Board Members Present: President Matt Lessig, State University of New York, Cortland; Natalie Edwards, Wagner College, French Languages and Literature Director; First Vice President, Rita Bode, Trent University; Simona Wright, The College of New Jersey, Italian Language and Literatures Director; Laurence Roth, Susquehanna University, Modern Language Studies editor; Grace Wetzel, University of South Carolina, Graduate Caucus Representative; Donald Gagnon, LGBTQ Caucus Director, Western Connecticut State University; Jennifer Harris, Mount Allison University, Popular Culture Director; Nilgun Anadolu-Okur, Temple University, Comparative Languages and Literatures Director; Monica Leoni, University of Waterloo, Spanish/Portuguese Languages and Literatures Director; Elizabeth Anderman, Independent Scholarship Representative, University of Colorado-Boulder; Helga Druxes, Williams College, German Language and Literature Director; Robert Lougy, Pennsylvania State University, American/British Literature Director; Lisa Perdigao, Florida Institute of Technology, Women’s Caucus Director. Non-Board members present: Executive Director Elizabeth Abele, SUNY Nassau Community College; Annette Magid, Erie Community College, Buffalo Local Representative; Susannah Bartlow, Recorder. Not Present: Jason Haslam, Dalhousie University, American/British Literature Director; Barbara Mabee, Past Second Vice President
Meeting Minutes
President Matt Lessig calls the meeting to order at 1:52 pm.
I. Adjustments and Approval of March 2007 Board minutes
E.D. will add the Women’s Caucus report. Simona Wright notes that “Italian business writing” on page three should be changed to “Italian business meeting.” Motion to approve the minutes by Natalie Edwards; seconded by Carine Mardorossian; minutes approved.
II. Executive Director Report, Elizabeth Abele
1. 2007 convention report: Our extra hotel rooms were comped in Baltimore.
2. 2008 convention report:
A. E.D. notes that we will emphasize using food strategically, especially at individual sessions, on Thursdays, and during the late afternoon and weekend to encourage attendance. There was another increase in the number of sessions and in the size of panels. The loss of the University of Pennsylvania listserv was an issue, but balanced by recruiting past members through a registration discount and direct email. Some panels were lost between advertising and registration, possibly due to the U. Penn list errors, larger panel sizes, and the normal attrition rate.
B. Panel scheduling: Matt Lessig asks about criteria/preferences; E.D. passes out a tentative schedule. There are twenty breakout rooms and all sessions are booked on Friday and Saturday. We will not be acclimating members to our 2009 Thursday-Sunday conference schedule. Simona Wright notes the Thursday-Sunday schedule will help us avoid double-booking; the E.D. suggests having four seminars for Thursday and Sunday, and Rita Bode notes that seminars are self-sustaining groups. E.D. proposes extending the day from our present schedule of 8:30-6:15 for conferences at which we have limited space.
C. Panel formats: Per Annette Magid’s question, E.D. notes that the MLA is doing digital poster sessions, but we lack experience; perhaps it will work in seminars. Rita Bode and Jennifer Harris note that the logistics are unclear outside of social sciences. E.D. notes that seminar papers may circulate voluntarily but we won’t be formalizing this; we no longer allow a switch from a panel to a roundtable but roundtables can enter if proposed as such.
D. Other scheduling: E.D. notes that the member lunch will be 12-1 p.m. on Sunday. Discussion of a last-day book discount, as at MLA, for our Sunday extension plans. Annette Magid notes publishers have indicated that they would stay, but we need to frame it as a “free” day for their promotions; we also could consider presses like Houghton Mifflin and Broadview Press.
3. Second Panel Requests and Seminars
A. E.D. solicits feedback on our second panel policy; because of room availability in 2008, we don’t have to choose. Board consensus that second panels are good; this year’s panels are strong and bring in more Canadian presence; in general, they promote graduate student participation. E.D. calls to finish second panel requests before continuing the seminar discussion.
--Popular culture: Under-represented; Rita Bode asks if that’s because of the timing of the PCA and Donald Gagnon clarifies that the PCA is in March.
--French: There are two strong second panel requests; there were 17 panel proposals this year and three didn’t run.
--German: Five panels to be cancelled, but four second panel requests. Helga Druxes could prioritize; German soundscapes and the bildungsroman are both generating young scholars. The E.D. notes that, if they are all quality, we have space to run them all.
--Spanish: Two cancellations and three second panel requests; a panel on Brazil is her top priority.
--Comparative Literature: the possibility of a seminar in place of a second panel.
--Elizabeth Anderman motions to accept all second panels; Matt Lessig seconds; the Board approves all second panels.
B. Seminars
Nilgun Anadolu-Okur asks whether seminars on Saturday would be a possibility for overseas travelers. E.D. notes that it might work in an 8-10 a.m. slot but is otherwise a scheduling conflict. Simona Wright and N. Anadolu-Okur propose seminars as a pilot program for second panels, because of their flexible group dynamic; E.D. notes we can also use these to test the 8am start time. Elizabeth Anderman and E.D. propose that keynote speakers can host or be paid respondents; Rita Bode notes that this would facilitate more applications and paper exchanges. Donald Gagnon asks to clarify the ideal number for the seminar. E.D. notes that seminars can be as large as 20, though are often capped between 5-10 (MMLA does seminars of 6). Larger seminars use alternative group dynamics; Rita Bode suggests that size can be discretionary. Matt Lessig proposes analyzing the results of this year’s pilot program at the conference brunch in the spring.
4. Graduate Assistants
An increased number of graduate assistants were hired this year. Grace Wetzel notes there are many reasons it’s a great opportunity; the E.D. notes that Grace reviewed the process this year, generating jobs for the GAs, and it is working well.
5. 2009 convention
We will have limited number of breakout rooms at the 2009 convention; the ED is looking at adding suites to increase the number. We will need to consider adding sessions on Thursday, possibly framed as a miniconference to avoid the problem of exclusionary meetings. We are also planning a special 40th anniversary poster.
6. Panel Deadlines
The E.D. asks for feedback considering our later calendar this year. Consensus that late April is too soon after the conference to ask for panel proposals; Rita Bode suggests May 10. E.D. stresses that this will require very rapid turnaround from board members. Annette Magid raises issues of courtesy in chairs’ responding; Helga Druxes, Elizabeth Abele and Rita Bode note that we can’t control rudeness and the current timeline is necessary to keep panelists informed.
7. 2010-2011
E.D. recommends that the board discontinue its relationship with Helms-Briscoe due to the conflicts with our contact person during 2009 arrangements. We have no location yet for 2011-2012, although we have been contacted by Lancaster, PA. We should get bids for the 2 years from hotels we’ve worked with and survey members to ask which cities are attractive. Jennifer Harris advocates for a desirable city rather than a convenient time, given excitement over Montreal.
8. The E.D. has added a two- year college caucus membership--the cost is between full time and adjunct/student for membership and registration. This concludes the E.D. report; the E.D. moves to discuss other business now.
III. Other Business
1. University of Pennsylvania listserv
E.D. notes that a CFP list would be a service to the profession. U. Penn had 20,000 subscribers. Discussion of the archive versus the listserv; what its financial costs would be; need to explore server, coordination and archiving; the leadership role that MLA could take in this process; and the reason for the listserv failure (contacting U. Penn directly). Carine Mardorossian, Elizabeth Anderman, and E.D. propose a member survey that will give us more answers about member needs and some results to show the MLA for leverage.
2. Second panel policy committee
E.D. asks for volunteers for the second panel policy committee. Rita Bode, Grace Wetzel, Donald Gagnon, Annette Magid, and Natalie Edwards volunteer.
3. Investment/surplus committee
A. Discussion of the budget surplus. Simona Wright mentions the importance of future financial health. Nilgun Anadolu-Okur asks for clarification on the use and location of surplus; E.D. notes that it is in CDs and the main goal is to return to members, though the committee could consider future health/emergencies as part of planning. Laurence Roth agrees to volunteer for the committee as MLS editor, although our Susquehanna funding is secure.
B. Discussion of NEMLA’s financial management structure: will the committee be an investment or a spending committee? Several approaches are suggested: a strategic plan, a 40th anniversary budget, a CFO/committee chair, and an E-board three-year Treasurer, possibly linked with the Second Vice President position. Matt Lessig states that, according to the bylaws, there is already a finance committee structure: the second VP, the first VP, and the President. The E.D. is Treasurer; any expenditure over $500 requires Board approval. S. Wright suggests that we use the current committee structure more strategically.
C. M. Lessig summarizes the discussion as a call for a more formal attention to the budget. He proposes a structure of formal engagement with the budget at the October meeting, at which the Executive Board recommends spending. Strategic financial planning should be a yearly part of this meeting. We will also develop an ad-hoc committee to decide how to spend the surplus.
IV. Officer and Committee Reports
1. President’s Report, Matt Lessig
A set of accurate and authoritative bylaws is now online. For the Buffalo conference, Carine organized Masani Alexis DeVeaux as keynote speaker and Annette Magid secured Carl Dennis for a reading.
2. First Vice President’s Report, Rita Bode; also giving the Second Vice President’s Report
A. Elections
Do we need to continue an informal policy of alternating sex representation in board positions? We now have an imbalance of women on the committee; it’s not in the bylaws. Donald Gagnon suggests we keep an eye out without establishing a new policy. Simona Wright suggests that we can look at encouraging balance by section, becoming more gender conscious in collaboration and mentoring. E.D. asks if we should foster more men, while Carine Mardorossian reminds us that academic service is becoming a feminized activity. E.D. and R. Bode note that most if not all are women applying. Consensus is that we can stay mindful of gender equality without establishing a formal policy.
B. Nominating Committee: President Matt Lessig and First Vice President Simona Wright volunteer.
C. Fellowship committee: Grace Wetzel and Elizabeth Anderman volunteer.
D. 40th Anniversary Convention
U Mass Amherst declined to be the local host; Lisa Perdigao suggests Boston College and Northeastern University. Board consensus is that we could try for co-institutions and to settle the issue soon.
E. Graduate Student Position
Meeting adjourned for break
Called back to order at 3:58 PM
3. Carine Mardorossian, Past President’s report
A. Book award
i. We received no manuscripts. Natalie Edwards notes that if it can’t be submitted to another publisher, this eliminates junior faculty due to tenure review. Carine Mardorossian also notes that the two presses we advertise have differing status. E.D. will investigate our Ohio University Press relationship, since it’s her alma mater. Robert Lougy advocates that we eliminate the rule; junior faculty don’t have time to wait. C. Mardorossian notes that we need to clarify whether it is a book or a manuscipt review. Natalie Edwards suggests we make it a first book prize; C. Mardorossian agrees. Jennifer Harris notes that a manuscript prize may help you get published or influence tenure; Elizabeth Anderman suggests that it may give you an edge as an adjunct. The E.D. asks if we could consider it for the next meeting, since August would be the next deadline. C. Mardorossian suggests it can be for unpublished but submitted manuscripts, otherwise we’ll get dissertations; Robert Lougy agrees.
i. Essay prize: Rita Bode proposes making the award an essay prize and not a book prize; Robert Lougy and C. Mardorossian agree. Laurence Roth asks if this would be for essays published in MLS, noting that these types of prizes work best as already published in our publication or a first book. There are caucus paper prizes that are sometimes published or revised; these can be anything currently researched, including popular culture. C. Mardorossian notes that this won’t help to get a book published. R. Bode suggests that we establish a best prize for a published member, like the Women’s Caucus Florence Howe award. The E.D. suggests that we could establish an Anglophone and a Modern Languages prizes for any journal indexed in the MLA. Laurence Roth notes a conflict in awarding other journals and motions to table the issue. R. Bode asks how many essays appear in MLS; Laurence Roth notes that there are typically 5-7 research essays, and asks to clarify whether we would award pedagogy essays also; the board consensus is yes. E.D. notes that Carine can work to resolve the concerns and we can return to the issue at the end of the meeting.
B. Additional Convention Speakers
Myung Mi Kim at UB will join a writers’ panel for NEMLA; Rita Bode suggests Julia Alvarez. E.D. suggests organizing slots for speakers—a 6:30 time on Saturday works as a program, seminar or workshop. Jennifer Harris proposes that if we are inviting a speaker, we should organize panels on her work. A. Magid suggests that Talking Leaves could bring books to the reading or event. C. Mardorossian notes that we should initiate this.
5. MLS Report
A. Funding: Laurence Roth calls our attention to the new website and encourages submissions of letters, primary manuscripts, and interviews, especially of the high-profile people attending the conferences. There isn’t yet a formalized agreement with Susquehanna and NEMLA, so MLS will remain “an outlaw publication” until the spring meeting. There is a decrease in foreign mailing costs. A student has been organizing the subscription records; would it be possible to pay her for this work? The E.D. will check the amount once L. Roth proposes it.
B. Content: There will be an upcoming content review, especially for interdisciplinary graduate work. Please send any NEMLA notes to L. Roth; the issue will be going to the printer in December for release in February. Board consensus is that we should do a 40th anniversary double issue, rather than a special issue; a larger issue and larger run actually works out to be less expensive. Mardorossian asks to return to the prize at the end of the meeting so that it can be listed in the journal.
6. Language Director Reports
A. American—Jason Haslam
The E.D. reports that Jason Haslam, in absentia, supports the Twain lecture in the spring.
B. British—Robert Lougy
Bob Lougy refers to his report, noting the good representation of medieval literature.
C. Italian—Simona Wright
Simona Wright notes that we’ll have a healthy Italian session, with only three cancellations. The Italian-American Experience never seems to get off the ground; the E.D. suggests it could be a board-sponsored panel. The Italian gay panel is doubled as a panel and seminar. Two speakers have accepted to appear, but both are pending; the cost is $500 per speaker. NEMLA Italian Studies will be published in December. The former editor sent copies to participants who would pay between $60-$80 each, but S. Wright is paying $2200 for 300 copies.
D. Clarification of speakers:
The E.D. notes there is no plenary speaker for Saturday, which this has typically been a general interest Saturday speaker; we could bring one co-sponsored by more than one area. Chad Cripe will contact people individually to get reports from areas about their speaker plans. The E.D. notes that Comparative Literature, Independent Scholar, Popular Culture, British, and LGBTQ all need speakers. Elizabeth Anderman asks how the funding works for caucuses; the E.D. notes that there is a $500 budget for discretionary spending. Carine Mardorossian remarks that the women’s caucus is proposing Marlene Nourbese Phillip; she has a contact through her department, but they need a co-sponsor. Jennifer Harris offers popular culture’s co-sponsorship at $500. E.D. clarifies that speaker deadlines are December 15. The importance of having food at speaker sessions is reiterated.
E. Spanish—Monica Leoni
There is good representation, unlike last year; they will plan to publicize Tom Lathrop’s new book, possibly with a review or interview in MLS; Laurence Roth suggests that speakers can send book ads to him. There will also be a reading through the Ministry of Culture. The E.D. suggests we honor Enrique formally at the convention for his years of service. M. Leoni requests not to have the roundtable and the Ministry of Culture event at the same time; could they have two Saturday slots? The E.D. will work on this as part of the schedule.
F. German—Helga Druxes
There are a number of graduate student panels and many more topics on pre-18th century issues, which is a priority this year. The section is stronger than it was a few years ago, from six panels to over 16 panels over the last four years. Their speaker event will be a soundscape artist and activists performing on Saturday night.
G. French—Natalie Edwards
There was a great increase in panels—a range of interdisciplinary panels and more coverage in centuries, although there is limited medieval representation, possibly due to the entrenched medieval conference circuit. They are negotiating with Christian Flaugh’s (Univ. at Buffalo) theatre troupe, but they may need more than $500 for the set.
H. Comparative Literature—Nilgun Andolu-Okur
There are 19 panels and two roundtables; they are hoping to attract and reach international subscribers and to focus on globalization. There is one theory panel in Comparative Literature and French; we need to work to develop that area. The E.D. notes that we need to investigate theory and interdisciplinary work in general.
I. Popular Culture—Jennifer Harris
Panels are way down, although there is one theory panel. People studying American culture are applying to popular culture; the two categories seem to be very close together. Harris proposes to investigate how the call was disseminated, to recruit in different directions and to explore how to spend the $500 discretionary money. The E.D. notes that she still needs the areas’ media requests.
J. Women’s Caucus—Lisa Perdigao
Prospective speakers included Lucille Clifton, but it wasn’t possible; Elizabeth Nunez panel was cancelled. They are noticing a Caribbean focus in the panels this year. Should the Women’s Caucus remove the web link to WCML? Debra Popkin might know; we should also ask if we are paying dues to the MLA. Bill Waddell may know. E.D. reminds all representatives and directors that they are invited to update their website.
K. Graduate Caucus—Grace Wetzel
The caucus has been working to sustain last year’s energy and camaraderie, bringing more grad involvement. The assistantships were a big enticement; graduate travel grants should be sent to Vincent Guihan to be posted on the website. Board consensus that it’s best to continue distributing checks at the area events, rather than the social; it’s the best way to ensure attendance and continue encouraging relationships with faculty members. G. Wetzel asks whether we should have an attendance requirement; consensus is that no one wants to monitor attendance or create more difficulties for graduate students. The E.D. says that Grace will sign the welcome letter for grants. G. Wetzel notes that grants will be posted online on December 2nd, with a December 31st deadline.
Rita Bode asks about travel grants for two-years and adjuncts; E.D. clarifies this would not come from the two-year caucus discretionary $500. Lisa Perdigao asks how it is restricted, since some faculty aren’t supported. This discussion is tabled for the two-year caucus report.
L. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual, and Queer Caucus—Donald Gagnon
The number of panels increases steadily; this year, they overshot their goals for the second panels, especially for Italian and Spanish sessions. Members would like to encourage the women’s caucus to bring more representation of lesbian writing. He also raises the issue of the caucus’ name; what do we want to represent or not represent? Finally, the caucus would be open to co-sponsoring a speaker.
M. Independent Scholar/Two-Year Year Caucus—Elizabeth Anderman
i. Caucus for the two-year/adjunct instructor or unsupported scholar. Four panels were primarily pedagogy and eight panels have pedagogy interests. No composition panels were proposed; the two board-sponsored panels barely made it. How should she promote the composition angle? Jennifer Harris suggests union lists, since many adjunct/part-time workers in Canada are unionized. Rita Bode suggests incorporating pedagogy panels in subject areas; the E.D. proposes an area for pedagogy and theory.
ii. Name: Carine Mardorossian notes that the term may be a problem: independent scholars/adjunct/two-year is unclear. E. Anderman notes that the bottom line is for these instructors to be represented as scholars and the caucus to address financial and practical concerns. J. Harris and the E.D. note that we could set up a small line on the website explaining the caucus. Board discussion of the appropriate term for this group; they don’t always want to be identified as an alternative population, but they do want to participate in the scholarly community. “Marginalized” and “nontraditional” scholars are rejected.
iii. Structure: E.D. suggests creating community online, though a bulletin board through NEMLA is not feasible; she and E. Anderman will discuss options. Lisa Perdigao suggests connecting with community colleges to identify areas of need. Nilgun Anadolu-Okur and Laurence Roth raise the participation of creative writers. E. Anderman will pursue a name change and web update that includes creative writers and political/practical needs of the caucus.
iii. Funding for this area: The E.D. suggests an independent scholarship prize for the best paper by adjunct or contingent faculty. The problem of definition recurs; C. Mardorossian suggests we should run an Acteva survey to see if people want this. Board consensus is to expand travel grants, which are only for graduate students who are presenting at the conference. According to the bylaws, auditors don’t have to pay to attend the conference. Rita Bode motions for an unspecified number of travel grants to be established to adjunct and independent scholars; Robert Lougy seconds the motion; all are in favor.
V. Local Coordinator’s Report—Annette Magid
A. Funding and updates: Erie Community College has provided $2500; University at Buffalo will provide $2000 for busses. The results of the Acteva survey are discussed. A. Magid asks whether we should pay the curator at the Poetry Collection or give him something to recognize his time; a letter and certificate are suggested, or a copy of MLS. A. Magid recommends for future conventions that we contact other colleges within driving range. Jake Jewusiak is the UB graduate student contact. The Mayor’s office will award a proclamation to NEMLA for its contribution to Buffalo. A. Magid’s graphic arts class has been developing a postcard; E.D. says that NEMLA is already sponsoring a banner, but Magid could certainly develop a poster for local publicity and two-year colleges.
B. The board discusses the specific plans for the weekend, particularly whether to offer food and how many planned events to organize. Harris and Abele raise concerns about attendance; people may register but not follow through. Board consensus is that we should keep food plans minimal. E.D. says she will build an extra Acteva page with a reservation fee to force commitments. The walking tour has been confirmed at $250; board consensus is to schedule it for early Friday or Saturday morning.
C. Matt Lessig notes that all other business has been covered. Robert Lougy moves to adjourn; Laurence Roth seconds.
VI. Final Points of Business
1. Donald Gagnon notes that he is standing for Delegate Assembly for the MLA; Jason Haslam is also standing.
2. Carine Mardorossian notes that Carl Dennis will be sharing the floor with a student, Peter Ramos. She also asks for clarification on the manuscript/book prize. Rita Bode clarifies that we will do an MLS essay prize just for this year. Roth asks to clarify from which issues—from 36? We’ll do just from 36.1 and 36.2. Carine will chair; it would be a best essay prize in MLS for the best paper. Matt Lessig proposes advertising it in December in the newsletter, MLS, and for the conference.
3. Annette Magid asks to clarify the directives to the local coordinator, and that the efforts be taken in a positive way as ways to promote the conference regardless of how the funds are used. It might merit bylaws changes. Matt Lessig suggests we table this for the spring. Rita Bode suggests that we are responsible to the membership, which is why the budget may have been raised as an issue. Matt Lessig suggests that this is inappropriate to bring up to the entire board and should be raised instead with the Executive Officers.
Robert Lougy motions to end; Laurence Roth seconds; meeting adjourned at 6:30 pm.