FOR MEMBER REVIEW: Proposed Joint Spring Conference Planning Guide
At our spring Business Meeting on April 2, the Academic Libraries Section needs to vote on the proposed Joint Spring Conference Planning Guide that was tabled at our October 2 meeting. Some members took issue with a few points of the document which I attempted to summarize in the attached "background facts/member concerns" document below. Please take time to familiarize yourself with the following:
- background facts / member concerns from Oct 2 meeting (pdf)
- proposed Joint Spring Conference Planning Guide:
Table of Contents (pdf) / Guide (pdf)
Thanks,
Jason Vance
Chair, Academic Libraries Section
posted by J at 3:37 PM
2 Comments:
I love the joint spring conference and I'd like to see it continue. However, it does not seem reasonable to divide the revenues/losses equally among 3 organizations so disparate in size. Is there a way to establish the JSC as a permanent and independent entity, and apply revenues/losses to future conferences?
The Joint Spring Conference is very worthwhile, but it is a LOT of work. Preparation starts about three years out, which is a pretty long-term commitment for those involved. To me, the crux of the matter is that the work is divided equally, so the profits/losses should be as well. How can it be justified that one group should get the bulk of the profit, just because they have more attendees?
Also, don't forget that if the division is equal thirds, then the groups would be agreeing to take on equal losses (which is exactly what happened a couple of years ago).
I also wanted to mention that I contacted some of the first planners and participants in the JSC, and during the early years of the Conference, the profits were divided equally between the three groups.
And, by the way, the above usage of "between" is acceptable, according to Merriam-Webster: "Usage: There is a persistent but unfounded notion that between can be used only of two items and that among must be used for more than two. Between has been used of more than two since Old English; it is especially appropriate to denote a one-to-one relationship, regardless of the number of items ..."
Post a Comment
<< Home