About ACH History of the ACH ACH Meeting Minutes

2000 Meeting

Convene – Review of Minutes

Present: Renear, Cournane, Mylonas, Ide, Piez, Flanders, Kirschenbaum, Rockwell, Lavagnino, Olsen, Bush, McCarty, Unsworth, Hughes, Kretschmar.


Treasury items

The main issue for discussion is the Credit Card problem. Bush says he has gone with a commercial solution. It will be ready for testing by end of July. Bush says he is confident this will be pulled off. PayPall has worked nicely, and is awaiting word that this can be done internationally – possibly this year (2000)?? Bush is to provide more info on progress at end of July. McCarty asks is it possible to have debit. Bush will find out.

Nominating committee items

Willard McCarty was chair of last year's nominating committee. Willard McCarty will be on 2001 Nominating Committee. Mylonas suggests putting some of the new members on it. Piez, Rockwell, McCarty were nominated.

CHUM items

It is doing better than ever. Things are on schedule. We are now at 4 issues a year with an increased page count and there is a backlog of articles waiting to print which was not previously the case. The editorial board is meant to be active organizing the review process in order to get a better reflection of new areas people are interested in. Bush asks is there a Listserv list of commissioning editors, and if so put him on the list so that he knows which members to charge at which rates. Ide urges that we all solicit articles for CHUM, this is seconded by Renear.

Publications committee items

Mylonas looking at issues that would make CHUM more of an ACH journal. Kretschmar reports on the pub committee. There was a 20% response rate for the survey of the publications committee. Kretschmar says that the Committee needs to decide if it is a response rate. The Pub Committee does not have specific recommendations at this time. A simplistic look at the survey indicates few areas of consensus. Kretschmar reports that the survey clearly indicates that there is no desire to get rid of the Journal and not replace it. There was some consensus on the need for online version, however, the majority of those responding thought it was just fine the way it was i.e. that the mission statement was something that was agreed to. All suggestions for encouragement for submission should be employed.

Mylonas summarizes the main issues:

There is no electronic component – the path of least resistance suggests that we want to de-couple the electronic component as much as possible from Kluwer to avoid negotiating time. She suggests we use the the working papers.

CHUM publishes shorter standalone pieces, essentially a standalone introduction to the web publication. We could increase CHUM web presence by putting more table of contents etc on the web site. Unsworth says that an electronic publication is more findable. Kretschmar asked about negotiating with Kluwer – Ide says that Kluwer are always open to suggestions but the bureaucratic nature impedes progress. They do have electronic publication i.e. PDFs which are not exactly what we are talking about. Mylonas states we are currently unprepared to create multimedia website. Mylonas suggests we do our own more detailed abstracting and indexing and link to Kluwer site. Kirschenbaum ask if we can we still use the CHUM name on something that we publish ourselves. Mylonas believes we could talk to Kluwer about this. Flanders asks is the only reason we don't do it ourselves because of the effort involved in doing it and the cost involved.

Kretschmar says he is not sure how the publications committee should proceed, and Ide states she doesn't feel able to make a decision as ACH would have to implement it. Kretschmar brings up the issues of web hosting, and the cost cost. It is generally agreed that cost is more of an issue for the maintenance rather than hosting. Rockwell states that there would be security issues, and different types of servers would be needed to undertake hosting ourselves. McCarty argues we have the wherewithal to experiment – start it and figure out how to do it as we are doing.

McCarty asks if an alternative to hosting would be to share the Humanist pulpit. ACH has it but does not use it for any specific ACH purpose. Unsworth states part of this attributes to membership. .

Renear suggests that the Publications committee and CHUM editors cooperate on moving forward and give a report to CHUM on ACH's evaluation. This could be used to leverage things. Mylonas says that if the publications committee comes up with a set of proposals, and Pub Committee write a review on the evaluation. Ide states that a copy of a review from the ACH should go to Kluwer. It is agreed to draft a report, with comments from ACH and CHum editors, and send final report to Kluwer.

Mylonas says it would strengthen ACH's presence as an organization if it were possible in CHUM to have a page where we can publish letter from the chair, subcommittee reports, conference, a table of contents from the annual ACH/ALLC conference.


MLA Organization, Jobs worshop

Lavagnino/Flander report:

The MLA affiliation is renewed for the next few years. There were 2 panels on MOOs, Mylonas moved that Lavagnino continues to be involved and manage this, this is agreed by the Council.

ACHWeb, ACH brochure items

Mylonas is currently talking to Flanders and Rockwell about ACHWeb. She will give access to subcommittees, and secretary to put up relevant documentation on ACHWeb. She says the CHUM section will be developed. Mylonas says she would like to create a larger web sub committee outside the ACH Exec Council and develop a features or news section. Humanist can summarize hot topics and encourage members to go to the ACHWeb, web editors will cooperate with McCarty on this. Cournane will make an A4 copy of ACH brochure. Cournane is to maintain the brochure and members of the committee will inform inform where these should be sent. WM as VP and Cournane as Exec Sec are to do the promotion on Humanist of ACH.

TEI consortium

David Chestnutt is absent absent – Unsworth as chair of transition group reports to the Council on the following. A Draft charter has been drawn up for the TEI Consortium, articles of incorporation as non-profit in the US has been drafted and this is handled in Europe under research institute at Univ of Bergen. There will be a membership driven budget. There will be an open meeting at the conference at 1pm Sat to inform ACH members of progress on this matter. Consortium elections will be held in the Fall.

Membership committee

The membership committe led by Flanders report that they have explored 2 options for memberships i.e. non-CHUM receiving membership, and a base rate for subscribing projects. Flanders says we need to consult the contract with Kluwer to see what flexibility we can have. Ide asks what are the benefits between being a member and non-member of ACH . Hughes says she will increase conference fee next year for non-members to $65. Cournane and McCarty will do a call for membership on Humanist. The Council voted to recommission the committee. Flanders and the membership committee are to give a detailed recommendation.

The council voted to to establish a bursary committee Cournane and Hughes are to write up a procedure for it.

Busa Award

Michael Sperberg-McQueen was invited by Renear to report on the Busa Award at this point in the meeting. Sperberg-McQueen says it is given jointly, every 3yrs, and the next award is in 2001. 30th Sept is the deadline for nomination. Sperberg-McQueen asks that when members wish to nominate candidates they give an account of work done, a bibliography of important pubs and account why you think this body of work constitutes an outstanding acheivement. Sperberg-McQueen says there is a need to launch a fundraising effort to support ACH's sponsorship of the award.

Tools Committee

Rockwell reports as head of the tools committee that it is important to do a needs analysis. Unsworth points to the NINCH needs analysis which was less formal. Unsworth argues a needs analysis should also take into account need for documentation. The Council agrees the Tools committee is to check out the NINCH survey and see if it is adequate. Unsworth will check out the NINCH needs analysis. Rockwell asks about website keep track of existing tools – what can the ACH offer to encourage to keep track of something like this? Rockwell says he will talk to David Green and perhaps get the minutes of the building blocks. Rockwell is also to talk to Seamus Ross about NINCH Best Practice initiative.

Jobs Committee

Piez reports that this committee has discussed 2 central questions: What is the Hum Comp job market and what should ACH be doing about it. The committee has thought about a possible job workshop at NY. The Council voted that the Jobs committee continue. Unsworth says it would be useful for the committee to come out with recommendations about how to phrase job announcements.The Council agreed the committee would look at this.

ACH 2000

Jean Anderson (local organizer) was invited by Renear to report on the status of this year's conference. She reports everything is progressing well. The Council had a vote of thanks to Anderson for all her work.

ACH 2001

Lorna Hughes (local organizer for the 2001 conference) reports housekeeping issues all resolved. Dorm accomodation at dorm prices has been found. More staff support for the administrative side is forthcoming at NYU. Accomodation is at a premium making it imperative to finalize the programme. NUY are expecting a big local turn out. The Dean has given money to make it easier for NYU people to attend. A conference fee of $160 for members approx will be the cost of attendance. The budget is fine. Sponsorship opportunities are looking good, CISCO, SUN have been approached. Council members will help with brochure distribution.


A program committee needs to be constituted: Renear nominated Lavagnino for Chair and he accepted. Kirschenbaum has been selected, Rockwell nominated, Neil Freistat nominated, Flanders was nominated, Cournane was nominated, Robin Cover was nominated., Peter Flynn and Marth Nell-Smith were also nominated. Cournane withdrew. Lavagnino, Flanders, Freistat and Smith were duly elected to the program committee.

The relationship with the American Council of learned Societies was discussed. Ide stated ACH is too small for consideration.

Flanders brings up the experience of this year's programe committee and says it was very disquieting and the committee was conducted in a very unprofessional way, we need to avoid this at next year's conference. Mylonas suggests we need to get rid of ambiguities in the conference protocols.

Action List

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *