To: NCPTW Board

From: Jon Olson, NCPTW Maxwell Leadership Award Administrator

Subject: Award Process Approval


Sketched below is a process for soliciting nominations for the NCPTW Ron Maxwell Leadership Award by late April and then presenting the award at the conference. Does the Board approve this process? Will board members please offer suggestions for improving the supporting documents?

THE PROCESS

I will solicit nominations within the NCPTW community by (a) posting a Call for Nominations on the NCPTW Web site, (b) distributing the Call at the national conference (see the attached Call), (c) publishing the Call in the spring issue of The Dangling Modifier newsletter, and (d) sending board members a reminder solicitation via email a few weeks prior to the late-April deadline.

I will acknowledge each nomination upon receipt.

The committee will review nominations and select a recipient during the summer.
I will notify the recipient in September (see the attached letter of notification.)
In order to "get this good work out there where people can see it" (to quote Ron), I will send letters to the recipient's key supervisors (see the attached letter to Dean Richard Storey) and to local newspapers (see the attached cover letter and press release for the Gazette Telegraph).

Ron will send a letter or email message of thanks to each nominator (see the attached email message to Kevin Davis).

I will send an announcement of the award recipient to the Conference Chair for inclusion in the printed program (see the attached program announcement).
Ron will cut a cashier’s check for $200, he and/or I will have a plaque made that repeats the working on the plaque of the inaugural award (see the attached rough draft of wording) but which features words quoted from a source or sources that have inspired the recipient in her or his career to enact the criteria on which the award is based, and we’ll make sure the plaque and check get to the conference where it will be presented to the recipient at some point during the conference’s proceedings.

REQUEST FOR SUGGESTIONS

Supporting Documents for the Award Process: The documents attached to this memo were, in some cases, composed in haste, sometimes without the benefit of peer tutoring. I would welcome suggestions for revision. I think particularly of the press release (an unfamiliar genre for me), also the Call for Nominations.

Formal Award Statement: Attached is the formal statement of the award (see above), the wording of which the Board approved via email. This statement serves an archival function. Because that email process of approval seemed to lack full participation of the Board, please review the above statement of the award and make sure it says what we want it to say.