Slavic &
  East
  European
  Section
      Section Information
What Is SEES
SEES Committees
SEES Officers
Annual Newsletter

      Conference Information
SEES Programs
Conference Minutes
Conference Schedule

      Other Information
Internet Links

Executive Control Committee
Minutes
January 8, 2011

Present: Patricia Thurston (Yale University), Brad Schaffner (Harvard University), Jon Giullian (Kansas University), Sandra Levy (University of Chicago), Andrew Spencer (Wisconsin-Madison University), Liladhar R. Pendse (University of California, Los Angeles), Adam Burling (ACRL Staff Liasion), Larisa Walsh (University of Chicago), Heghine Hakobyan (University of Oregon)

  1. Welcome and Introduction
  2. Approval of minutes from last meeting
  3. Reports from SEES Committees:
    • Newsletter Committee:
      • Committee had its virtual meeting and minutes uploaded on Thursday-Friday.
      • Alan Urbanic submitted his treasurer's report, and said his final "good-bye" as treasurer. He submitted all the accounts and invoices to the newsletter committee. We can scan them and burn them to a DVD for archiving purposes.
      • Newsletter Committee will be using Weebly for posting the latest issues in electronic format, as well as posting the pdf to the ACRL SEES Newsletter archive hosted at the University of Washington (https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace/handle/1773/3720).
      • Newsletter Committee will notify all subscribers about the new format and pdf files, and provide them with new contact information. Since the Newsletter is used for exchange purposes, the Committee will look into the binding opportunities for those customers who are located outside of the United States and would like to continue receiving hard copy. The Committee will also produce one bound copy of the latest issue for the SEES Newsletter Archives.
    • Access and Preservation Committee:
      • The Access and Preservation Committee talked about the web platform for the ACRL SEES website.
      • The Committee will also conduct a study for finding software which can be used for the development of a second generation database of the Inventory of Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Digital Projects.
    • Automated Bibliographic Control Committee:
      • The ABC Committee mostly discussed RDA status and had an exchange of ideas about the cataloging world at national and international levels.
      • The Task Force worked on mixed orthography in old Slavic sources in order to compare the old and new Russian/Slavic characters and detect the ones that do not appear in the Library of Congress Romanization tables. Michael Herrick (Holy Trinity Seminary), the co-chair of the Task Force is applying for a creation of a Pan-Slavic Table which might resolve some transliteration and display issues of old Slavic characters.
      • SACO Slavic Funnel, coordinated by Joanna Epstein (Harvard University) has been established and will start contributing Slavic related subject headings.
    • Conference Planning 2011 SEES-WESS:
      • SEES-WESS are jointly organizing a program on Current Trends in European Film which will take place during the 2011 ALA annual meeting in New Orleans, LA (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/events/acrlac2011.cfm).
      • Three speakers, librarians and scholars will conduct an active discussion which will be followed by a fifteen minute presentation of the bibliography of sources, acquisitions, and an index of European films. The Joint Organizing Committee is preparing handouts and will start publicizing the program.
    • Conference Planning 2012: SEES is planning programs involving ALA International Relations Committee. Issues to be discussed include details involving non-us libraries: accommodations, logistics, planning. For 2013 a possible joint project involves a project with Central Asian libraries and the acquisition of Central Asian materials.

  4. Budget: SEES received their budget for 2011, a total of 1011 dollars: $300 will go to WESS as a contribution for Cinema program, and $711 are left for us this year. It will be difficult to spend this money on software.
  5. Discussion points:
    • Recruitment and retention issues
    • Possibility of Membership Committee
    • SEES is facing a decline in membership—how shall we address this? Continue to work on last year's letters and surveys? Historically we would send them to Slavlibs (Slavic Librarians list serve). Slavlibs has a lot of potential to reach out to new professionals.
    • ACRL 101 sessions would be a good way to introduce SEES and recruit new members.


  6. ACRL Committee Reports:
    • ACRL Committee reports on Policy Changes and Leadership Council:
      • Strategic plans are too complicated to discuss here in depth. However, currently the Chairs of Committees report to the Executive Committee or directly to the responsible ACRL person.
      • It may also possible to have liaisons with each section for having better communication with the Board.
      • A new strategic plan has been introduced, which is called Plan for Excellence. This plan is how the ACRL is trying to set five-year goals and objectives targeted at academic libraries, student learning, and research and scholarly environments.
      • ACRL also wants its members to participate in determining the focus, function, and differences between the ACRL interest group and section. It appears that currently there are interest groups reaching their three-year sunset date. The ACRL does not have a procedure for interest groups dissolution/termination and/or transition into sections. The interest group members may prefer automatic dissolution, propose another group with a new charge, continue the same interest group, or form a section. The ACRL does not have any procedures for sections work and activities, or formation of new sections through mergers. The ACRL recommends that sections with 500 or fewer members should conduct a self-study every five years. Based on these self-studies sections can decide it they should reorganize into an interest group. The ACRL wants feedback from its members, leaving this as an open-ended issue which will not be resolved by the summer of 2011.
    • The SEES Executive Committee members do not believe that the requirement for conducting a self-study and the subsequent reorganization should be determined by the size of the section. The SEES members will provide feedback to the ACRL after they have thoroughly reviewed/studies the document.

Last updated February 9, 2011