. Chris said that so many humanities faculty feel
disenfranchised in their institutions and that this is a way of
getting them involved and interested.
NINCH-CLIR Museum-Library
Conference.
As a follow-up to a CLIR conference on
museum-library cooperation in 1999, NINCH was approached to do a
conference with CLIR. A NINCH working group suggested some
additional themes to those of the 1999 conference -
communications and funding and business models/relations with
for-profit entities and projects. The new dimensions were well
received by CLIR. NINCH also suggested developing a research
agenda as an outcome of the conference. Stan added that the
proposal envisions a different type of workshop than originally
proposed, using speakers describing innovative business plans for
existing consortial projects. The final session might be an
evaluation of the models presented at the conference. One way to
facilitate the work would be to designate some people from the
start to be facilitators to work throughout the conference and
prepare a document that can developed after the first day of the
meeting for presentation and review on the second day. Christine
Sundt suggested that some projects that had failed be included;
John suggested stipends for people to anonymously write up a
failed project as a case study. Steve prompted a discussion of
the role of non-profit versus profit activities; this will
provide an opportunity to look at various models and critique
them. David will be happy to accept suggestions for topics or
issues and potential speakers. John Unsworth suggested the Dean
of the Curry School at the University of Virginia. TEI, which is
incorporating as a non-profit, might be another possibility. This
conference will probably be scheduled in the winter in DC.
3. GOVERNANCE
David reviewed the provisions in the
bylaws. The Board asked for some revisions:
1. That the sentence in Article II, Section
4 stating that the annual meeting be held in the 4th quarter be
deleted. [New language: "The annual meeting shall be held in
the fourth quarter of each calendar year, or on such date as the
directors shall determine, provided that the directors shall give
the members at least three months notice of any such
meeting."]
2. In Article III, Section 3, wording on
elections needs to change from the specific months listed to 6
months and 3 months prior to the annual meeting.
[New language: "A nominating
committee, elected by and from the Board of Directors, shall call
for nominations for the Board of Directors three months before
the annual meeting; shall circulate a list of nominees to be
voted upon by the members two months before the annual meeting;
and, at the annual meeting of the members, shall tabulate and
announce the results of the vote."]
3. In Article 3, Section 17, the Board
lowered the minimum number of directors to sit on each working
group from 2 to 1.
4. In Article IX, the Board added
that the bylaws could be amended by a 2/3 vote of "all"
directors.
5. We need to add a date to the Bylaws.
Pat moved to accept with revisions; Chris
seconded. The motion was approved.
Incorporation.
NINCH was incorporated 5 months ago.
Once the bylaws are approved, before June
30, our lawyers will submit all papers for 501(c)(3) status.
4. FINANCIAL REPORT
All funds held for NINCH by ACLS have been
transferred to ARL.
David presented the budget and expenses for
1999. He reported a balance forward of $7,735.
The budget for FY2000 was reviewed, which
is a 15-month budget. David included a smaller amount ($150,000)
for dues due to inactivity of the membership committee and the
potential loss of a small number of members. We are not pursuing
further the core foundation support for $10,000 for this year.
The budget includes the funds to support salary and support
services from 4 grants that have been approved. There is a
recalculation of David's salary over 15 months. (David will check
the fringe benefit rate, whether 28% or 30%).
At the last meeting, the Board voted to
create a fund reserve that should aim to be 10% of annual budget.
Therefore, David has shifted funds from core and contingency to
put aside $10,000 for the reserve fund this year. He has added
some additional money for attorneys fees.
5. MEMBERSHIP
Membership dues.
NINCH has received $136,000 out of budgeted
150,000 in membership dues. David reviewed the status of those
institutions that have not yet paid dues. David reported on a
notice from the Library of Congress that they could no longer
afford membership in NINCH and that since they have no role on
the board, they can't control what the organization is doing. The
Library is an important member on our Best Practices project.
Stan volunteered to follow up with LC. David anticipates that
most of the institutions with outstanding dues will pay. No
efforts have been made this year to attract new members. We may
only have 146,000 in dues income instead of 150,000.
Membership plan and
membership working group.
The membership committee recommended a
2-part strategy; first to address the need for immediate income
for the current 15-month year; the second to develop a long-term
strategy. The plan was dependent on the work of a membership
working group, which has not been formed. Stan asked for
suggestions on who we could turn to lead a membership recruitment
effort. Names suggested: Sam Sachs and Pat Williams to develop a
museum campaign. John raised the issue of corporate memberships.
Stan said we didn't accept them originally since we wanted to
understand what our interests were first. At this point, that
policy can be reexamined. John suggested Time Warner and Disney;
Pat added IBM. Pat Williams suggested that David might work with
a consultant, Tom Costello, to develop a membership and
fund-raising plan and the Board agreed. Pat will arrange a
meeting with herself, Mr. Costello and David.
Stan emphasized the importance of raising
more funds so that David can hire an additional staff member.
Other potential members suggested were
humanities computing centers and university presses.
We agreed that we needed museums for
symmetry (with the individual research library members) and we
also need individual learned societies, especially those that are
a part of Building Blocks. Steven Wheatley said he would help
David consider potential members; Stan Katz said that, as
president, he would send an invitational letter to selected
societies.
We need to focus on a strategy that brings
in more $5000 members.
6. FORUM
We discussed a place and time for a fall
meeting. The Forum working group has met. We looked at linking it
with the Getty/UCLA institute in July but had inadequate
response. We agreed that we will not link the forum to another
meeting. We endorsed the desirability of holding the conference
at U. Va. We decided on the dates of December 1-2, with the board
meeting on the morning of the 1st.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
This board will complete its term at the
annual meeting.
Stan appointed a nominating committee of
Chuck Henry, Samuel Sachs, and John Unsworth. We will solicit all
membership for nominees.
Stan needs to appoint a new chair of the
evaluation committee for the Director.
The next Board meeting will be held
immediately prior to the Forum.
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Lippincott, Secretary
2000 MID-YEAR BOARD MEETING