Special Meeting April 13, 2002
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council of the Friends of the
Oberlin College Library, April 13, 2002
President Terry Carlton convened the Special Meeting of the Council of the Friends of the Oberlin College Library at 1:30 p.m. in the Thornton Room at Mudd Center. The purpose of the meeting was to consider ways to use accumulated Friends’ funds. Those in attendance were Vice President Dina Schoonmaker, Secretary Nathan Haverstock, Eric Carpenter, Ray English, Erik Inglis, Carl Peterson, Richard Rubin, Anne Trubek, Ed Vermue, and via the medium of a conference telephone hook-up: Paul Erler, Norman Jung, Barry Neavill, and Scott Smith.
Summary of decisions
After approving the minutes of the November 10, 2001 meeting the Council approved by consensus two motions and one change in the bylaws:
• the first motion authorizes the Membership Committee to spend up to $10,000 of the available funds to increase Friends membership. In the first year this membership drive will concentrate on increasing faculty membership; and in the second on increasing student membership.
• the second motion authorizes the Acquisitions Committee to spend up to $30,000 of these funds in calendar year 2002 to acquire a discrete collection for the Special Collections and/or for the development of the following areas within the general collections: Gay Studies, Civil Rights, Social Change, Environmental Studies, Environmental Racism, History of Science, History of the Book, Book Arts, Papers of Oberlin Authors, and Cinema Studies.
• the change approved in the bylaws will increase the cost for an annual student membership in the Friends of the Library from $1 to $5, beginning in the 2002-2003 academic year.
In calling the meeting to order Terry Carlton noted that the Special Projects Committee, established at the November 10, 2001 annual Council meeting for the purpose of preparing the way for the Special Meeting, having completed its work, would now cease to exist. That Committee comprised Terry Carlton, chair; Ray English; Carl Peterson; Richard Rubin; Dina Schoonmaker; and Scott Smith. During its existence the Committee involved members of the Acquisitions and Membership Committees in making recommendations on the expenditure of the accumulated funds. The latter committee sponsored a Student Focus Group shortly before the Special Meeting, which elicited numerous ideas on increasing student membership and participation in Friends activities.
Membership Committee
Richard Rubin, chair of the Membership Committee, which comprises Terry Carlton, Ray English, Paul Erler, and Erik Inglis, summarized the Committee’s report. It recommends that the Friends seek to double faculty membership during the next 12 to 15 months. It also calls for efforts to promote a substantial increase in student memberships in the following year.
To realize these goals the Committee sought approval of Friends funding
to develop promotional materials and to mount a sustained membership
campaign. There was extended discussion of desirable attributes of a
promotional brochure, which is a key element in this effort. Several
Council members expressed the hope that the brochure would “have
as long a shelf life as possible.” Schoonmaker mentioned the possibility
of running some sort of Friends membership solicitation in the Oberlin
Alumni Magazine.
To foster this discussion Rubin passed out samples of promotional literature
produced by the Graphic Arts Department at Kent State University. He
noted that the director of Graphic Arts said that it would cost a non-profit
group like the Friends from $250 to $500 to design a brochure, from
$2,000 to $3,000 to print it in two colors and from $3,000 to $5,000
to print it in four colors – assuming a press run of approximately
5,000 copies. These figures do not include mailing costs.
Rubin and Carlton noted that the Friends have much to do to establish
a clear identity for their program on the Oberlin campus. Based on the
Student Focus Group “Many students don’t know about the Friends,
even fewer understand its purposes and activities,” said Rubin.
On the other hand students seemed enthusiastic about helping the Friends
and suggested a broad spectrum of creative ideas to create student support
for our program. Their ideas ran the gauntlet, everything from developing
Friends merchandise, like tote bags, to producing books of coupons for
student Friends, providing discounts on merchandise and food within
the Oberlin area.
Erler asked if the Committee had contacted Amherst College which has
developed a highly successful program for student recruitment. Rubin
responded that this will be done, though he emphasized that the Focus
Group itself had produced a wealth of ideas about enhancing student
interest in the Friends program.
English relayed a suggestion from the student focus group that there
be graduated categories of membership for students, comparable to those
already in place for other members.
There followed several questions. Schoonmaker asked how time-consuming it would be to follow up on ideas suggested by students. Rubin responded by saying that although some of their suggestions might prove fairly time-consuming, the students themselves had expressed an interest in becoming involved in student recruitment efforts.
Barry Neavill asked whether the proposed outlay of money for Friends recruitment was aimed more at producing tangible revenue or at producing more intangible rewards. Norman Jung asked whether the proposed allocation of $10,000 would have a definite end, or would the Friends be embarking on a course of action that would require additional future expenditure.
In response Rubin expressed the view that increasing membership should
be a regular and ongoing Friends function into the indefinite future,
though Inglis noted that the motion before the Council was a one-time
investment.
Inglis also suggested the adoption of the “Velcro handshake”
in soliciting faculty membership, by which he meant that the Friends
should be at pains to point out to faculty members the special benefits
that have already accrued to their special fields of interest owing
to past Friends-financed acquisitions for the collections.
Acquisitions Committee
Scott Smith, chair of the Acquisitions Committee, which comprises Eric
Carpenter, Carol Ganzel, Ruth Hughes, Robert Jackson, Lucy Marks, Carl
Peterson, Ed Vermue and Janice Zinser, summarized the Committee’s
recommendation, which involves a change in emphasis this year as to
the kinds of materials acquired with Friends funds and a change in the
way the Committee operates so as to take advantage of market opportunities.
In the past, the Committee has presented annually for Council approval
a list of possible purchase items to support curriculum development
or special faculty interests. The Committee recommends using the additional
funds available this year to procure materials for the Special Collections
within the priority fields specified in the Committee’s motion.
As a practical matter this approach may result in spending all or most
of the available funds on the acquisition of a single, discrete collection,
or on some combination of materials for Special Collections and priority
fields.
Carlton characterized the Committee’s recommendation as “a
huge step in the direction of increasing Friends support for the Special
Collections.” He also stressed that the new, experimental approach
would provide the Committee with a great deal of flexibility.
Carpenter and Vermue noted that the suggested ceiling of Friends funding
for this new departure, $30,000, would likely not go far in buying a
discrete collection of materials at today’s prices. By way of example
Carpenter mentioned the asking price of $180,000 for a currently available
collection of materials of the independent film-maker Stan Brakhage,
which is of considerable interest to the cinema studies department.
Vermue mentioned a civil rights collection, priced at $100,000, which
he was hesitant about recommending because it is heavy on exhibit materials,
posters and the like, but weak in manuscript materials that would add
to Oberlin’s existing collection.
Carpenter noted that often purchases for Special Collections present
public relations opportunities, which sometimes help attract prospective
donors.
Shortly before the Committee’s recommendation was brought to a
vote, Carlton suggested that the Council might wish to consider two
motions, one authorizing the ceiling for expenditures from accumulated
funds, and a second providing guidance to the Committee. But Schoonmaker
observed that perhaps the second motion was unnecessary at this time
as the next annual Friends meeting is scheduled just five months hence,
for September 2002.
Smith volunteered that the Committee would come back again to the Council
at that time, should any hitch develop in allocating resources or should
the value of new acquisitions recommended by the Committee exceed the
approved limit. Inglis noted that by specifying a limit the Council
was not “freezing its support at a specific level.” English,
however, said that if the recommendations were to exceed the specified
limit it was his understanding that the Committee would have to come
back again to seek approval. Jung observed that should some action be
mandated before the next annual meeting, there was always the possibility
of setting up another conference call hook-up to canvas the views of
the Council.
Purchase parties
There was no discussion at either the Student Focus Group or Special
Meeting of the Special Committee’s suggestion of purchase parties
as a tool in membership solicitation. Instead, it was suggested that
this subject be placed on the agenda for the fall 2002 annual meeting
at which time Carol Ganzel, one of the chief proponents of this idea,
will be present.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Nathan Haverstock, Secretary