In regard to the announcement about "Workshops" at the 1999 SHA Meeting
in Salt Lake City there is a significant problem. At the SHA Annual
Meeting in Reno, Nevada (year?) the members voted formally at that Annual
Business Meeting to prohibit such workshops which charged a fee separate
from the standard conference registration fee. This resolution was
passed, and thus is still binding on the SHA leadership and conference
organizers, because:
 
        (1) such fees help to intensify class differences within the
SHA (ie. those with money or access to money vs. those without) and would
be especially hard on students, some people in CRM and some retired members,
 
        (2) such fee-Work Shops would start a process of members
(organizers) expecting to get payed to come to an annual meeting and such
a possibility could rapidly spread to more and more members. Why should
we pay a colleague to organize a Work-Shop, say on beads (sorry Karlis),
why would he or she simply not do this for the annual meeting. It would
not be long before many would see their normal (special) symposium as a
potential Work-Shop which would pay their way to an annual meeting.
 
It is true that these 1999 Work-Shops are technically being scheduled
just before the official start of the conference (Wednesday) but this
still violates the spirit, and as far as I am concerned the letter, of
the law - a formal resolution passed by SHA and on the books. Also the
device of scheduling before Wednesday  highlights the original
problem. The very people (e.g. students) who do not have money for extra
fees certainly also do not have money (or time?) to fly in early and pay
extra days in the hotel.
 
Of course the 1999 Work Shops have been set up already and I would assume
the SHA leadership probably did not know about the earlier resolution
(check with Teff Rodeffer for a copy and details). Ergo it is too late to
cancel them and be fair to the organizers and members who may have
already signed up. However, this issue must be brought up at the annual
business meeting and fully discussed because the original problems and
criticism still stand.
 
ADDING MORE AND MORE FEES to the SHA Annual Meetings is not the road we
or the SHA Leadership should be going down. Perhaps I should organize a
Work-Shop on the History of Historical Archaeology and charge fees to
cover my costs of going to say SHA 2000 in Quebec (Penn only pays $400
for one annual meeting if you are giving a paper or been elected President
(!) of the society). But is that a FREE exchange of information and
normal scholarly interaction? And yes, I do realize there is a difference
between such a session and SOME of the proposed 1999 Work-Shops but the
impact of such a fee-policy is potentially very negative. Soon many of
us, not just students, may not be able to attend a full-SHA Annual Meeting.
 
                                Bob Schuyler