Licensed under
Notes taken by LB
Unsworth opened the meeting at 0930. Minutes of the previous meeting (TEI MM09) were approved nem con.
The list of members eligible to vote was reviewed by Pichler. Unsworth noted a suggestion that elections should take place by email before the meeting in order to resolve debate about whether newly elected officers should attend the meeting and also to shorten the Business part of the meeting: such a change would be discussed at the Board meeting since it would necessitate a change in the Bylaws.
Unsworth reported that the four hosts have all been very active. Over half the consortium's actitivities are currently being supported by the hosts, which cannot continue.
The main event of note was that P4 went to press (applause). There had been some discussion of the possibility of printing on demand; despite the apparent advantages of this, the companies contacted did not offer satisfactory production methods. Actual sales figures were not yet available; however copies had been deposited with copyright libraries in Washington and London; some review copies had also been sent out, though no review has yet appeared.
The Training committee had met and had also produced a Request For Proposals. Training is the most frequently requested membership benefit, and a preliminary training session held before the meeting has been well received.
The TEI Council elected last year had met for the first time in London in January; it had also held a telephone conference. Three council-commissioned workgroups have started their work and are expected to report to the Council early next year. The consortium is also open to externally funded workgroups. With the establishment of the Council, the Board's major responsibilities are recruitment and administration. Financial reports have been filed, and insurance secured. The Editors have been actively developing TEI materials such as CDs, and enhancing the website, from which the PDF version of the Guidelines is now freely available to members.
Less satisfactory is the fact that the Consortium is as yet unable to recompense the Hosts fully for the editors' time or the administrative work carried out at Bergen. Preparation of grant proposals is expensive. Travel, documentation, meetings, providing training: all need to be paid for. Members should pursue ways of writing such costs into other proposals. Unsworth outlined a priority order for reducing Consortial expenses, cancelling meetings of the Board before those of the Council, and meetings of the Council before those of work groups.
Answering a question about current recruitment efforts, Unsworth said that the Consortium had been targetting known contacts in various institutions, which had succeeded in building up a good initial base, but there had not been sufficient growth in member numbers over the last year. The Executive Director would be addressing this concern. Two particular problems were noted: European institutions were unfamiliar with the business model underlying membership in the Consortium; US institutions were coming under serious budgetary pressure. The Consortium's projections therefore seem optimistic and it is possible that membership may decline. It was noted that consortium membership was open also to groups of institutions, at the national or infrastructural level, but that none had as yet signed up.
The Treasurer presented a number of financial reports (Final balance sheet for 2001; Financial report for 2001-2. He noted that the reports were particularly difficult to present because they were international in scope, and that although our financial year was based on the calendar year, the institutions holding the accounts operated on differing academic financial years. The large grant received by the Consortium from the NEH in 2002 had had to be accounted in Virginia, since the Consortium had not at that time been set up as a financial entity.
The Treasurer first presented the final accounting for the year 2001, as accepted by the IRS, and then gave a more detailed breakdown. In summary, the annual turnover was of the order of $250,000, with income in cash and kind totalling approximately $100,000. This annual deficit of approx $150,000 was currently born by the Hosts, but could not be expected to continue at this level for long.
He next presented a status report for the current year, comparing the initial figures budgetted under various headings with their current status, and the figure projected for the end of 2002. Although budgetted income was in general higher than actual, expenses for meetings had in general been substantially less than anticipated, so that the bottom line for this report was zero.
As required by law, it was noted that members of the Board and Council were not in receipt of any remuneration for their services.
It was agreed to retain the services of KPMG as auditor, at a cost of $5000 for a further year, but to review this in due course.
Presenting the Draft Budget for 2003, the treasurer noted that no surplus would be transferred from 2002. With a more cautious estimate of income for this year, and some reduction in anticipated expenses, the books would balance at the end of 2002. It was suggested, and agreed, that an additional budget line for marketing activities would be useful. In answer to a question, it was noted that money from the NEH grant did not figure in the estimates for 2003. The Executive Director underlined again the importance of seeking substantial European funding during this period. It was also suggested that efforts should be made to secure major contributions from industrial or governmental sponsors.
With these qualifications, the proposed budget was approved unanimously
The meeting recorded its appreciation to the current Hosts for their willingness to continue support of the TEI beyond their original committment.
Unsworth explained the voting procedure to be adopted and membership elections took place. (see Candidates statements).
While votes were tallied, Flanders chaired an open discussion about future funding sources. Brief notes on the suggestions made by members are listed in an appendix below.
The following persons were duly elected to the Council: Alejandro Bia, David Birnbaum, David Durand, Susan Schreibman. The following persons were duly elected to the TEI Board: Greg Crane; Bill Kretzschmar, Geoffrey Rockwell
The Chairman congratulated those elected and thanked all candidates for their willingness to serve.
Two proposals had been received, one from Laurent Romary for the meeting to be held in Nancy, France; the other from Matthew Driscoll, for it to be held in Sofia or elsewhere in Bulgaria. Thanks were expressed for these offers, and it was agreed that the Board should try to find a way of accomodating both.
David Birnbaum, noting that the current date was inconvenient for many academics, asked whether it could be rescheduled. Unsworth pointed out that concerns about financial reporting required the meeting date to be near the end of the calendar year.
No further business being tabled, the Chair thanked the local organizers and programme committee for their efforts on behalf of the Consortium, thanked members for their participation, and noted that the Board would meet the following afternoon. The meeting closed at 1230.
The following points were raised in open discussion about ways of improving
recruitment to the Consortium: