1. Structure and operation of CASE
2. Standards wrap up
3. Accreditation
4. National website
5. Promotional campaign
6. Thesis editing
7. National conferenceAppendix 1. Summary of proposals
Appendix 2: Points raised during discussion
Present: Ed Highley (Canberra), Shelley Kenigsberg (NSW), Cathy Gray (NSW, notes), Helena Bond (Qld), Karen Disney (SA), Robyn Colman (Tas.), Renée Otmar (Vic. CASE delegate, chair), Janet Mackenzie (Vic. accreditation delegate)
Apologies: Betty Durston (WA) The meeting expressed concern and sympathy for Betty Durston, who had been called back to Perth on Saturday morning due to family illness.
Discussion explored options including:
- full federated structure,- national secretariat,
- a version of the current 'Council' approach
It was noted that whatever the structure we still had to work out the mechanics of national activity: how meetings are called, how they're run, relationship of national 'body' to state societies, etc.
It was felt that, although a more formal structure would be necessary eventually if something like an accreditation system was introduced, national action could still be project-led at this 'developmental' stage as long as there were mechanisms for:
- monitoring activity and keeping it on track- calling and running meetings as necessary
- not losing good ideas.
1.1 Principles: An approach based on the following principles is proposed:
- CASE is a mechanism for national cooperation rather than a national organisation; it is a 'council of delegates' rather than a representative body with power of its own;
- CASE consists of one delegate from each of the Canberra, NSW, Qld, SA, Tas, Vic and WA societies (as the Northern Territory is not yet a formally constituted society and the costs of an NT delegate attending meetings would be very high, the idea is that the NT society have observer/contributor status at this stage, and be included in all correspondence and discussions via email);
- CASE makes proposals which are then taken back to the state societies for endorsement; CASE does not make decisions which bind the societies;
- proposals are developed at CASE meetings by consensus, not by majority vote;
- each CASE proposal will have a convenor or CASE delegate who is responsible for it, and an indicative costing if relevant;
- once a CASE proposal is endorsed by all the societies, it becomes a national activity;
- if a particular society does not endorse a CASE proposal, further discussion can occur between the society and CASE, via the delegate responsible for the proposal;
- if a proposal establishes a national working group, the first task of that working group would be to establish how it will operate, including a protocol for consultation with members of each society; and a mechanism for providing regular progress reports that can be published in state newsletters;
- the cost of agreed national activities should be met by all the societies on a pro rata basis, with proportions determined in November each year according to the membership income of each society as published in its most recent end-of-financial-year accounts.
1.2 Meetings: We propose that up to two national meetings would be held per calendar year:
- usually one meeting would be of CASE itself and one of a national working group, but CASE may decide that both should be working group meetings, or that no meetings at all are required that year;
- meetings would be held alternately in Sydney and Melbourne (as the most cost-effective central locations), or in another city if this is necessary or convenient for a special reason e.g. in conjunction with a national conference;
- the society hosting a meeting would organise the venue and accommodation, and provide a secretary for that meeting; who then becomes the CASE secretary until the next CASE meeting;
- costs would include travel costs (airfares, transfers, petrol), accommodation if required, meeting venue if required, catering during the meeting; per diem of $25 per day per 'away from home' delegate
- every effort should be made to minimise costs without compromising the effectiveness of the meeting or the wellbeing of the delegates
Indicative costing: $3200 per meeting (based on estimated cost of this meeting; may be revised once all actual costs are in)
1.3 Activity between meetings: We propose that the CASE secretary would be responsible for:
- keeping an up-to-date CASE contact list;
- monitoring the progress of agreed national activities and keeping CASE delegates informed of this;
- acting as a focus for enquiries from CASE delegates about proposals and national activities;
- keeping an 'ideas' file for ideas that come up between meetings;
- notifying CASE delegates if 18 months had elapsed without a CASE meeting, so that a decision could be made whether to hold one or not
- calling the next meeting including confirming the date and agenda, and ensuring the host society has the information it needs to organise and run the meeting
- handing over to the next meeting secretary
Costing: Nil (time only)
Note that the CASE secretary is not intended to act as the public point of contact for CASE or as the point of contact between individual society members and CASE. Communication with members should be handled through each society's delegate, and any correspondence from CASE or its working groups should be handled by the CASE delegate responsible for that national activity.
CASE contacts such as PO box, email address, etc. could be investigated in future; some of these are possible to implement without actually creating a separate national body.
Future options
1.4 Research: Canberra society to undertake preliminary research into the way other groups manage the relationship between national and regional organisation (e.g. Society of Indexers, SFEP in the UK).
Responsibility: Ed Highley
The following are proposed:
2.1 Archive: That the SA society archive on CD material relating to the development of the standards, and hold this archive and a backup copy on behalf of all the societies.
Costing: Cost of CDs only (SA to add this to their claim for meeting costs if they want); Responsibility: Karen Disney
2.2 'Wrap up' report: That Cathy Gray liaise with Kathie Stove (Standards Working Group convenor) to compile a 'wrap up' report, perhaps based on Kathie's speech at Canberra conference plus NSW 'process summary'. A draft of this to be sent to Standards Working Group members so they can add any comments on the process (focusing on what may be useful to the operation of future working groups). Once compiled, this report to be sent to all societies as well as included in archive.
Costing: Nil (time only); Responsibility: Cathy Gray
2.3 Stock: That the SA society take responsibility for monitoring stock held by each society, advising a society that needs stock how to get it, and notifying CASE when reprint may be required. Each society would send to Karen Disney by the end of November:
- the number of copies they currently hold- whether or not they have a PDF of the finished book which they can used for printing or distribution
- the extent of the distribution they've already undertaken (who the booklet has been sent to, who has requested permission to copy it etc.)
Whoever looks after the stock in each society should notify Karen when only 10 copies are left.
Costing: Nil (time only); Responsibility: Karen Disney
2.4 Distribution policy: That standards should continue to be distributed free by all states. PDF should be considered as a distribution option where possible. When a reprint is required, this should be funded on the same pro-rata basis as CASE meeting costs. Current format to be used for any reprints; re-design to be considered as part of the review process.
Costing: Print cost (to be determined); Responsibility: Karen Disney
2.5 Review process: That a review of the standards be initiated no later than April 2004 (three years after publication). This should stay on the CASE agenda so that a review process can be developed in time. Initial research could be undertaken into who's been using them and how; should cover attitudes to online use and online distribution; could be done as a student project.
Costing: Nil at this stage; Responsibility: Secretary
Post-meeting update: Janet Mackenzie reports that Nick Walker who runs the Monash Grad. Dip. was enthusiastic about the proposal for research on the Standards. He guarantees us a student project on 'who is using the Standards and how' between March and May 2002, and would like to hear of further research proposals. Janet to continue to liaise with Nick on this.
Discussion explored why accreditation was at least worth investigating, noting that Canberra had provided a paper on this topic. See appendix 2 for notes on the discussion of accreditation issues, including the Editforce proposal. Shelley Kenigsberg noted that she had been asked to join the Editforce Advisory Board.
Proposals
3.1 Accreditation Working Group: That an Accreditation Working Group be established, convened by Janet Mackenzie, to do the following:
- set out why accreditation is being investigated
- research how other organisations and professions handle it
- set out the principles which should underlie any accreditation system for editors
- develop a series of possible models (probably two plus the option of no accreditation) to be put to the members
Noted that NSW had developed a framework (set of questions) to guide research into how other organisations/professions do it (CG to provide Janet with this); there is a need to include how schemes are enforced: what happens about complaints? de-accreditation? Also noted that the Canadian society should be contacted to see where they're up to with developing their accreditation system.
Noted that state workshops should probably be held half way through, to discuss the results of the research phase, as well as later, to discuss the possible models.
A parallel list of issues/'curly questions' or whatever should be kept throughout the process.
The group would work to milestones and an 'indicative schedule' rather than deadlines.
Costing: Meeting costs (see 1.2 above). Responsibility: Janet Mackenzie
Note: If this proposal is accepted, states should advise Janet Mackenzie of their working group delegates by the end of November.
3.2a That Shelley Kenigsberg act as a point of communication between CASE and Editforce on accreditation issues, being sensitive to the potential for conflict of interest as each group develops its approach.
Costing: Nil. Responsibility: Shelley Kenigsberg
3.2b That, if the Accreditation Working Group is formed, Janet Mackenzie write to Editforce to let them know we have embarked upon this process.
Costing: Nil. Responsibility: Janet Mackenzie
The meeting felt that a simple 'national website' could be developed, to act as a kind of 'portal' to the state sites, with minimum info e.g.
- about editorial services and the societies of editors- links to state sites
- link to CASE notes? (what CASE is and how it operates; working groups and their contact points)
- link to Standards
- link to Editalk discussion list (see later)
This could be provided to each state to add to its own site, or created as a separate site with a good domain name.
If a new site was created, the state sites could actually be brought onto the same server as 'subsites' of this new site, e.g. if the national site address was at www.edaust.org/, the NSW address would be www.edaust.org/nsw and so on. Each state webminder would still update the state's site in the same way, but would just upload it to a different address. Benefits would include cheaper isp/domain name costs (for those who already have their own domain name), and easier evolution to 'proper' national site (note, eventually all editorial services directories/registers could be combined to create a national list - related to accreditation if it went ahead).
4.1 Proposal to be developed: Queensland offered to develop a proposal for a simple national site along the lines set out above, seeking the advice of webminders and technical people as required. The proposal should include a prioritised list of possible domain names and state that if accepted whoever is organising the domain name would have the authority to secure the best available from that list (or something else) without going back to all the societies again for authorisation.
Costing: Nil at this stage. Responsibility: Helena Bond
4.2 National discussion list: SA has offered its Editalk discussion list as a national discussion list. This would simply mean telling members of other societies how to subscribe to it (e.g. by placing subscription instructions in state newsletters). Karen D to supply instructions.
Costing: Nil? (SA to advise if this is so). Responsibility: All delegates
5.1 Proposal to be developed: Victoria volunteered to develop a proposal for a CASE promotional campaign focusing on raising the profile of the editing profession, against the background of the development of the standards.
Message to get across along the lines of: Consider the value a 'professional editor' - someone who has the knowledge and skills set out in the standards - can add to a communication/publishing process.
Examples/case studies were seen as a good way of illustrating this point, but it was noted that a campaign needed to strike a balance between the editor in the 'sexier' literary world (e.g. Peter Carey and his editor) and the more pragmatic world of govt/corporate publishing and communications.
Tasmania advised that one of the their committee was a PR professional (Nelli Noakes: nelli@howlingdingo.com.au) and was willing to help formulate ideas for a campaign.
Costing: Nil at this stage (to be included in proposal)
Responsibility: Renée Otmar
It was also noted that societies should be encouraged to nominate people for AO awards. Nomination forms can be obtained from: Order of Australia Nomination Forms, Government House, Canberra; Freecall: 1800 552 275
Proposal 6.1 Letter to the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee on the ethics of thesis editing. Tasmania tabled a draft letter on this subject; Robyn to amend this based on meeting discussion and send to all states for comments or endorsement.
The proposal is then that this letter be sent to the AVCC, signed by the Tasmanian society with all state societies listed. Return address to be Tasmanian society.
Costing: Nil. Responsibility: Robyn Colman
The meeting discussed the benefit of holding a national conference for editors, based on the experience of the joint editors/indexers conference in Canberra this year. It was noted that Queensland had already done a lot of work in this area.
Proposal 7.1 National Conference Working Group: That a national working group be formed, convened by Queensland, to work towards a national conference for editors in Brisbane in winter 2003.
If this proposal is accepted, each society should advise Helena Bond of its delegate by the end of November this year. Ideas for a theme gratefully received at the same time.
Costing: Nil at this stage (working group would probably be able to work without actually meeting)
Responsibility: Helena Bond
Closing
Response to proposals: Delegates to raise these proposals with their committees at their next committee meeting and communicate the response to the CASE list. CG to confirm when responses received from all societies, and whether a proposal can proceed as a national activity. Delegates also to advise who from their society should be on the CASE email contact list.
The meeting closed at 3 pm on Sunday 21 October, with a vote of thanks to Cathy Gray for note taking, Shelley Kenigsberg for organising the venue and accommodation, Renée Otmar for compiling the agenda and keeping us moving through it, and all delegates for their enthusiasm, creative thinking, sense of humour and all-round constructive attitude.
1.1 Principles1.2 National meetings
1.3 Activity between meetings
Secretary (Cathy Gray) is responsibility for monitoring the response to the above proposals.
1.4. Research into national structures: Ed Highley
2.1 Archive: Karen Disney2.2 'Wrap up' report: Cathy Gray
2.3 Stock: Karen Disney
2.4 Distribution policy: Karen Disney
2.5 Review process: Secretary
3.1 Formation of Acreditation Working Group: Janet Mackenzie3.2a. Editforce liaison: Shelley Kenigsberg
3.2b Editforce notification: Janet Mackenzie
4.2 Editalk discussion list6.1 Letter to AVCC re thesis editing: Robyn Colman
7.1 Formation of National Conference Working Group: Helena Bond
4.1. National website: Helena Bond5.1. Promotional campaign: Renee Otmar
Canberra: Ed Highley: ed@arawang.com.au; 02 6257 7811
NSW: Shelley Kenigsberg: skenigs@bigpond.com; 02 9130 6752; 0412 948 883
Cathy Gray: cgray@mpx.com.au; 02 9130 8331; 0408 615 704
NT: Gail Warman: gail.warman@octa4.net.au; phone 08 8981 4830
Qld: Helena Bond: me@HelenaBond.com; 07 3255 1480; 0403 44 55 94
[cc: Nadine Ireland (Qld secretary): nadine.ireland@bigpond.com]
SA: Karen Disney: karen.disney@halliburton.com; (w) 08 8301 1315; (h) 08 8332 5841
Tas: Robyn Colman: info@tas-editors.org.au; 03 6225 1941
Vic: Janet Mackenzie: jmack@mansfield.net.au; 03 5775 2988
Renée Otmar: renee@melbourne.net; 03 9421 3708; 0409 792 799
WA: Amanda Curtin: curtin@highway1.com.au; phone/fax: 08 9377 2091
Betty Durston: bdurston@cygnus.uwa.edu.au
In a sense we're trying to professionalise the societies at the same time as professionalising the profession (so to speak....)
Issue of paying committee members is difficult; none or all...
Resources for funding national activities without relying on state funds
- fundraising events (but these require organisation and are state-based anyway)- grants e.g. state arts bodies
- sponsorships
Idea for sharing info nationally:
- annual? digest? of 'best of' material from state newsletters?- sending PDFs of newsletters to other states for their website (or distribution to their members?); a month after publication in own state?
Idea: Courses/training programs could be developed jointly be the societies e.g. onscreen editing - and delivered by appropriate people in each state....
Should any accreditation system be inclusive or exclusive (e.g. given of translators body - very difficult - effectively exclusive even if not formally so - like College of Surgeons or whatever..
Grades of membership: Noted that all states except NSW, Tas. and WA have full and associate membership, with references or demonstration that one is a working editor to be admitted as full member. Qld still lets associate and student members be listed in directory; Canberra and Victoria do not. Only full members can vote in all societies. Full membership is not seen as a 'marketing angle' for members (i.e. not a 'softer' form of accreditation) but more to keep society in control of editors themselves. Qld also admits other publishing professionals as well as editors to full membership.
Accreditation could be based on:
- portfolio (perhaps also with short test?)- tests (beware; can run risk of trivialising the editing task); could test some skills such as WP; tests as an approach have more chance of working since standards developed than the UK situation, where the SFEP seems to be trying to come up with tests without first clarifying what they're testing. Should check where the Canadians are up to with their accreditation system (they had just starting trying to create the tests....)
- experience
Scope: Should it include such things as ability to communicate effectively? no? too hard? not a core skill (doctor's bedside manner)
Need to promote to both practitioners and clients...
Why would a client choose an accredited editor for more money, over a cheaper 'non-accredited' editor, if they got a good enough job done by the non-accredited editor.? Lowers (removes?) risk of a bad job. If you risk it with a non-accredited person, you only find out that the job hasn't worked when it's done and you've wasted your money.
Is this just for freelancers? No, would also be useful in hiring staff e.g. replace 'editing test' for job applicants...
Funding: Benefits are not just for editors, so industry (e.g. APA) could be asked to chip in on funding the process. Other possible sources:
- grants- Australian Qualifications Council (or some such body)
- CREATE? ANTA?
- small business development money?? (Shelley K to ask Michael Lewis about this and forward to Janet)
Note that funding the development process is a different problem from funding the ongoing running of the accreditation scheme...
Editforce: Points made included:
- there is a need to clarify what is meant by 'editor' in the Editforce scheme, which seems to focus particularly on journalists;- there are similarities between editing in the journalistic context (particularly 'subeditors') and 'our' concept of editing, but also differences.
- we could either acknowledge the similarities and merge 'our' concept with theirs, or acknowledge the differences and define ourselves out of the 'journalistic' context...
- the Editforce scheme doesn't seem to include book editors at this stage at all...
This led to discussion of the problem of definition of the profession - and to the search for a possible new name for it. If the description of what we do remains 'preparing for publication', then both 'preparing' and 'publication' are different now and the word 'editor' still has the old connotations. (See Names list)
What are the options viz. Editforce?
- We develop an accreditation system for editors and it's run under the Editforce scheme (i.e. by the 'independent body ' which will eventually be set up)- We let Editforce develop the scheme, providing input through the advisory board
- We convince Editforce not to worry about editors; we'll handle it...
up to Contents