As one of the few SHA members to speak out publically against the SOPA-
ROPA Proposal and the only one to submit written objections to the SHA
NEWSLETTER (see June 1996 Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 14-15 and Spring 1997 Vol.
30, No. 1, pp. 8-9), I would like to take this opportunity to issue a
third and final statement on this important question. My comments may be
a bit long, but bear with me.
 
        During this last week of August all SHA members will start to get
their 1997 ballots, including the vote on ROPA, in the mail. This packet
contains a number of items one of which is an astonishing statement from
the current president. I thought that campaigning stopped outside the
voting booth but apparently this American tradition does not apply to the
SHA. One would have hoped for a neutral, informational summary. Instead
we get an apologia for ROPA. Even the references to opposing views are
oddly incomplete.
 
        Members of SHA must realize that ROPA is a proposal of a very
small minority within the society. Comparing the two groups, SHA has 2000
members, SOPA 700; however, only 200 SOPA members belong to SHA.
Membership in SOPA may seem like a good indicator of a long-term
commitment to such a proposal. Yet a fairly high proportion of this 200
overlap, including myself (SOPA member since its founding in 1976), do NOT
support ROPA. I suspect the totally committed cohort is closer to 5%
rather than 10% of the SHA membership. This reality is hidden by one of
the most intensive and aggressive propaganda campaigns in the history of
the society. This campaign by a small group of committed people (and they
have every right to be committed) has created an illusion of massive
support because it has rolled over the SHA Leadership. Although it is
glossed over in the presidential statement included with your ballot, the
SHA Board has not taken a stand in favor or against ROPA, only in favor of
a membership vote. A significant number of people in the SHA Leadership
have privatley told me and others they do not support ROPA.  Others have
joined, or apparently joined, the ROPA cause. For example, in the Summer
1997 NEWSLETTER (Vol. 30, No. 2, P. 11) there is a "Letter of Support" for
ROPA signed by 18 SHA Past Presidents. I have checked carefully and they
are all alive (Presidents 1968-1998 = 30 of which 4 are deceased = 26).
Yet in my review I was surprised to also discover that the majority of
signers (10) are not SOPA members. Some may have a membership through a
company, but most have never been involved with SOPA! This lack of
commitment is not a good indicator for future ROPA membership, or if the
ROPA Proposal fails, a rush to join SOPA for the first time. Indeed, if
the Propaganda Campaign is trying to tell me that James Deetz, and he is
only one example, is about to join either ROPA or SOPA I would say not
only "Get Real" but come back from the planet Mars. I am not criticising
Deetz. Why should he belong to either ROPA or SOPA.
 
        The ROPA Propaganda Campaign has been so successful, in my opinion,
because among its small minority are a number of established and
respected historical archaeologists. These individuals are founding
members of SOPA and firm in, even religiously dedicated to, their
beliefs. They will also immediately challenge and attack any questioner
much less critic of SOPA-ROPA. As one current SHA officer told me in
Corpus Christi, if you disagree you are immediatley jumped on. [Note the
pattern these last two weeks on HISTARCH]. Many SHA members apparently do
not think it is possible to both respect and hold in high esteem
colleagues and at the same time publically attack a belief they hold
dear. It is better to be silent than to have confrontations.
 
        I disagree. Vergil Noble and I are on opposite sides of the
SOPA-ROPA issue. See the SHA NEWSLETTERS (December 1996 Vol. 29, No. 4,
pp. 7-8 and Spring 1997 Vol. 30, No. l, pp. 8-9) where we threw chickens
and camels at each other. When you open your ballot envelope you will
find that Vergil is running in the 1997 Election for President. He is my
choice and I am delighted to vote for him as he will make a fine SHA leader.
I do not agree with him, or expect him to agree with me, on ROPA.
 
 
ROPA IS A FLAWED PROPOSAL
 
        The SOPA-ROPA Proposal is a bad idea in reference to SHA for
the following reasons.
 
SECONDARY REASON
 
        Although it is not the primary issue, the fiscal question is
serious and and vital is all SHA members. The proponents of ROPA attempt
to hide this reality by talking about "the price of one beer" or "a few
extra dollars." The 1998 amount is $10,000 ($5,000 start-up cost and
$5,000 annual tax on SHA members). As SHA runs a very efficient and tight
annual budget, $10,000 is a BIG not small amount. Also, in contrast to
the visible propaganda statements, we find the real concerns hidden in
the Board of Directors Minutes (SHA NEWSLETTER Summer 1997 Vol. 30, No.
2, p. 8):
                "Michael stated that if SOPA/ROPA passes, the
        start-up cost will be about $10,000 with $5,000 annnual
        costs thereafter, but he believes additional costs will
        soon accrue. Miller stated the the $10,000 startup costs
        was primarily related to establishing an office and mounting
        a substantial promotional campaign to attract new members.
        Cressey stated that we need to present the membership with
        the best information available on the financial implications.
        The Board expects that if the ROPA proposal is adopted by
        the SHA membership, it will have budget impact."
 
This week you will receive your 1997 ballots, shortly later in 1997 you
will get your SHA membership renewal forms. The 1997 regular membership
is $55, the 1998 regular membership is $75, one of the biggest jumps in
the history of the society. This massive increase [10 beers?] is
unrelated to ROPA being caused by legitimate societal expenses which can
no longer be held down - paper, publications costs, mailings, operating
levels. Have no doubt that an ADDITIONAL $10,000 will have meaning for
the future.
 
        More dangerous is the real possibility of future increases in the
$5,000 annual tax. We are told we have a guarantee - "The annual
allocation may not be raised by the ROPA Board without the expressed
consent of the boards of all sponsoring organizations." This guarantee is
obviously worthless. If the SHA Leadership will not stand up to a
minority within SHA what will happpen in the future when it confronts
that same group of colleagues and a much bigger and more aggressive entity -
the SAA. Whan the Society for American Archaeology bangs its fist on the
table and says "ante-up", the SHA Leadership will be under the table. Our
members money will flow outward.
 
        Another fiscal issue concerns lawsuits. There has been an attempt
to also gloss over this very dangerous problem. The claim that SOPA has
never been sued probably correlates with the fact that SOPA has never
done anything. If ROPA is more aggressive on "standards" it will almost
certainly be sued and SHA as a paying supporter and "sponsor" of ROPA can
certainly be named as a co-defendant. Which group has the "deeper pockets",
SOPA or SHA and SAA?
 
 
PRIMARY REASON
 
        Financial impact on the SHA is not the primary flaw in SOPA-ROPA.
The basic problem is that our colleagues who adamantly support ROPA hold
two beliefs while many of us only share one of these views.
 
        The ROPA proponents believe:
 
        (1) Archaeology is a profession and must have internal standards
("genral statements of ethical standards"), and
 
        (2) The best way to establish such standards is through a
centralized, overarching bureaucratic structure.
 
        I suspect that most SHA members, and most professsional
archaeologists, agree with the first position but reject the second.
 
        Standards in archaeology are maintained by a number of related
but separate and independent institutions and professional relationships.
Among those in North America are, at least, the following:
 
        (1) The Acadmic World
        (2) National Governments
        (3) Local Governments
        (4) National Scholarly Organizations
        (5) Avocational Archaeological Societies
        (6) The Museum World
        (7) SOPA and similar more local state units
 
I am sure others can add to this list and, of course, outside of North
America it greatly expands.
 
        The ROPA supporters will acknowledge the list but see it as a
problem. They want UNIFORMITY, not independent centers. I, in contrast,
vote for variety whether it is in biology, cultural pluralism or multiple
insitutions and points of view.
 
        We know that centralized, bureaucratic approaches do not
work because:
 
        (1) bureaucratic structures almost always fail to solve the
original problem they were created to address,
 
        (2) bureaucratic structures almost always make the problem
more complex and irreducible by their very existence and blunderring,
 
        (3) bureaucratic structures after their initial formation always
shift their primary purpose from the original problem to their own
existence,self perpetuation and expansion.
 
        I will not try to document these descriptions. We have all
encountered governments, universities and companies. You decide.
 
        More specifically SOPA has a 20+ year track record. Those of you
in CRM draw your own conclusions. Has SOPA been successful; if not, why
will a bigger, less up-front version solve the problem. According to one
of its own proponents, SOPA has "failed miserably" to recruit
archaeologists on a VOLUNTARY basis. Ergo let's make it bigger and more
complex and surely it will succeed. Does this point of view sound familiar?
 
        Finally, is there a question of ethics in proposing ROPA?
Yes, ETHICS. ROPA proponents are constantly posturing about standards and
ethics. Currently SOPA is an open, honest organization - members can join
and resign at will. If ROPA passes, all SHA and SAA (AIA?) members will
become de facto fiscal members of ROPA. Their money will be taken
annually. All future new members who join these scholarly organizations
will have no say. Their money will be taken. Is there a slight chance
that an ethical issue is involved in the use of a plebiscite to create a
permanent ROPA organization that siphone money from the pockets of
nonmembers?
* * * * * * * * *
 
        When you open your 1997 ballot envelopes you will find several
electoral questions. If you have not decided for whom to vote in the
presidential race you can do not better than Vergil E. Noble. He is
clearly the senior candidate and will make an excellent SHA President. He
has my vote. At the same time I urge all SHA members to part company with
Vergil and his colleagues, and vote NO on the ROPA question.
 
        A negative vote will accomplish the following:
 
        (1) ROPA - a overly centralized and overly entrenched version of
SOPA - will not be formed.
 
        (2) The finances of SHA will stay in SHA and not be siphoned off
by an outside group.
 
        (3) And, SOPA in its present form will continue. SOPA as a
voluntary (join or resign at will, either our persons or our money) and
reasonable organization will remain as one, but only one, of the many
supports for standards in archaeology.
 
        SHA members will only have one vote on ROPA. The chance to change
one's mind will never come again. Vote NO.
 
 
                                Robert L. Schuyler
                                SHA, Member and Past President
                                SOPA, Member