Meeting led by outgoing Awards Committee Chair, Jayne Drake (Temple Univ.)

Attending:

Jayne Drake, outgoing Chair
Rob Mossack, incoming Chair (Lipscomb Univ)
Leigh Cunningham, incoming EO Liaison
Julia Wolf, outgoing EO liaison
Joyce Buck, Oversight Committee & Research Committee Chair
Lauren Wass, Oversight Committee & Tech. Innov. Committee Chair
Susan Fread, Oversight Committee
Lovelys Powell, Oversight Committee
Caroline Fox
Barbara Miller
Karen Sullivan-Vance
Kathy Earwood
Jo Pionke
Andrea Irby
Chuck Haberle
Gail Stubbs

Jayne Drake, outgoing Committee Chair, opened the meeting by recognizing outgoing Committee members with certificates. New members were recognized, along with Leigh Cunningham (new EO rep) and Julia Wolf (outgoing EO rep).

Item one: Discussion of new format for National Awards Ceremony

All comments from Committee members were positive. It was noted that previous to the format change, Conference attendees would find excuses for being absent from the ceremony. With the change to an “invitation-only” affair, people are begging to be allowed to attend. Honorees have expressed their pleasure at the intimate and supportive atmosphere now prevalent at the ceremony. Julia Wolf noted that a significantly larger number of people were invited this year (including most of the NACADA leadership) due to the fact that we had more space available. It was noted that the number may be allowed to increase if we are in a facility that will accommodate such.

Item two: Role of oversight committee

Jayne Drake introduced member of the Oversight Committee who were present at the meeting. She shared with the group the function of the OC—serve as a policy/decision-making body.

Item three: Discussion/information regarding the changes to the 2006 Call for Nominations

The following changes were highlighted:

• Limits placed on the length of “resumes” that will be accepted.  (Nominees will be asked to limit resume entrees to items that pertain DIRECTLY to academic advising. They will also be asked to omit “human resources” material, due to concerns about confidentiality.)
• Self-nominations are allowed.  (While this has been true before, it is now highlighted in the “Tips for Nominators”)
• All nomination materials are REQUIRED to be collated.  (Failure to do so will result in the material being returned to Nominator.)
• ALL signatures MUST be in place.  (Those without appropriate signature WILL NOT be evaluated.)
• Change in language for Outstanding Advisor/New Advisor categories.  (“Advisees Seen Per Year” or “Advisee-contacts per year” will now be the language, rather than “Assigned Advisees.”   There was discussion regarding the importance of deemphasizing the numbers and focusing on process or the setup of the advising office.)
  

Item four: Discussion regarding Summer Institute Scholarships

Rob Mossack led a brief discussion regarding the decreasing number of applications/nominations in recent years (only 3 for 2005) for the Summer Institute Scholarships. One suggested solution was to push the deadline back into April (as opposed to the current Feb. deadline), since many people are not thinking about their specific summer plans so early in the year. It was noted, however, that adequate time will be needed for winners to make travel plans, etc. It was also suggested that alumni, particularly former scholarship recipients, be used to “advertise” the program. It might be effective to find alumni from each region who would be willing to do some type of advertisement or presentation at their regional conferences.

The meeting concluded at this point—time constraints!

Respectfully submitted on October 24th, 2005,

Rob Mossack
Chair, Awards Committee (2005-07)