I Minutes of January Meeting

   1.  M/S  (Scott/Frank) Accept minutes of the January meeting.  Passed unanimously.

II  Report From National

Relevant Matters and Highlights from the Recent (February) National Meeting.

   2.  Change of the Name of the Consortium

The name change to "Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges"  has been voted upon.  Matt is now counting the votes.

   3.  Regional Sites

Each region can now be accessed by the url:  http://www.ccsc.org/<regionname>

   4.  Database Project

National has begun an important revamp of records keeping with a database project.  The official objective is:

It is the goal of this project to provide a web-based solution for the database and reporting needs of the CCSC both at the regional and national level. The solution should be scalable, and  portable to meet any and all future needs of the CCSC.

The first test will be mid to late summer.  Date of general availability is unknown.

   5.  Credit Cards

National has begun to address the credit card issue.  Credit card registrations will now be accepted.  However, since there is an elections for treasurer upcoming, the results will be awaited before starting to do so.

 
It is expected that the Consortium will have one machine, and that registration forms will contain credit card numbers which someone will manually entered into the database.  It is estimated that it will cost the consortium approximately $1000 a year. 

   6.  CCSC logo

National has considered a few new logos but has for the time being decided to stay with the current one. 

The logo now has a better print version than it previously had.

   7.  National Treasurer's report

Attached report2000-01.xls 

  8.   Guidelines for Small Departments

The report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Guidelines for Small Departments has been issued.  Those interested may find it in the minutes of the national meeting of February 20002 at: http://www.ccsc.org/board/minutes/Spring02Minutes.htm

At this point David asked for numbers of attendees, vendors, motel rooms, meals, programming teams, etc.  Scott has this information.  David and Scott will talk.  Many items such as number of hotel rooms needed vary from site to site.  Same is true of number of programming teams and other numbers. ACTION ITEM (David and Scott)

 III Old Business - Updates, Reports, Revisits

9.    Future Hosts

The future hosting is looking rather good:
   A.   2004  - Union College (David Hemmendinger): as good as certain, though not  actually official yet)

M/S (Frank/Larry) Scott will be co-chair of the 2004 conference.  Passed unanimously.

The co-chairs are asked to check out 2 or 3 CCSC web sites to see when they have set their dates.  WE will try to have ours April 23,24 (first choice) or April 16, 17 (second choice).

   B. 2005  - Univ. of Hartford (Ingrid is working with her conference center here to get some details)

We will use the same conference area as before but a different dinner area.  Generally agreed to have no dinner speaker.  It was mentioned that as early in April as possible would be good.

Danny Kopec will send a letter to the best paper winners.  ACTION ITEM (Danny)

   C. 2006 -  Brooklyn College (possible, though awaiting Danny Kopec's tenure results)

10.   Subcommittee: Reimbursement for Travel

No report.

11.   Format for Journal Papers

We currently accept and even encourage papers to be submitted in WordPerfect format.  WordPerfect is clearly obsolescent.  No one this year submitted in that form; almost all were in Word.

      Suggestion 1:  We no longer accept papers in  WordPerfect.
      Suggestion 2:  We no longer advertise that WordPerfect is the  preferred format.

If National wants to keep WordPerfect for reason to do with the Journal printing, that's up to them.  The journal editor does, as we understand it, already have to reset almost all papers in WordPerfect in any case.

Replace all references to "WordPerfect" with "Word".  Moved and passed by acclamation.

12.   Conference Mailings

Email from Frank:

In reference to mailings, we have always done two or more in my recollection.  I believe Ingrid likes three but until last year, we only did two.  The first one comes after the September meeting and is a call for participation.  The second one is the preliminary program and the  actual registration form and comes after the January meeting (usually MUCH after it; it has been in March).  As far as I know, both mailings go to the CCSC membership that requested mailings from the Northeastern section.  (I believe you can request as many section mailings as you want when you join.).  I know we also send everything through e-mail.  The duties of the Conference Chair listed on the web site clearly calls  for two mailings of 2000+.  I think this should be a discussion item at  the January meeting.  I think I am doing justice to Rod's position if I  say that he considers our reliance on snail mail to be an atavistic leftover from pre-internet days that ought to be resisted by those of us who are computer scientists.  I think I agree with him and I have another point to bring up.  We send the mailings to those who already know about the conference.  I don't think we gain that much from the mailings over our email reminders.  Perhaps we should invest in several emailings as reminders and invest our snail mail money in buying the AMS's mailing list of CS Department chairs and send them the mailings. There are not that many in the list.  As to the 1000 contribution from RIC, I think we can include the xeroxing of the preliminary and final programs and the xeroxing of copies that need to go to the other conferences as publicity, the money given for student help, the cost of the meals for the planning meetings, the folders used at the conference, the preparation of the meal tickets, and at least one mailing of some sort.  This discounts the time spent by the organizers, the secretarial help, the rooms, computer labs, parking, internet connections, audio-visual services, tables, internet and phone communications, heat, light, ventilation, etc.  If we were paying for these at a conference center or a hotel, the cost would be prohibitive.  Perhaps that should
be included in our calculations.  The upstart of all this may hawk back  to a discussion we had earlier- how much money do we really make at these conferences.  I'm not sure it is realistic to expect Colleges to pay for so much.  I think we may have to up our registration cost to 110 (or 120).  I realize we want to keep our costs low but we would still be much, much cheaper than other conferences in CS.  This could give us 4000-6000 more dollars to use for the conference.  I also think that some of that ought to be kept in the section as a "rainy-day" fund.  I realize that as a large and vibrant section, we should help subsidize other sections but I would like to have something to fall back on in case we have a problem year.  Any thoughts on these matters?  If all of
you are willing, I would be willing to have this email sent to the board  for consideration.

Discussion.
RIC does not want to pay for 2 mailings.  May be best to send only one.  Email all others.  Sending a second mailing of 2000 copies was discussed.  We hope to go paperless after 2003.  We need to update our mailing list annually.  Hiring a student to do it was suggested.  We also need to be sure that Ralph Morelli's email list is up to date and has no repeats.

M/S (Charlie/Frank)  One physical mailing (of CFP) for 2003, email all other notifications.  Passed by acclamation.

Matt suggested that in the future we have a checkbox in the database system for each member to say whether U.S. mail or email is preferred.

13.   Paper Registration

This year there have been minor problems created in the paper registration process by the fact that a few authors registered their papers at different times from when they submitted them.  We had one most unfortunate example of a paper that was not registered at all.  Suggestion: we send email confirmation of BOTH the paper registration and paper submission.  Each email is to mention the need for the authors to both register and submit their papers.

Discussion.    Paper registration and submission are disconnected.   Also there seems to be a problem when 2 authors have the same last name.  It is suggested that we use the paper number as the key, not last name.

Amruth said that even if we improve the key system it will still be necessary for the paper's chairs to actually check to see if the correct paper or any paper was actually submitted.

Need to send reminder to people who have registered as authors but have not submitted.

Should have the ability to resubmit a paper on the web site.

Karl will decide how to handle these problems.  ACTION ITEM (Karl)

 IV New Business

14.  Responsibilities and their Maintenance

Who maintains the list of responsibilities?  Is it the Web master or conference chair?

Who writes, amend and updates the various list of responsibilities?

Board polices have a way of getting lost or forgotten about, especially over time.  I suggest that  every item in the minutes (motion, etc.) be seen as implying an  action.  That action will often be merely that the appropriate person should update the relevant list of responsibilities and forward it to whoever maintains those lists.  I would also like the minutes to include, for each item, the relevant action to be taken, such as:
Action: update papers chair responsibilities.
As each item is dealt with by the board, the discussion should be such that it becomes clear what the needed action is.

Discussion.  Each chair person should keep a responsibilities list for their position.  Otherwise we will lose this information.

Each position on the board or the conference committee carries with it a responsibility list that the person holding that position must update.  The URL for each person's responsibility list must be sent to them.  Everyone should look at their responsibility list.  The list must include the documents that the person holding the position generates, not only what the document is but a link to the document itself.  ACTION ITEM (Frank Ford)

Danny K. volunteers to take the responsibility of matching papers to reviewer using student help. ACTION ITEM (Danny)

15.   Treasurer's Reports

a.  2002 Conference. 

Several items changed from the budget.

Deleted $20 from the student poster awards to make the prizes even.  Awards went from $300 to $280.

Added $15 to the programming contest awards bringing them from $600 to $615.

We are presently $100 in the hole.

Deviations from budget - Lots more meals, lots more registrations.

We got less from vendors this year.

Budgeted $400 for best paper and student posters, got $0.

Budgeted $1000 for social hour, got $0.

Overall budget showed an expected vendor contribution of $1500 but only got $750.

We now have 7 national vendors instead of 6 so we may get an additional $100 from national.

There was too much food this year, much was wasted.  It was suggested that we use the numbers of registrants from the week before the conference as an estimate hoping that no-shows balance late registrants.  There was a difference of opinion as to whether this tactic was successful.  Ingrid suggested we do try this method in the future.

Viera suggested that we start giving student oriented tutorials on grad school and jobs to keep students here.

Three foam core boards lost for a total of $15.  Not something to worry over.

Giving cash for student prizes worked well.

b.  Scott reported on the 2003 budget.

The glitches in getting vendor contributions seem to have been addressed for next year.

Can we get more from national for national vendors?  National gets $2000/vendor.  $800 of that is split among the 8 regions, giving each region $100 and leaving national with $1200/vendor.  National does take care of recruiting national vendors.   Perhaps the amount received should be proportional to conference attendance.  Perhaps all regions should get more than $100.  Another possibility was to have regions receive extra if the vendor actually attends the  conference.   Ingrid and Richard Wyatt will bring to national our concern about getting more of the total.  ACTION ITEM (Ingrid and Richard Wyatt).

What should the registration costs be for 2003?
Student attendees
  Poster contest - meal ($30 - $45)
  Programming contest - meals ($42 - $57)

Motion to change the poster fee to $30/contestant with a $50 fee for each poster.  Advisor will register only if attending.  Passed by acclamation.
(Note:  We can expect to realize about $1000 from this change.)

c.  The 2004 conference budget will be ready for the September meeting.

16.   Michael Anderson and the Treasurer's Position

Michael has resigned from CCSCNE and so cannot serve as the new treasurer.
Scott's term expires this year, so we need to elect a new treasurer.

Scott is not, of course, excluded.  However, he has said that if he were to continue he would not be able to attend all board meetings.   How important is this?

Scott has volunteered to be Treasurer.  Scott will attend the conference and at least one other meeting.  Scott could be available by phone for the other meetings.  Board accepted Scott's volunteering unanimously.

17.   Regional Editor

Richard Close's term expires this year.  We need to elect a new Regional Editor.  (Richard Close is not, of course, excluded.)

M/S (Larry/Ingrid)  The Board thanks Richard Close for his 3 years of service.  Unanimous.

M/S (Dick/Ingrid)  Larry will be the Regional Editor.  Passed unanimously.

18.   Membership Chair

Ralph's term as Membership Chair has expired (2001).  Ralph:  I don't know if my term is up this year or not, but I'm planning to vacate my position as membership chair after the conference. I'll be happy to work with the new membership chair to make the transition.  I've enjoyed working with you and the rest of the board over the
years. Of course, I'll continue to be a member of CCSCNE and attend the symposium.

M/S (Ingrid/Larry)  The Board thanks Ralph Morelli for his years as Membership chair.  Unanimous.

M/S (Charlie/Ingrid)  Danny be elected as Membership Chair.  Passed unanimously.

19.   National and it's Relationship to the Regions

This relationship appears to be increasingly uneasy.  Although there is certainly no crisis at present, the matter is worth being aware of and discussing.

The relationship between CCSCNE and National Consortium For Computing In Small Colleges was discussed.  Some dissatisfaction with National was expressed.  The main thrusts were that (1) we contribute more to national
than we get back and that (2) the "overhead" in detailing with National was, some felt, more trouble than it is worth.  However, the dominant view of the board members was that we should "see how things go". There was no consensus at present to pursue the matter at present.
 
 

20.   NE Membership Lists 

Through no fault of his own, Ralph has not been successful over the last few years in getting a new email list from national to update his list for NE.  Discuss of ways to keep our list up to date.

See the latter part of item 12., above.

21.   Programming Contest

a.  One team did not show up for the contest.  The gave notification one week before.  Should be give them their registration fee back based on this early notification?

M/S  (Viera/Amruth)  We will address the refund policy at the September meeting.  Passed unanimously.

M/S  (Frank/Viera)  In absence of a refund policy and due to the one week notification we will refund the $90.  Passed unanimously.   ACTION ITEM (Scott)

b.  Should we allow graduate students in the Programming Contest?  (The Board minutes of the January 12 2002 meeting: "All students who have matriculated (been admitted) at the college are eligible.")

No graduate students will be allowed in the programming contest.  Moved and passed by acclamation.

c.  We do not have a policy on the fees for teams with fewer than three members.  Should they get a discount?
 Scott's budget shows $30/contestant plus $50 for the team (up to 3 members on a team).

d.  Do we want to make a case to national for a greater share of the monies available for prizes, given the number of teams that we have and our expenses?

No.  By acclamation.
 

22.   Timely release of Conference Forms

Some member suggestions:

Registration forms: all (presenter, attendee, student, vendor, programming contest) should be complete and on the web site by the September meeting.  We always seem to run into problems with this and mostly because we don't take care of these in advance.

Budget: the budget should be presented to the regional board at the September meeting since it is due to national by October. I also think it should be discussed with the regional treasurer before submitting it to the
regional board.

Author page and camera ready copies: I'd like to see this done by the September meeting so authors follow the guidelines when submitting their papers.  This will make it less of an effort when submitting camera ready
copies and will help with papers being submitted by the deadline.  It will also prevent last minute rush to get this page done around the deadline.

M/S (Ingrid/Larry)  Regional Registration Chair will have preliminary registration forms revised and available by the September meeting.  Passed unanimously.  ACTION ITEM (Ying Chou)

M/S (Ingrid/Frank)  Budget for the conference of year n+2 must be ready by the September meeting in year n.  Passed unanimously.  (e.g. Budget for the 2004 meeting will be ready in September 2002).  ACTION ITEM (Scott)

Conference awards should be on the Web.  The 2002 committee will send the winner information to Karl.  CCSCNE home page will link to winners and next year's conference.  (Karl)

M/S (Scott/Charlie)  Karl will post conference awards information so it is easily available from the regional web page.  Passed unanimously.  (Karl)

23.   Regional Registrar Versus Conference Registration Chair

What are the actual responsibilities of the regional registrar (Frank)? And what is the relation between that position and the Conference Registration Chair (currently Betsey)?  We need to review the lists of responsibilities for both.

Frank (Regional Registrar) is in charge of registration forms.  He contacts either the local registrar or the national to determine what is sent where.  ACTION ITEM (Frank).

At this point Richard Wyatt read the following list of chairs for the 2003 conference. 
 

CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS Frank Ford Rod Rodrigues	PAPERS CO-CHAIRS Karl Wurst (senior) Lawrence D'Antonio Hemant Pendharkor	UNDERGRADUATE POSTERS CHAIR Michael Gousie	PANELS/TUTORIALS/ WORKSHOPS CO-CHAIRS Roger Simons Laurie King
SPEAKERS CHAIR  Mary Russell	VENDORS CO-CHAIRS Ingrid Russell (senior) Paul Chiasson	PUBLICITY CO-CHAIRS  Frank Ford Charlie Welty	REGISTRATION CHAIR  Ying Chou
PROGRAMMING CONTEST CHAIR Tim Huang	LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS CO-CHAIRS  Kate Sanders David Armatage

24.   Papers

We use a web-based submission system for version of papers for reviewing, but a not for the camera ready versions.  Can we adapt the system for the latter use too?  If so, the journal editor could merely download the completed papers.

Larry will look into this.  ACTION ITEM (Larry).

       Papers must not exceed length guidelines.  We need to emphasize this more and be firmer.

25.  Session Chairs

At present, the assigning and finding of session chairs at the conference is not listed as anyone's responsibility.  Who should do it?  This needs to be clarified.

M/S (Ingrid/Frank)  Finding session chairs for papers, panels, and tutorials will be the responsibility of the Conference Chair.  Passed 8-0-2.  ACTION ITEM (Frank, Rod)

Discussion.  Also the session chairs should be given guidelines as to their responsibilities.  Conference chair will send thank you notes to session chairs.

26.  Registration Limits

This year, registration for the conference has reached a level that strains the limit of the facilities. Some of this is due to the number of students in the programming contest, but not all of it. Perhaps we need a policy to
set an upper limit on registration (based on the facilities for that year). It would need to be publicized, and we would need a way of implementing it via Cathy (until we do our own registration locally.)

This was considered to be a concern that will vary from host institution to host institution.  Frank will contact RIC people about their view on restricting registration for 2003.  ACTION ITEM (Frank)

27.   Criteria for Judging Best Paper

Should they be judged only on presentation, or presentation and content, or just contents?

This year the Paper's Chairs chose the candidates from the reviewers' reports and awards were based on content and delivery.  This was discussed but no firm decision was made.

When should authors be told they are being considered for the best paper? Before their presentation?  Immediately After?  At some other time.

Not really discussed.

28.   Posters  (Postponed)

Is it sufficient to display them for only one hour?

Do we want to continue having the two forms of judging: popular and official?

Should we ask for an extended abstract?  Perhaps we should judge on content and presentation as 2 separate categories with awards in each.

29.   Free Hotel Rooms (Postponed)

What is the best way to distribute them?  And to whom?

Respectfully submitted,
Charles Welty,
Secretary