In this Page:
MOUG Bylaws Revision Task Force
Task Force to Study MOUG’s Mission and Objectives
Members:
Stephanie Bonjack, chair (VanderCook College of Music)
Nara Newcomer (East Carolina University)
Jeannette Thompson (Tulane University)
Charge Date:
April 9, 2007, by Neil Hughes, Chair, Music OCLC Users Group, on behalf of the MOUG Executive Board
Charge:
The MOUG Bylaws Revision Task Force is charged to:
1. Examine the MOUG Bylaws, for currency, clarity, and with an eye to bringing them in line with best practices in other professional library organizations (whether affiliated with MOUG or not, e.g. the Music Library Association (MLA), but preferably organizations that are not too dissimilar in size and general administrative structure), and make recommendations for change to the MOUG Executive Board. Items 2-5 following outline particular areas on which the Board would like you to focus;
2. With regard to “best practices” in 1, preceding: identify content in the Bylaws that fails to take into account recent technological change that might aid MOUG in carrying out its mission and objectives. (For example, is there a now widely-adopted way of voting, via e-mail or the Web, that could be considered by the Executive Board without incurring unreasonable expenses?)
3. Also with regard to “best practices,” identify administrative issues that may need investigation by the Board (e.g., lengths of term and responsibilities of each Board officer; composition of the Board—e.g., are there sufficient officers, and are their responsibilities effectively distributed?; frequency of meetings of the membership and/or the Board; etc.);
4. Identify content in the Officers’ Handbook that might better be addressed by the Bylaws, keeping in mind that the Bylaws should largely address those matters that should not easily be changed, i.e., without a ballot vote by the membership, whereas the Handbook should deal with operational matters relating to business of the organization that can (and should) be changed simply by discussion and agreement among Board members.
5. Communicate with the concurrent Task Force to Study MOUG’s Mission and Objectives (Joseph Hafner, chair (McGill University)), keeping in mind that the present charge to the Bylaws Revision Task Force is focused on bringing the Bylaws in line with the Mission and Objectives extant as of April 2007, not whatever the final outcome of the other group’s work may prove to be.
The Board sees no conflict in the work of the two concurrent task forces. On
the contrary; they are complementary. Having the Bylaws “cleaned up”
to match current MOUG practice and other organizations’ best practices
will make them much easier to modify should there prove to be any need to do
so following implementation of recommendations from the Task Force to Study
MOUG’s Mission and Objectives.
Communication with the Board as you deem necessary is encouraged. As a first step, you might all wish to read extensively in back issues of the MOUG Newsletter. A good starting place is the September, 1998 issue, no. 70, as it contains the article “MOUG Timeline,” by Jay Weitz and Neil Hughes, outlining MOUG history from 1970 through 1998. You will shortly be provided with the URL for the Officers’ Handbook (initially for the April 2006 version; updates with mostly minor changes will follow in the next month or two, and a new URL will also be provided for that) so that you may examine it to carry out the third element of your charge.
You will not need to address or make recommendations regarding Article III, Membership, Section 2, 1st sentence, which reads: “The annual dues shall be set by the Executive Board, subject to approval by the membership at the annual meeting.” The Board will be drafting a proposed change to this procedure for a vote by the membership during calendar year 2007. The Board will also be addressing the length of term for the office of Treasurer shortly, but would still appreciate your thoughts on the other Board offices referred to in 3, above.
Your final, written report is due to me by the summer or fall Board meeting (i.e. anywhere from July through September, depending on when it is set) of next year, 2008, with a summary progress report first due in time for the annual meeting in Newport, RI, in February 2008. I will be sure to notify Stephanie as soon as the date for the summer or fall Board meeting has been set, which usually happens at the annual MOUG meeting held in conjunction with MLA.
Task
Force to Study MOUG’s Mission and Objectives
Members:
Joseph Hafner (McGill University, chair)
James L. Soe Nyun (University of California San
Diego)
Sue Ellen Stancu (Indiana University)
Charge Date:
April 19, 2007, by Neil Hughes, Chair, Music
OCLC Users Group, on behalf of the MOUG Executive Board
Charge:
The Task Force to Study MOUG’s Mission and Objectives is charged with:
1. Examining all aspects of MOUG’s current mission statement (found in the masthead of each Newsletter) and objectives (MOUG Bylaws, Article II) in the light of recent changes at OCLC (e.g. the merger with the Research Libraries Group) and in the profession of music librarianship at large, and making recommendations to MOUG’s executive board either for change or maintaining the status quo in the following areas:
a) The stated goals and purposes of MOUG, especially regarding our relationship with OCLC, Inc.;
b) MOUG’s relationship with the Music Library Association (MLA);
c) MOUG’s relationship with the NACO-Music Project (NMP);
d) MOUG’s relationships with the various vendors of MOUG members’ integrated library systems (ILSs);
e) The content and format of annual meetings;
f) The composition, structure, and function of MOUG’s Executive Board, especially as they relate to carrying out MOUG’s mission and objectives efficiently and effectively.2. With regard to 1. a-d, preceding, focusing particularly on whether or not MOUG’s relationships with these other organizations should become closer (e.g., attempting to formalize and increase MOUG’s advisory role at OCLC for interface design; more jointly-sponsored workshops with MLA; collaborating more closely with MLA committees and/or vendor user groups to assess and/or articulate music-friendly standards for ILSs and federated search systems; maintaining and perhaps even strengthening MOUG oversight of the NMP; attempting to formalize and increase MOUG’s advisory role among ILS vendors for interface design, and encouraging them to work more closely with OCLC) or more distinct and separate (e.g., cutting the NMP loose from MOUG oversight and MOUG Board representation; building stronger affiliations with library professional organizations other than MLA and OLAC).
3. The task force should feel free to consider any other broad, related issues not mentioned above that may occur to you during your deliberations, e.g., communication (website, newsletter, electronic discussion list, etc.); outreach (educational or otherwise); publicity; etc., and make recommendations regarding such issues, especially with regard to changes in documentation or to the functionality of any of these that might affect 1 or 2 preceding.
The Board recommends that before you begin in earnest, you familiarize yourselves with MOUG history by reading extensively in back issues of the MOUG Newsletter. (The September, 1998 issue, no. 70, is a good place to start, as it contains the article “MOUG Timeline,” by Jay Weitz and Neil Hughes, outlining MOUG history from 1970 through 1998.) Documents may be requested from the archives if deemed necessary. You should not overly concern yourselves with budget or other such practical considerations when making recommendations, though obviously common sense should always come into play—what is sought here is very much “the big picture” view of MOUG as a professional organization. Requesting input on a regular basis, from both the Board and the membership, is strongly advised and encouraged.
The charge should be completed and a written report submitted approximately one month before the MOUG Executive Board’s summer meeting in 2008. (Said meeting will be held sometime between July through September; the exact date and a final deadline will be provided to you in early spring, 2008.) A brief, summary, interim report on your progress should be written and presented to the Board, and then presented orally to the membership, at the MOUG annual meeting that will be held in conjunction with MLA in Newport, RI, the week of February 18-23, 2008.
____________
(1) The Board appreciates that MOUG currently has no formal relationships with any such vendors. The question is: is there any reason why that should possibly change, and in what broadly-defined ways?