JAN 31st, 2018
CDSA-ACEH MTG JAN 31st, 2018
Present: Jen, Fran, Arielle, Randy, Majid, Faith, Chelsea, Kim, Heather, Madeline.
- Approval of Minutes for December meeting:
Jen moved to approve the minutes; Arielle seconded.
- Approval of Agenda:
No additions. Jen moved to approve Agenda; seconded by Chelsea.
- Abstract Adjudication report:
Over the break, Heather coordinated abstract adjudication. Close to 90 submissions; fewer than last year, but appropriate for location and length of Congress. All fit into the program length. About 6 workshops and panels (i.e. 90-minute slots covered). One panel is Canadian Council for Disability Studies (i.e. will not have a separate session outside of the usual presentations); enough French submissions to have three French panels. Draft program has been made up; will be sent out for feedback. Currently four presentations per panel. Feedback welcome regarding the program in general, re: themes, etc. Trying to incorporate intersectionality into the conference program so that presentations are not exclusively grouped according to theme or subject area, so that intersectionality is addressed in each panel. Deadline for uploading program is March 16th. Jen will ask selected participants to respond re: participation and schedule. Jen removed titles from the break-out sessions. Please give feedback if you think that titles are needed for every panel.
To do: Provide feedback regarding schedule, titles, organization, etc.
International Keynote: May be moved; still waiting on International Speaker Support fund response. Should come this week. Not going to finalize the International Keynote until we have funding in order. Contingency plan is we move our Canadian keynote to the first day and then create an additional break-out session.
To do: move forward with Andrea Ritchie once Int’al Speaker Support fund is finalized.
- Budget Report:
Chelsea: little to report. Numbers are growing; we are around $20,000 mark. We have received $1,300 in sponsorship so far. There is more coming in.
Sponsorships: have received $500 from UOIT; 500 from U of Manitoba; 300 from U of Guelph. New College, Ryerson, York all planning to send something. Waiting on Access Fund from Ryerson to cover half of our access costs from last year. Heather reports the cheque is on its way. U of Regina: Randy has sent information to Jen; nothing definite committed from U of Regina yet. Thinks U of Regina is awaiting information from us. There is time to do a final push for donors to be included in the program before Congress deadline of March 16th. Jen will send an email to remind people to re-contact sponsors who have not yet committed to do so by March 16th.
To do: those with outstanding sponsorship requests, please follow up before March 16th.
- Upcoming Expenses:
- Accommodation Requests for Congress: Randy: we have to choose as an organization what we need for the conference, eg. ASL, closed captioning, etc. There is discussion of cost sharing with the university, but it is not clear what those will be. None of the options are inexpensive. CDSA-ACEH needs to send in requests / needs and then we will get a response from U of R regarding how much they will be able to cost-share. Sooner better than later.
Heather: in the past, congress has not covered any of the access costs; the host university is expected to share the costs with the Association. Re last year: there were only costs association with two associations: CDSA-ACEH, and one other. The hosts did not have this in their budget; the costs ended up coming out of CDSA-ACEH budget. This year, the Federation will also be contributing to accommodation costs. In terms of making decisions about accommodation: last year: captioning and ASL for plenaries and keynotes; individual workshops were handled as requested. Question: how are requests made past the individual stage? People make accommodation requests when they register; in the past, there has been an Excel sheet that is updated as requests are received. Heather also worked closely with CDSA-ACEH president (Fran) last year, as individuals had been in touch with her directly. Fran recruited a couple of ASL interpreters well in advance; dec’n was made to have ASL and captioning available for plenaries and keynotes; other sessions required individual requests. This was not acceptable to everyone, as ppl then could not change their mind about which sessions to attend. Material for all the workshops can be made available if presenters can give their material to the interpreters in advance. Heather happy to share the letter that was sent to presenters last year.
Discussion: does Congress also provide LSQ? Congress does not provide them; we have to book them. Suggestion re: using AI Media as well. Their accuracy for remote captioning is far better than typical CART. They use a different technology: voice to text technology and correct as they go along. A bit more expensive but they don’t have a 2-hour minimum and can add on in 15-minute increments. Heather has emailed them to inquire about webinar and broadcast rates. The may lower rates if they are asked to do a number of sessions or a session under 2 hours. Discussion: we need to look into options. AI Media can also provide service on very little notice. Heather will get more information on AI Media rates and will share it with the group. We need to decide what we would want to provide it for. One suggestion: provide for all plenaries and keynotes; the rest, as requested.
Discussion: Should we proceed with ASL and CART for plenaries and keynotes, and CART at the plenaries, on request? Heather: thinks remote captioning is better as opposed to in-person. So you have live captioning, and you have the choice of somebody being in the room, with a little machine and a table, or AI Media. So, for booking with the U of Regina, we could book one or both services for the plenaries, and then either service as requested based on accommodation needs. Discussion: re: need for both types of service for plenaries and keynotes; staying with current protocol is good; must book interpreters as quickly as possible. We still need to think about LSQ. This is something to follow up with Congress. Need to find out if AI does captioning for something that is not in the room, and whether or not they do LSQ. When Jen puts out the program, she will remind people to indicate access needs as soon as possible. Jen will work with Randy and Faith re: communication at the conference.
Someone has inquired about PSW costs. In previous years, CDSA-ACEH provided one male and one female support worker for each day of the conference; if someone brought their own PSW, they would have to pay for her / him. If a PSW comes with a participant, they do not register with Congress, and PSW can be included in meals provided by CDSA, but CDSA has not covered accommodation costs in the past. Example: last year, a participant made use of the attendants provided by CDSA-ACEH during the day; hired a local attendant to help with daily routines outside of congress.
- Remind membership to indicate access needs as soon as possible.
- Clarify with memberships what support will be available at conference (i.e. PSWs at conference, ASL, etc.)
- Decide which ASL / SLQ / captioning system to use.
- Inform U of Regina of accommodation needs.
- Determine extent of U of Regina’s financial commitment.
- Knowledge Keeper:
Randy and Faith have found a Knowledge Keeper, Norma Jean Bird, to open the Conference. Randy and Faith have offered to cover the costs, including consultation prior to congress. No costs to CDSA-ACEH. Norma Jean Bird will open the conference on the first day and can provide a number of services. We want to avoid ceremonial herbs, or anything that could cause a scent. Last year the Knowledge Keeper facilitated the opening, with 10-15 minutes time to talk. Costs this year would include her fees for a blessing and a talk, as well as mileage and parking.
Discussion re: ongoing consultation with Knowledge Keeper going forward towards Congress. Randy will ask her how she feels about supporting CDSA-ACEH in its preparations. Randy will report back.
To do: Randy will consult with Knowledge Keeper about ongoing consultation in preparation for conference.
- AV Equipment:
We have to book; are dependent on room allocations. Randy and Faith can review the room allocations Feb. 12th; we can request AV as of Feb. 26th. We need to consider a Greeting Table. Heather: last year, 2 main rooms with Greeting Tables in both locations. One of the tables was paid for by Congress; one was covered by CDSA-ACEH. This will depend on plenary location.
One participant has asked about AV possibilities for remote presentation. Remote presenters might be asked to create a podcast or a video, or Skype them in. Will proceed with arrangements for people to present remotely if they need to. The possibility for a remote audience will not be easy; U of R may not be able to support a large remote audience. This may not proceed this year. Heather: what does this involve? Zoom or Skype with internet access? If so, we could probably do it. Sound quality and internet access may be issues.
- Randy and Faith to make AV requests by Feb. 26th
- Membership reminded of requirements for presenting remotely.
- Award Adjudications
Tanis Doe Award: Deadline mid-February. Recognizes senior scholars and activists who have made contributions to the field and to social justice. Involves a 3-page nomination; no self-nomination. No TD nominations yet. Charles and Marie will receive the Francophone Tanis Doe award nominations. A rubric was developed last year for the first time. Is helping to quantify people’s decision-making. Rubric presented and will be used moving forward. Will have to be translated.
Discussion re: how to formalize the TD award adjudication process. In the past, had two people from the Board and the previous year’s TD Award winner. It has not been clear in the past whether people have to meet, teleconference, or by email, etc., as well as the process. i.e. consensus or ‘majority vote’. These need to be clarified, as there have been problems in the past with communication and the committee not arriving at a unanimous decision.
Discussion re: what this asks of the committee. People are adjudicating without pay; some people looking to do something fairly quickly and without having to meet. Clarity needed re: who should be the Chair and what the role entails.
Heather gave feedback re: when the rubric was used for an award at Ryerson. All information was sent in remotely; the committee was given a time line and a deadline by which they had to send everything back. This committee met once. Had a run-off between two final candidates.
Jen offered to act as Chair but non-voting, and organize the people on the adjudication committee to complete the rubrics and then to meet by ZOOM.
Discussion: re: incorporating more intersectionality into the rubric. i.e. Criterion 2: change the word ‘equality’ to ‘equity’. People are encouraged to forward revision ideas for rubric to Jen. Re: final meeting: considered a good idea. Responsibilities will therefore include completing rubric and a ZOOM meeting.
Consensus or majority voting? Consensus is the first choice, and then if there is disagreement, go back to the rubric and re-score those that are tied or where there is disagreement. What to do if people cannot reach consensus? Base the conflict on the rubric. The scoring should be brought to the ZOOM meeting. In the event that there is a tie, then you fill out the rubric again for the tied candidates. People must give reasoning for being not willing to move from their position.
Be clear in invitation regarding conflict of interest: nominators and potential recipients cannot be anonymized, and this creates a potential conflict that cannot be avoided. Could not have published with them; related or in a relationship with; in the same department or programme; being on a grant with them. Conflict will be mitigated if the adjudication committee is anonymous. Currently, the last year’s winner was on committee; going forward after this year that will no longer happen. There will be an email call for adjudicators (first to the Board; and then an open call if there is not enough response), and it will include the rubric, the commitment, etc. From now on, President will be a non-voting member of the adjudication committee, and the committee will consist of three people + president. Make clear that the rubric must be used in the adjudication process. Factors that are in the rubric should be made clear when we are asking people for nominations. i.e. scoring rubric and the call for the award should be reconciled. To do for 2019: reconcile the Call for nominations with the Rubric.
– send feedback re: rubric to Jen (esp with regard to intersectionality).
-Jen to put out call for adjudication committee for TD Award. Call will include expectations of the committee (evaluation using rubric and ZOOM meeting); conflict of interest guidelines; steps in case of non-consensus.
– for 2019: reconcile Call for the award with the scoring rubric.
Conference award / financial bursaries: Due mid-February. People were informed of this when they received their acceptance notifications. Are available for students or non-waged workers. This will be re-posted through social media. We have received several applications thus far. These are awarded by lottery. (5 x $200.00 each). Be clear about parameters and that awards are done by lottery. Arielle volunteered to choose recipients of the bursaries randomly. Suggestion to take out all the information and to just put names in. Arielle suggested assigning everyone a number so that the process is anonymous. Jen will organize the list and will forward on to Arielle.
To do: Arielle to randomize and carry out the lottery for student awards.
Student paper competition: Award applications due mid-end of term, end of April. Students must submit their full paper. We currently do not have a protocol or score card for this award. In the past, student rep on the Board has organized the adjudication panel and informed the board. To do: Arielle will ask student rep from last year about the process for choosing the winner. We need to establish criteria/ method for choosing adjudicators and winners that is consistent every year. Also to decide: does the committee need to meet; establishing conflict of interest; consensus decision-making, etc. To discuss at next meeting.
To do: Arielle to ask last year’s student rep about process for choosing winner. Award parameters to be discussed next meeting.
All three award calls have been translated and distributed through social media.
- Any other business:
- Look for emails from CDSA-ACEH to serve on Tanis Doe adjudication.
- For next meeting: Jen will bring motions arising from this meeting; final costs for accommodation; more info on Student paper competition.
Jen moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Madeline. All in favour. Meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.