On  Mon, 25 Aug 1997 20:11:39, Ned Heite wrote:
 
>The SHA ballot came and I voted against the ROPA proposal.
>
>Why?
>
>Well, Bill Lipe answered eloquently. Nothing will be changed, except that
>SHA and SAA will pay money into SOPA.
>
>SOPA was solvent.
>
>The real problem with SOPA, which would be repeated (albeit at greater
>expense) with ROPA, is that the organization leadership over the years has
>never made any move whatever to engage its membership. There is no feedback
>and control mechanism whereby ideas could be floated and adopted by a broad
>body of members. There has been no mechanism for personal contact among the
>members.
>
>In short, SOPA has had no sense of purpose, and no perceived role within
>the broader community.
>
>Everything the ROPA proposal could provide can be accomplished without a
>change in anything, except the resolve of some of the individuals in
>leadership positions.
>
>If anything really turned me against the proposal, it was Henry Miller's
>cover letter that came with the package. I think my friend stepped way
>beyond the bounds of propriety and common decency when he enclosed his own
>endorsement with the ballot. Although Henry's flyer did mention some of the
>anti-ROPA arguments, it was clearly a solicitation.
>
>The net product of the SOPA/ROPA proposal is nothing. It's like rearranging
>the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need real change, not in the name of the
>outfit, but in the attitudes of the people running things.
>
==============
 
Response:
 
My ballot came yesterday, and guess what-- I voted for the ROPA proposal.
 
Based on this and other messages, it appears that Ned Heite thinks that
SOPA does not have good mechanisms to facilitate member input to the
leadership, and that SOPA's lack of an annual convention contributes to
this in some way.  It is true that  SAA and SHA have large conferences,
where members deliver papers, and that SOPA--not being a scholarly
society--does not.  However, I don't see that this has much, if anything,
to do with how responsive the SOPA leadership is to its members' concerns.
Input from members to the leadership of any society that has more than a
couple of hundred members is going to be primarily through 1) the
committees and task forces appointed to take on particular issues; 2)
direct communications between individual members and  elected board members
and officers; 3) discussion and debate in member newsletters and in forums
like this one; 4) open-floor discussions at business meetings, and 5) the
election process by which officers and board members are selected.  SOPA
has all five mechanisms for member input, as do SAA and SHA.
 
With regard to Henry Miller's statement, I thought it was designed to
ensure that SHA members recognize the importance of the ROPA proposal and
that they take the time to become well-informed about it before voting.
What is wrong with that? The ROPA proposal DOES raise important issues for
SHA and for the field of archaeology. And for those not already familiar
with the history and workings of SOPA, understanding how ROPA would work
and what "sponsorship" means DOES require some study.   SHA was an equal
partner with the other organizations on the ROPA task force, and if either
the SHA or SAA memberships vote the proposal down, the plan will not go
forward.   So urging  SHA members to take this vote seriously seems to me
to be an appropriate thing for the SHA president to do.
 
This discussion may not be over yet, but it obviously is winding down.    I
would like to second Jim Gibbs' comments about the civil  manner in which
these discussions have been pursued, and I appreciate the opportunity to
have been a part of them.
 
Bill Lipe