I'm responding to Ned Heite's message of Wed, 20 Aug 1997 05:50:35, and
have snipped out particular passages to comment on.
 
NH:  I don't belong to SAA, so I don't have any incentive
>to go to a SOPA meeting.
 
BL:  SOPA is not a regular archaeological society, and does not offer a
broad range of member activities and services: the only meetings it has are
board meetings and a brief annual business meeting.   Typically, the
business meeting is held in conjunction with the SAA meeting, as Heite
points out.
>
NH: Over the years, SOPA has lived in the shadow of SAA, and has failed to
>assert itself as a distinct voice for the profession. I believe that much
>of that obscurity can be directly attributed to its too-close hstorical
>association with SAA.
 
BL:  SOPA was formed as a separate organization in the middle 1970s because
the SAA board failed to follow through on developing a certification
program, even though a majority of the SAA members had voted in favor of
establishing such a program.  Therefore, it really was established in
opposition to the SAA board's position.
>
NH: As for SAA, I am sure it is a fine organization within its scope, but
>lately it has demonstrated some really disturbing ambitions. For example,
>its membership list is labelled a directory of archaeologists. In fact, it
>is a directory of people who have paid money, which is quite different. The
>only real directory of archaeologists in North America is the SOPA book.
>How does SOPA/ROPA/SAA propose to resolve this incongruity? Will SAA change
>the name of its directory, or will they continue to insist that you may be
>dubbed an archaeologist simply by sending money?
 
BL: The most recent SAA directory, published in the fall of 1996, is titled
"1996 Administrative and Member Directory."
 
NH: To merge SOPA into an organization so diffuse and unfocussed as SAA would
>be a disaster for both.
 
BL: The proposed establishment of ROPA would in no way be a "merger" of
SOPA into SAA (or SHA or AIA for that matter).   ROPA would carry forward
the basic goals, structure, procedures and membership of SOPA, would have
its own board, and would remain a separately chartered organization.  What
we are talking about here is sponsorship of a special-purpose organization
by several broad-mission organizations (SAA, SHA, and AIA).  SOPA's name
would change to ROPA, which is appropriate anyway, because SOPA is not in
fact a broad-based membership "society" like SAA or SHA (as Heite points
out).  One of the major points of discussion in developing the ROPA
proposal was ensuring that sound "firewalls" were maintained between ROPA
and the sponsors, so that financial and legal liabilities could not spread
from ROPA to the sponsors, or vice versa. All of this is laid out fully in
the ROPA proposal, which has been published in the SAA, SHA, and SOPA
bulletin/newsletters, and is also available on the web sites of these
organizations.  I would urge all archaeologists who are considering these
issues to read the actual ROPA proposal.
 
NH: Instead of spending all this effort to merge the various organizations into
>a super SAA, it would be more profitable, in my opinion, to organize SOPA
>in a more focussed and aggressive manner, with endorsement from all the
>dozens of organizations that are legitimately interested in the subject of
>professionalism..The endorsements would be cheap, and would achieve exactly
>the same purpose as the proposed ROPA, except that SOPA would remain
>distinct.
 
BL:  No other organization in American archaeology does what SOPA/ROPA
does--explicitly determine who is qualified to be a professional,
promulgate detailed, concrete standards for professional performance, and
carry out sanctions for unprofessional behavior.   Getting  endorsements of
SOPA's role and mission by numerous organizations is fine, as Heite
suggests, and this should be pursued.  But what is wrong with asking  at
least the major archaeological organizations to put at least a little bit
of their money where their mouths are and to lend their weight to SOPA's
mission by sponsoring  ROPA?  Is Heite's proposal to solicit endorsements
from numerous organizations more likely to increase SOPA membership and
increase its effectiveness in promoting professional standards in
archaeology than the transformation of SOPA into ROPA under major-society
sponsorship would be?  I think not.
 
Bill Lipe