Bill Lipe and, to a lesser extent, Hester Davis have ably attempted to
address many individual points concerning the ROPA proposal as they have
been posted, but I would like to offer a summary response that attends to
some specifics and more general issues.  I was not on the task force that
crafted the proposal, and I must admit that I was not warm to the idea at
first.  But over the past two years I have become convinced that this is a
worthy proposition that most practicing archeologists should support for
the sake of the profession.  SHA members will find my name this week as a
candidate for president on the same ballot with the referendum of ROPA, but
do not mistake this for a campaign speech.  I am not running on a "ROPA
platform," since the board on which I currently serve put that decision
entirely in the hands of the membership.  Whether Terry Majewski or I
should be elected, the matter will have been decided long before the office
is assumed in 1999.  Rather, I wish to defend SOPA's record, clarify some
points, correct others, and articulate my views as best I can.  I've spent
some time on this, and it is a bit long, but the issue merits the effort.
 
To begin, I find a certain irony in the fact that so many postings have
complained that there is no problem in archeology to justify ROPA (or even
SOPA), while just as many have complained that a lot of bad actors have
weaseled their way over SOPA's low threshold of qualifications and now
surround themselves in a false cloak of respectability.  Neither
generalization is defensible.
 
As a former SOPA grievance coordinator (GC), I can say without reservation
that the profession has serious problems proportionate to the numbers in
the field and consistent with circumstances in all realms of employment.
SOPA's 20-year-old grievance system has been characterized by some as
little more than a means for competing contract archeologists to discredit
each other, and no doubt some charges have been brought as "nuisance suits"
(only to be dismissed, I might add).  But legitimate allegations have also
addressed misrepresentation of professional qualifications, substandard
field, curation, and reporting practices, plagiarism, etc., and they have
been dealt with fairly and appropriately each time.  The pity is that, no
matter what the merits of individual cases put before me, in my two-year
term 4 out of 5 complaints received could not even be examined for lack of
proper jurisdiction--the accused were not SOPA certified.  The ROPA
initiative arguably would make more archeologists subject to an explicit
code of conduct and disciplinary process.  The major scholarly societies
currently have no access to such means to investigate and either absolve or
admonish members accused of inappropriate professional behavior.  ROPA
would extend SOPA's authority over registered members of sponsoring
societies and make them accountable to the Code.
 
As for the complaint that there are "problem" archeologists in SOPA, the
answer should be obvious if you only think about it for a moment.  If that
were not true, there would be no need for a GC.  To be sure, a good
education and practical experience does not guarantee proper behavior in
any field, nor do qualifications guarantee quality work.  Malpractice
exists in all professions.  It must also be understood, though, that SOPA
does not view applicants through the eyes of prejudice.  As long as one
meets the basic requirements (which are not inconsequential), certification
will be granted regardless of past reputation.  Once in SOPA, one is
subject to the Code and its disciplinary procedures; only then can one be
admonished, censured, or expelled.  Enforcement of the Code, however, is
entirely dependent upon responsible parties who bring convincing evidence
that gives probable cause for an investigation.  Frankly, I have grown
tired of hearing vague and unsubstantiated claims of misdoings by nameless
persons in this state or that.  If you have the goods on anyone who is SOPA
certified, please get the evidence together and send it to David Browman at
Washington University.  As SOPA's current GC, he will look into allegations
with complete confidentiality, but he requires the vigilance of everyone to
do his job properly.
 
Incidentally, I might point out as counter-point to the unidentified
"problem" archeologists, that there some pretty well-respected men and
women of our profession in SOPA, including 10 former SHA presidents and
many more past and present officers of the society.  Of course, not all of
them have publicly endorsed the ROPA proposal--most notably, my friend Bob
Schuyler has been a vocal critic of the initiative.
 
Some other minor points in reponse to specific postings: 1) Charges are
always investigated with the strictest confidence.  I know of no
reputations that have been ruined by false accusations. 2) The disciplinary
process would be ineffective if only SOPA members could submit grievances.
The issue is not who brings the charges, but whether the actions of a
certified member are in violation of the Code.  Further, it is the SOPA GC,
not the complainant, who ultimately argues the case if it goes before the
Standards Board. 3) It is remedy, not retribution that is the primary goal
of SOPA's grievance process.  More often my job as GC was to facilitate
communication between contending parties in order to broker an outcome that
both could accept as a satisfactory solution to the problem.  Disciplinary
procedures ideally should be a last resort.  It often has been the case
that the offended party had not even tried to find a solution--or even
speak to the other party--before submitting a case.
 
Abandonment of certification in various special emphases, like historical
archeology, was done because they were distinctions that did not make a
real difference.  In 20 years, no one was ever charged with not being a
historical archeologist or any other kind of specialist (such specific
terms are not used in the Code).  Rather, allegations centered on whether
they were qualified to undertake the research.  That being the case, the
extra paper work--complained about by many--seemed irrelevant.  Besides,
many archeologists who were eligible for various emphases never partook of
the trophy behavior of collecting them all.  That made them no less
qualified in their areas of specialty, however.
 
While some may carp about SOPA's entry standards being too low or too high,
I know of no one who has ever seriously challenged the intent or rigor of
its Code.  Most agree it states clearly and explicitly the ideals of
normative behavior that should be emulated by all in our profession.  But
what good is it, except as a litany of abstract platitudes, if it cannot be
enforced?  And would the profession not benefit greatly if more of our
practitioners were held accountable to those tenets?  That is what the ROPA
proposal seeks to do.  Of course, results are not guaranteed, and there may
be no rush to register.  As I recall the proposal, however, it calls for
only a three-year commitment from the sponsoring societies.  If the SHA is
not satisfied with the progress after that time, it would be free to
renegotiate terms or disengage from the registry altogether.  My rough
estimate of cost is $2.50/member for start-up and $2.50 each year.
Therefore, all 3 annual fees combined, prorated among SHA's membership,
would total about $10 a member during the trial period.  I realize it is
the principle that bothers most of those opposed to the proposal, not the
amount, but I still have to say that $10 spread over 3 years is a small
enough sum in light of the potential return for the profession.
 
I understand why archeologists living and working outside North America
might wonder why their SHA dues should subsidize an initiative that may be
viewed as having no impact on their own situations.  But, philosophically
speaking, the behavior of every archeologist affects the reputation of
every other professional archeologist no matter where he or she works.  The
public does not put so fine a point on things as we.  To them it makes no
difference if an archeologist draws notice for shady practices in the U.S.,
the U.K., Egypt, or anywhere else.  We all get tarred with the same brush,
and the profession as a whole suffers.  It is doubtful, of course, that any
of our non-U.S. colleagues would care to register with ROPA (though I would
have loved to head an all-expense-paid investigating team to some exotic
land if the need arose), but the few extra dollars paid in dues can be seen
as an investment in general betterment of the profession.  One would think
nothing of dropping a generous donation in a collection box at Stonehenge
or the Sphinx, sites outside ones own research interest and country; would
the ROPA surcharge be so different?
 
On a more pragmatic note, I am compelled to point out that there are
similar apparent inequities in the SHA and all scholarly societies.  At
one time or another, everyone subsidizes special interests, and vice versa.
Excess revenues generated by conference registration fees, for example, are
plowed back into the SHA's general operating fund to keep annual dues
increases in check (until this year there had not been a substantial
increment since the early 1980s).  In that case, the few (ca. 700/year)
subsidize the many (ca. 2,000).  On the other hand, there has never been
any difference between U.S. and non-U.S. membership status in the SHA dues
structure, even though mailings of the journal, newsletter, and other
materials (including the ballot) to addresses outside the U.S. cost the
society substantially more.  So, the many subsidize the few in this
instance, and one might say that SHA members outside the U.S. already have
saved the projected three-year ROPA support costs in this year alone.
 
This vote, however, really should not be decided on the issue of money.
Even if the amount were far greater, I dare say most of us could afford it,
and any supposed disparities probably balance in the long run.  Rather, in
my view your decision should be based on whether you believe that fostering
the extension of SOPA's proven disciplinary procedures and respected Code
of Ethics would improve the general practice of our profession.  I am one
of many who do believe the convergence of attitudes that lead to the ROPA
proposal is good for archeology and that the initiative would have a
positive impact of the profession if approved, though some colleagues I
respect strongly differ with me on these points.  This is not a simple
issue with an obvious answer, and complexity generally results in division
of thought.  Well-intended people can disagree, and both sides on the issue
have voiced legitimate concerns that need to be heard and considered.
 
I was greatly surprised that SOPA's membership voted 2-1 in favor of the
proposal, for that meant fundamental change after 20 years of slow but
steady progress.  Now I have no idea how the this SHA vote will go, but I
am hopeful that SHA members will consider the arguments thoughtfully and
make up their minds from an informed position.  Therefore, please do review
the newsletter material that has been published this year, as well as the
discourse these past weeks, and vote on the proposition when you receive
your ballot however you decide.  Not only should this matter not be decided
on the basis of a few dollars, the proposal should not be resolved by only
a few members.  Last year's election brought only a 35% return of ballots.
Regardless of the outcome, I should hope this year we can expect better
participation from the membership in this important referendum.
 
Vergil E. Noble