On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:45:54, Ned Heite wrote:
>>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.
>
>
>Bill, you have just stated the problem. SOPA has "board meetings and a
>brief annual business meeting." How do you expect people to get interested
>in an organization where member participation is almost nonexistent? The
>problem of SOPA, which would be repeated in ROPA, is indifference. Too many
>archaeologists don't know about SOPA, and what it does. SOPA, in turn, has
>done nothing to reach out, except for a few brochures distributed at a few
>meetings.
>
>In the past, I have suggested outreach projects for SOPA, but of course I
>didn't attend the "brief annual business meeting" at which outreach might
>have been suggested. I didn't attend for the reasons I stated, and which
>you reiterated.
>
>SAA and SHA are not professional societies, and they have no business
>acting as if they were. They are scholarly organizations, to which anyone
>may "subscribe" and attend meetings. SOPA, on the other hand, is the only
>professional archaeological society in North America.
>
>SOPA does not need to be sucked under the wing of two dissimilar
>organizations. It needs to assert its unique role, and it needs to stand
>alone. I see no argument in favor of the ROPA proposal that couldn't be
>achieved by less drastic means.
>
>SHA, SAA, and all the other organizations could formally adopt and endorse
>the SOPA codes. What could be simpler? What could be cheaper? A simple
>endorsement on the inside cover of the journal would be enough.
>
>Then SOPA could sponsor events, such as luncheons at regional meetings,
>seminars on ethics at national meetings, and could provide its code as
>boilerplate to be included in contracts.
>
>SOPA could do a selling job on the SHPO offices, persuading more of them to
>follow the lead of California and require membership.
>
>SOPA could reintroduce the office of state coordinator and give them
>something to do.
>
>There are lots of ways to enhance the mission of SOPA, but abolishing a
>good thing is not one of them.
-------------
Ned--
On the issue of meetings, I understand your point.
On the question of endorsement versus sponsorship, I think we differ on
means rather than on ends. If SOPA retains its present configuration, it
should do all the things you suggest. I think that we can agree that it
will be more effective in doing these things to increase the acceptance of
professional standards by federal and state agencies and the general public
if it can enlist the help and support of broad-based societies such as SAA
and SHA. Endorsements would be one way to document that support. I think
, however, that formal sponsorship--as spelled out in the ROPA
proposal--will be a much more effective and convincing way to demonstrate
that the major archaeological societies support SOPA/ROPA's goals and
standards.
The goals of SOPA have always been consistent with the ethical codes of SAA
and SHA. And SOPA has always had board members who were supposed to
represent the other archaeological societies and to help mobilize support
in those societies for issues of concern to SOPA. But that never really
worked--I think because SOPA was always seen by the boards of the larger
organizations as "just another small archaeological society." If ROPA is
formed, it would essentially be SOPA-with-a-name change, so far as its
structure and procedures were concerned. What would change is that it
would have a formal tie to at least a couple of broad-based societies
through the sponsorship arrangement. Each sponsor society would appoint
or elect an RPA to represent it on the ROPA board (the ROPA officers would
be elected directly by the RPAs), and each sponsor society would make an
annual contribution to ROPA's budget. An important result is that SAA and
SHA would have both a formal and financial interest in making ROPA work.
It would also be a formal recognition that ROPA's mechanisms complement,
rather than duplicate, the efforts of the broad-based sponsoring societies
in the areas of ethics and standards. In effect, these societies will be
formally delegating to ROPA the job of determining who is qualified to be
called a professional, and the job of investigating complaints about the
performance of these professionals. SAA and SHA do neither of these things
now. Although "endorsement" is not a bad thing, I believe that the
"sponsorship" structure will make it easier for ROPA to argue that it
represents the broad interests of the archaeological community when it
comes to matters of professional standards.
Bill Lipe
|
