Awards Committee Meeting

October 18, 2007

Baltimore, MD (Annual Conference)

1. Welcome and introductions

Attending:
Rob Mossack, Chair (2005-2007), Lipscomb University
Susan Fread, Member At-Large (Incoming Chair) (2005-2009), Lehigh Carbon Community College
Chuck Haberle, Technology Innovation Awards Selection Sub-Committee Chair (2006-2008), Providence College
Brian Glankler, Member-At-Large (2006-2008), Kennesaw State University
Kathy Earwood, Member-At-Large (2006-2008), Georgia Institute of Technology
Leigh Cunningham (standing in for Farrah Turner), Ex Officio, NACADA Executive Office

Barb Miller
Sarah Naylor
Renee Babcock

Absent:
Joshua Smith, Research Committee Chair (2006-2008), IUPUI
Kim Roufs, Summer Institute Scholarship Selection Sub-Committee Chair (2006-2008), University of Minnesota Duluth
Judy Goetz, NACADA Scholarship Selection Sub-Committee Chair (2005-2007), Penn State University
Cindy Glidden, NACADA Scholarship Selection Sub-Committee Chair (2007-2009), University of New Hampshire
Lovelys Powell, Member At-Large (2005-2007) The University of Texas Austin (outgoing)
Stephanie Gillan, Member-At-Large (2006-2008), Temple University
Gail Stubbs, Member-At-Large (2007-2009), Northeastern University (incoming)
Ron Blankenship, Member-At-Large (2007-2009), Christian Brothers University (incoming)

2. Hand out materials were distributed to attendees, including membership lists for 2008
   
   
3. Recognition: Outgoing and Incoming Members - Rob recognized both groups
   
   
4. Old business: Data for 2007 Awards Cycle
   1. Budget
   • Rob explained that budget has been cut due to not having been spent the past several years.
     
   2. Statistics
   • Rob reviewed stats for last seven years. Rob explained that he had discussed this information with the Board.
     
   1. Retirees
   • Rob discussed the situation that occurred this year when someone wanted to nominate a retiree for an award.   The committee conscensus was "no" since the wording of the award nomination indicates that nominees must be in a current advisor status.
     

5. Introduction of incoming Chair – Rob introduced Susan Fread as the incoming Awards Committee Chair for the term 2007-09.

• Susan explained that reading committees have been increased in size to have more input in the process of reviewing nominations.
• Discussion ensued as to whether reading committees should be broken down to have a group that only reads the New Advisor submissions. Group agreed this should be done, so Susan will look for new people to populate this sub-committee.
• Change of wording for Virginia Gordon and Service to NACADA – why do these include references from students – what input can students really have to the criteria for these awards? After discussion, committee decided to remove references to student letters being allowed for the Virginia Gordon Award.

6. Items for Discussion

• Continued discussion of whether to allow student letters of support for awards like the Gordon, etc. Consensus to remove the word “students” from allowed letters of support.
• Possible form alternations - change wording on reviewers form to “please provide comments supporting your recommendation of whether or not to award”
• Posthumous awards – always okay so long as go through regular channels and guidelines
• Establishment of award category for retired advisors - Consensus was "no"
• Expansion of size of committees (this item was not introduced for vote, but for information only)
• Creation of new subcommittee for “New Advisors” categories - Consensus was "yes"

Question arose in another meeting as to whether or not there should be samples of winning packets posted on the web. Consensus was "no", but Susan will review criteria to see if there are any “tweaking” suggestions for next year.

Discussion ensued about whether packets that were put together for campus awards be allowed to be just re-submitted without reworking specifically for this award? The answer to this question was “no.”   The resulting question arose =: "How can we address this in the criteria to indicate that this committee will not accept campus regurgitated packets?"

Decision was made to remove any wording anywhere in process (including material that goes to readers) that suggests that people who receive campus awards will “automatically” get this award.

7. Dismiss