CEPC April 2014 Meeting Minutes

CEPC Conference Call Minutes

1 April 2014

Present: Nancy Freeman, Robert Riter, Tiffany Schureman, Marc Brodsky

Nancy called the meeting to order slightly after 11:00am EST and offered congratulations to the committee for the good work already accomplished.

1. Review of the Call and Submission Form for Case Studies in Archival Ethics

A. Agreed to make the suggested approximate length of the case studies as described in the Call match the length indicated in the SAA Publications Board document on Case Studies Series: that is, to read, 2500 to 5000 words.

B. Marc suggested that he would like to recommend some wording changes to the Call and would submit them to Nancy for review.

C. Robert agreed to create a list of keywords that could be added to the submission form from which prospective authors could choose to describe their case study.


2. Review of The Assessment Form for Peer Review of Case Studies

A. The form was accepted as is.


3. Determining Reviewers of Case Studies

A. Agreed that two people from the committee would be named for an initial six month stint as reviewers. If this did not work well, a new determination would be reached.


4. Review of Case Studies Series document

A. Tiffany asked for clarification regarding the Series Editor. Nancy will serve for now as Series Editor.


5. Review of Committee Charge revisions

A. General agreement on plan for two co-chairs of the committee, but clarification was requested on question of co-chairs’ length of term given language regarding staggered terms and choice of co-chairs from among second-year committee members. Nancy will seek clarification.

B. Suggestion was made and agreed on to change the language stating that the SAA vice-president will appoint a new co-chair to read that the SAA vice president will consult with the current chair(s) to name a new co-chair.

C. Suggestion was made and agreed on to revise, under Duties and Responsibilities, the phrase, “committee periodically conducts a complete review of the Code of Ethics. . . .” to require such a review every two years.


6. Annual meeting in DC next August

A. Those present were asked if they would be attending the Tuesday meeting of the committee. All reported they would.

B. Those present were asked if they would be attending the Thursday Forum that would include a roll-out of the Call for Case Studies.

C. Clarification was requested on the nature and format of the Forum.

D. Nancy suggested that handouts having to do with the Call for Case Studies be made available at the Forum.


7. Other matters

A. Question was raised regarding the timing of the release of the Call and the advisability/possibility of having a completed Case Study available at the time of the release. It was agreed that it would be good to have a new case study available when the Call is posted. In fact, we will wait to put out the call until we have such a study ready.

B. There was discussion about who among those present would be able to author or collaborate on a study in the near future. Nancy will ask those not present (Paul and Sharon) if they might be interested.

C. In discussing the case studies, it was pointed out that the case described may be anonymized.

D. Tiffany brought up the committee’s web pages. There was agreement to remove agendas from past meetings. Also we confirmed that the SAA 2014 Committee meeting and Forum will be announced on the site.

E. Announcements regarding the SAA 2014 Committee meeting and the Forum should also be announced on the various SAA listservs as we get closer to August.

Meeting was adjourned just before noon EST.