Go to:
Discussion
Online Doc
File
Poll
Event
Meeting Request
Suggestion
Andrew Medlar's picture

Online Board Meeting: Digital Media Award Plan

Greetings, Board colleagues.

I am calling an online meeting of the ALSC Board of Directors.

The agenda item is to discuss a potential Digital Media Award Plan.

In order to establish quorum for this online meeting, I would like to ask everyone to please indicate at this time that you are “present,” and once quorum is established within the next couple of days I will indicate that discussion may begin. A supporting document will be posted here in advance of the discussion commencing. 

Thank you.

Andrew

Kay Weisman's picture

Present!

Kay Weisman

Elizabeth Orsburn's picture

Present

Betsy Orsburn

 

Jenna Nemec-Loise's picture

Present

 

Jenna Nemec-Loise
ALSC Division Councilor


Jenna Nemec-Loise
Division Councilor
Association for Library Service to Children

 

Doris Gebel's picture

Present

Doris Gebel

 

Christine Caputo's picture

Present

 

Christine Caputo

Diane Foote's picture

Present

Diane Foote
Assistant Dean & Curator, Butler Children's Literature Center
Dominican University GSLIS
dfoote@dom.edu, 708-524-6054
http://www.dom.edu/gslis

Julie Roach's picture

present

Mary Voors's picture

Present

Gretchen Caserotti's picture

Present

Megan Schliesman's picture

Present

Andrew Medlar's picture

Thank you, we have a quorum and discussion is now open regarding the attached document.

Please remember to apply here the same guidelines we use in our face-to-face Board discussions, always keeping in mind our Core Purpose of "Creating a better future for children through libraries;" our core values of Collaboration, Excellence, Inclusiveness, Innovation, Integrity and Respect, Leadership, and Responsiveness; and our Envisioned Future as one in which "Libraries are recognized as vital to all children and the communities that support them."

The ALSC Board must embrace knowledge-based decision-making to be most effective, and for each issue we ask ourselves:

  • What do we know about the needs, wants, and preferences of ALSC members/prospective members/stakeholders that are relevant to the issue?
  • What do we know about the current realities and evolving dynamics of children's librarianship that are relevant to this issue?
  • What do we know about the capacity and strategic position of ALSC that is relevant to this issue?
  • What are the ethical implications of our choices?

(From "Knowledge-Based Decision Making: The 4 Knowledges," C2011 Tecker Consultants, LLC)

It is important that we keep our focus on the strategic aspect of this, as reflected in the beginning of the document. There will certainly be many operational aspects involved in any decisions we make--many of these are included in the background/supporting information--and those would be addressed in an implementation process.

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Andrew

 

 
AttachmentSize
Digital Media Award Plan Proposal319.7 KB
Ellen Riordan's picture

Present

Diane Foote's picture

Thanks, Andrew, for the spur for comments/motions! I think this is a very large piece to bite off, and while I appreciate the opportunities ALAConnect offers, often ALSC folks like to chew over things this complex in person (gosh, am I hungry?? I just ate lunch!).

Here are my thoughts so far on this proposal:

1) It's high time we acted on this, in one manner or another. I noticed a post on CNN.com the other day from Common Sense Media about digital media for kids; and I for one am unwilling to "cede" this space to them. Youth librarians have been the experts in children's media for decades and we need to own/develop/promote our expertise in the digital arena, NOW.

2) I like this proposal in concept. I do have some questions.

3) I do believe ALSC can afford this, and I understand we as a Board need an affirmative vote in order to go back to the Carnegie Corporation with a refined "ask" (they were reluctant last time, but perhaps we didn't have enough specifics, including an award for a piece of media rather than an individual). However, I don't think I could vote on a proposal beyond "in concept" without seeing more of a budget outlined, with numbers.

4) Regarding crowdsourcing the membership, the Committee wouldn't be limited to that, would it? Committee members could have the *option* to seek out items/people themselves, correct? I worry sometimes about the deafening silence when suggestions are solicited.

5) We'd need to build in some sort of sunsetting vote to close the existing committees, right? And, if we do that, and/or simply stop appointing people to those (which I don't think is sufficient, I think we'd need a vote), then this isn't really a "pilot," is it? That's totally fine with me :-), just as long as it's clarified.

6) I really appreciate this loose definition, and the first committee appointments will need to be able to deal with it without too much guidance or handholding from leadership. We'll need some entrepreneurs!

7) I anticipate a question about the definition, regarding availability of nominated media in/through a library, and I agree with the definition as written that library availability isn't important here. I go back to a question I often ask myself when dealing with ALSC award-related matters: "Who are the awards FOR?" To me, this DMA award and list would be yes, for librarians, but ultimately, more for the families and general public who are served by the librarians. I guess I see a difference between nominating and awarding items that libraries would PURCHASE (such as books) and these DMAs. Our book awards ALSO of course are paid attention to by the wider world way beyond libraries (well, two of them are...), and I feel like that audience is a bigger proportion with DMAs. This is one of those conversations that I think I might prefer having in person, though.

8) In the implementation timeline, is it putting the cart before the horse to have the GWS committee name some GDMK before an implementation task force is working? I know on the Board level we're not supposed to get tactical, so I DON'T want to have the details conversation here, but just as an example I wonder how easy/hard it would be to call the GWS site something else, update the URL, or just add a section to it for GDMK, etc. Please DON'T let's hash that out here, but let's think about appointing the implementation task force first so THEY can have the joy of hashing out such things.

9) I like the idea of subcommittees, and I might suggest splitting them not along functional lines, but topically (one subgroup does the "person" award, another the "thing" award, etc.). I don't have a strong feeling either way, I suppose, but I feel like that detail is more appropriate to discuss on the Board level than the implementation example above. Would we want the VP/P to appoint members to the subcommittees? Or just to the "umbrella" committee and let the chair parcel out the subcommittees?

Whew! I'm surprised I haven't "broken" connect with my prolixity. Other thoughts welcome.....

Diane Foote
Assistant Dean & Curator, Butler Children's Literature Center
Dominican University GSLIS
dfoote@dom.edu, 708-524-6054
http://www.dom.edu/gslis

Andrew Medlar's picture

Excellent questions, all, Diane! To your point about the "concept" of this, I wonder if we direct our focus to just the boxed text if that would help us to narrow down to the essence, or concept, of what is the strategic aspect of this on which the Board must make the decision. It is quite true that a lot of the "Background/supporting information" includes more operational details; that is, is the cart to the concept's horse. And if that's the case, what would we like the boxed text to say?

Then if there is a strategic concept that we decide to approve, I'd like to suggest that after that happens we could turn to our colleagues on the ALSC Organization & Bylaws Committee for assistance with determining what next steps may be necessary (such as the formal sunsetting of current committees, as you mention, refining membership composition, etc.).

Thanks!

Andrew

 
Diane Foote's picture

I like this approach, Andrew! Thanks so much. As long as Budget is consulted along with O&B after a "concept" vote. Regarding the box in the middle, I think Kay and I are on the same page regarding concern for the amount of work and possible need for three committees, as well as not limiting the nominations to suggestions from the membership at large.

 

Diane Foote
Assistant Dean & Curator, Butler Children's Literature Center
Dominican University GSLIS
dfoote@dom.edu, 708-524-6054
http://www.dom.edu/gslis

Kay Weisman's picture

Thank you, Andrew, for bringing us back to the commenting portion of this meeting.  Like Diane, I have some comments about this proposal:

1) I am a little concerned about merging Great Websites, Carnegie/Children's Notable Videos, and the Digital Content Task force into one gigantic group.  Having chaired GWS, Carnegie, and CNV, I can attest that all have wide ranging charges that cover a great deal of material and territories. It's a lot to think of one group (even with sub committees) managing this workflow. I do understand that these groups' charges will change with the merger--but I'm not sure that the expectations will diminish in any way.  Also, will all members of this committee vote for the Notables List, the Digital Media Award, and the Media Mentor Award?  And if not, will subcommittees feel disenfranchised?  My bottom line is I think we would be better off with three separate committees:  Change the names as you see fit, but let Great Websites select the Notables list; let Carnegie select the Digital Media Award; and perhaps charge the Digital Content Task Force (although I would make it a permanent committee) with choosing the Media Mentor Award.  

2)  What happens with Children and Technology?  Those folks have tremendous skill and expertise, but this plan seems to omit them entirely.

3) I am not a fan of crowd sourcing.  I think it's fine to solicit input and/or nominations this way, but I would like to see the committee be able to make reasoned professional decisions based on their expertise and not be swayed by Twitter campaigns for a particular person or product.

Kay Weisman

Gretchen Caserotti's picture

Here here! (or is it hear hear!?)

I envision we want the digital media award to stay on the media committee and the media mentorship components in the professional development arms of our structure. The 3 groups you propose make sense and I agree on C&T. Could that committee be re-charged in place of the Digital Content Task Force as the committee has a more lasting charge than a task force/working group?

 

Ellen Riordan's picture

I really like Andrew's idea of voting conceptually. Without this first step, operational considerations about the how are premature. It is really easy to get bogged down in the uncertainty. 

There is real  risk inaction. The membership has been engaged in the work Andrew describes for several years. As Kay pointed out, others are already filling in this gap. The central question for me is, are the logistical uncertainties worth losing the opportunity to guide evaluation of media in a meaningful way?

My answer has always been no. We need to act and voting conceptually to the premise is the first step.

  work to

Andrew Medlar's picture

Thank you for all of the comments so far! I would be very interested to hear some additional voices on this, and in the meantime I offer the following points, which is what I believe gets to the spirit of what I’m hearing so far:

  • Expand the scope of the Great Websites Committee’s charge to include digital media.
  • Evolve the charge of the Carnegie Medal/Notable Children's Videos Committee to become selection of a winner of an annual medal for “Excellence in Early Learning Digital Media.”
  • Expand the charge of the Children and Technology Committee to include the selection of a winner of an annual “ALSC Media Mentorship Leadership Award,” as well as the duties of the Digital Content Task Force.
  • Define “digital media” as: Any real-time, dynamic, and interactive media content or product that is available via personal electronic device across multiple platforms that enables and encourages active engagement and social interaction while developmentally appropriately informing, educating, and/or entertaining.
  • Implement on a pilot basis to be evaluated with the possibility of future adjustments being made to fit the current environment.

Please share your thoughts on this on these, which speak to the work being done by 3 different and distinct committees rather than within a single committee. I offer these as possibilities for a motion to consider in concept, with whatever we finally approve to be forwarded to Organization & Bylaws for their support in determining and crafting next steps for implementation.

Andrew

 
Gretchen Caserotti's picture

Here are my thoughts on this information-based decision:

--The needs & wants of a large number of our members is for us to take a lead in digital media with kids and for librarians. I know there are needs & wants of parents around guidance for content and practice in media use with their kids.

--The current realities is other agencies are filling gaps around content evaluation and grassroots movements for best practices happening outside ALSC by ALSC members. As Ellen says, this would be an opportunity to guide media use in a meaningful way.

--ALSC has existing committees that can be evolved which requires some work to facilitate the change, but would be a net transfer and taking this action would improve our brand and move the organization forward in a modern age while still holding true to our core purpose.

--Ethical implications would be potentially alienating some members who disagree with deeply committing to integration as it relates to screen time and children. Conversely, it would also provide the opportunity to engage new members in our work who are seeking a more modern structure and work by the organization.

    Gretchen Caserotti's picture

    I move that ALSC in concept:

    • Expand the scope of the Great Websites Committee’s charge to include digital media.
    • Evolve the charge of the Carnegie Medal/Notable Children's Videos Committee to become selection of a winner of an annual medal for “Excellence in Early Learning Digital Media.”
    • Expand the charge of the Children and Technology Committee to include the selection of a winner of an annual “ALSC Media Mentorship Leadership Award,” as well as the duties of the Digital Content Task Force.
    • Define “digital media” as: Any real-time, dynamic, and interactive media content or product that is available via personal electronic device across multiple platforms that enables and encourages active engagement and social interaction while developmentally appropriately informing, educating, and/or entertaining.
    • Implement on a pilot basis to be evaluated with the possibility of future adjustments being made to fit the current environment.
    Diane Foote's picture

    I second Gretchen's motion.

     

    Diane Foote
    Assistant Dean & Curator, Butler Children's Literature Center
    Dominican University GSLIS
    dfoote@dom.edu, 708-524-6054
    http://www.dom.edu/gslis

    Andrew Medlar's picture

    Thank you, we have a motion and a second.

    Any further discussion?

    Andrew

     
    Andrew Medlar's picture

    Hearing no further discussion, I would like to call for the vote on this motion as seconded. Please cast your vote now at http://connect.ala.org/node/254561.

    Andrew