On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:06:23 -0700 bill lipe wrote:
 
 
>  Susan Lawrence asks why members of SHA who do not work in the United
> States should help support ROPA, which she believes is designed primarily
> to promote professionalism in U.S. context. This is a good question, and as
> a co-chair of the ROPA task force, I'd like to respond.
 
<snip>
 
> Second, although the SOPA/ROPA grievance procedure as it currently stands
> is probably best designed for a U.S. or at least North American context, it
> could in principle apply to non-North American situations as well. It must
> be kept in mind that ROPA would start on the basis of the existing SOPA
> structure, but that it can change and evolve to meet the needs and concerns
> of the profession. Should the RPAs and the sponsoring societies (acting
> through their representation on the ROPA board) desire to develop modified
> or alternative procedures to meet the needs of archaeologists working
> outside North America, the ROPA board would presumably attempt to address
> the issues.  The task force recognized that it could not itself develop
> ways of addressing these concerns as part of the proposal for forming ROPA.
> This would currently be the responsibility of the SOPA board, and if ROPA
> is formed, it will be a task for the ROPA board. With a broader base of
> membership and of society support, however, the ROPA board is likely to
> take up a broader range of issues, in response to the concerns of the RPAs
> and the sponsoring societies.
 
I'm afraid that it appears to me that the above paragraph fails to take into
consideration the existence of professional organisations in the rest of the
world.  In Britain, for example, many archaeology positions require membership
of the IFA by applicants.   Has there been an attempt by SOPA or proto-ROPA
to contact other nations' professional organisations in an attempt to offer some
sort of cross-national recognition?  If so, what are the results?Surely there
shouldn't be a need for an Australian, Canadian, South African or British
archaeologist  to belong to, or help pay for, ROPA if they were already a
member of their own nations' professional organisations?
 
Once again, the goals behind ROPA are commendable, but I have read nothing
in the above paragraph to suggest that it is relevant to most non-American
SHA members, or that we should help pay for it.
 
I can see that ROPA might potentially have a role in ending a
dispute involving an American archaeologist working in a Third World nation
without some sort of grievance procedure, but I fail to see why it should apply
to, say, an Australian working on Norfolk Island or a Briton working in Iceland,
 etc...
 
And which nation's grievance procedure should be followed if only one of
the archaeologists is an American?  The post to which I'm responding implies
(and it is no more than an implication, and perhaps an unintentional one) that i
t
would be ROPA's.  Frankly, this smacks of the sort of attitude that leads to suc
h
unfortunate incidents as Helms-Burton.
 
By all means form ROPA.  By all means help to fund it through a (hopefully modes
t)
increase in SHA fees.  But offer an exemption to SHA members who are not
primarily employed in the United States
 
Alasdair Brooks