Well I'll take a stab at it.
The positive
Great oppportunity to meet some of the of other individuals that share our
pain.
Get to see some of the tools available to cure our problems
Chance to revisit basic records issues
Introduce individuals new to the career to some of the issue we deal with.

The negative
Expensive
Difficult to justify
Heavy on the entry level material
To narrow on the vendor opportunities
Not broad enough on the sessions scope
Not deep enough on the session content

Certainly not a comprehensive list but then what the heck
The idea is to furhter develop the positive and leverage the negatives into
positives
The current model smacks of a social gathering. The opportunity for those
that have enjoyed long careers in the field to catch up with old friends,
impart wisdom to newbies and relax.
Hopefully we can keep this and put a little meat back on the bone.
in the early days there was a tiered approach. Maybe that could be looked
at a gain. Give the entry level folks the opportunity to be exposed to the
breadth and scope of the field. Folks tha tare at the top of their game
would be at a higher level and take on wieghtier issues without milling
through the basics.
A day committed to vendors. Folks can slip out he back if they want but
free up more time to delve into what is available. Bring in more vendors.

I haven't heard how many actually attented. Regardless of how many did,
ARMA needs more not less. If  ARMA can't support an annual conference maybe
it should be moved to every other year. Making it shorter with less meat
just leaves a starving membership.

If members don't get up to speed what will happen when the next big leap
comes to this field.

You all had a chance to read Bak's paper. Aside from the cost, did anybody
arive at any concerns?

If it is not discussed here it won't be discussed. You cetainly won't be
attending an ARMA session on the issues raised in the paper.

Chris Flynn



On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:31 AM, William W. Lefevre <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> A bigger question is this: Is the conference model that ARMA has right now
> what RIM professionals need in the future as they pursue education for
> work, personal gain, CRM credits, etc...  Is there a different model that
> would work better?  Thoughts?
>
> William
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julie J. Colgan" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:26:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [RM] CLE Credits for CRM (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> Actually, the conference length isn't the reason for less CRM credits than
> last year.  The ICRM's model for assigning maintenance credits are based
> on traditional education delivery models (1 hour lecture-based sessions,
> for example).  The ARMA conference offered as much education as it did last
> year, however some formats were non-traditional and the ICRM did not assign
> credit to those because they didn't fit the mold.
>
> As a fellow CRM, I feel the pain too (plus, as an ARMA board member, I
> didn't get to attend hardly any sessions due to other obligations so in
> good faith I can't even claim the 9.5 ...).  That said, I am pleased to see
> ARMA mixing up delivery options.  The way we learn, and the way we *want*
> to consume education, has and will continue to evolve - particularly as
> millenials join the workforce in greater and greater numbers.
>
> I, personally, am hoping to see a trend of further education delivery
> innovation from ARMA, and I hope to see the ICRM consider new options for
> allocating and awarding maintenance credit in today's education
> environment.
>
> In the meantime, there are lots and lots of ways to earn CRM credits
> outside of the ARMA conference such as webinars and online courses (plus
> speaking and writing, if you're into that) - and many that are at no cost
> to you.  And remember, ARMA isn't the only educating body whose content
> qualifies for CRM credits - that webinar/certificate course/boot
> camp from IAPP, ACEDS, AIIM, or other group, that you participated in may
> also qualify for credit.
>
> I applaud all of the CRMs out there for their achievement, and encourage
> all current and future CRM candidates to pursue the designation.  It is a
> significant mark of professionalism.  And it's worth the effort to
> maintain.
>
> All comments are my own as an individual professional (for as much as I can
> make personal comments these days!).
>
> Julie
>
> --
> Julie J. Colgan, CRM
>
> [log in to unmask]
> http://twitter.com/juliecolgan
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/juliejcolgan
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
> present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the
> message.
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
> --
> William W. LeFevre, CA, CRM
> Reference Archivist/Archivist IV, Walter P. Reuther Library
> Interdisciplinary Faculty, School of Library and Information Science
> Wayne State University
> 5401 Cass Avenue
> Detroit, MI 48202
> 313.577.2789 (Voice)
> 313.577.4300 (FAX)
> website: www.reuther.wayne.edu
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
> present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the
> message.
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]