>
> Two footnotes to the complex issue of for-fee Work Shops at SHA Annual
> Conferences.
>
>       (1) Vergil Noble is correct that the University of Nevada
> mini-course(s) which have run for the past few years at SHA meetings are
> not only very successful but also different, to some degree, from what
> was discussed at Reno in 1988.
>
>       (2) Our President, Pam Cressey, has informed me that the SHA
> Leadership is not bound by former resolutions passed by the membership at
> an annual Business Meeting. In this position she is probably quite correct
> at least as far as Parliamentary Procedure is concerned.
>
>       More to the point, as Vergil's message highlights, the entire
> questions of Work Shops (and many other elements within an annual meeting)
> is complex and needs to be discussed at the upcoming Business Meeting in
> Salt Lake City.
>
>       Those of us who supported the Resolution in 1988 were not opposed
> to Work Shops, indeed this was made clear at that meeting, and we are not
> now or in the future opposed to Work Shops. Rather we are very concerned
> about specific problems - (1) how do members without funds, especially
> STUDENTS, get to go to them, and (2) how does SHA keep extra fees from
> spreading across the entire schedule of the Annual Meeting once such a
> precedent is set with the Work Shops?
>
>       Are Work Shops positive - Yes! [Although the question of just
> what is a Work Shop comes up here.] Should we have them - Yes. Should we
> come up with some plan that keeps them open to a wider membership - Yes.
>
>       We need to discuss this issue in SLC.
>
>                               Bob Schuyler
>