Proposed Changes in the SHA Board Structure
BUT, WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE

As an active member of the SHA, one who has been following this debate,
I would like to comment on George Miller's recent message to HISTARCH. I
probably should keep my mouth shut as I will now get in trouble with
everyone, but ..... As is so common in reading primary documents you always
wonder if you really know what the hidden issues are.

The debate, for those who would like to read it, is summarized in:
        (1) SHA NEWSLETTER - President's Corner Summer 2001
            Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 1-3. [Doug Armstong]
        (2) SHA NEWSLETTER - Opinion
           Vol. 34 No. 3, p. 3.    [George L. Miller]

and was continued in a special open forum just before the Business
Meeting in Mobile. As I was in the Stanley South Session, as a speaker,
I missed the forum arriving just as Rick Sprague stood up and told
everyone to move into the Business Meeting per se. I had a lot to say
but arrived too late.

This entire discussion (now debate) seems very odd unless you know
what in my opinion the real issue is and this has almost never been
mentioned up to now.

In the new ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ARCHAEOLOGY: HISTORY AND DISCOVERIES
(Edited  by Tim Murray 2001) Volume 3 pp. 1177-1178 I wrote the blurb
on the "Society for Historical Archaeology" and within it said:

                Phenomenal growth resulted in a 2,000 individual
        membership, which makes the SHA the second-largest
        association of anthropological archaeologists in the world.
        Nevertheless, these numbers have not created an economy of
        scale. Across its three-decade history, a small number of
        dedicated volunteers have preserved and nutured the society.
        The terms of office of the journal editor, Ronald L. Michael
        (1978-2001), the recent book review editor, Roderick Sprague
        (1977-1997), secretary-treasurer, Stephanie H. Rodeffer
        (1978-2001), and newsletter editor, Norman Barka (1982-2001)
        highlight this unusual situation for a mature and national-
        international organization.

Forgive me for quoting myself but this historical fact about the SHA
is, in my opinion, what is the hidden issue behind this debate.

TWO SIDES TO THE ISSUE

(1) WHO RUNS THE SHA - People are elected to the SHA Board
and become President only to realize, if they are awake and care to
realize, that they are not running the SHA. The society is being run
by a crypto-government. Elected officers are on the Board for three
years and perhaps President for three years (President-Elect, President,
and Immediate Past President). Compare that to the three offices that
are appointed (or elected in a non-contested form) - the journal editor,
the newsletter editor and the secretary-treasurer - who may be in office
as a voting member of the Board for a quarter of a century (!). This is
very odd for a major scholarly organziation but is, I think, inevitable
in regard to the above quote.

        Some members of the Board and certainly some Presidents are not
happy with this situation. They may also come to realize that when they
try to change things not only can the "lifers" easily out last them but
there is a crypto-extension working, especially at Business Meetings.
People get up, frequently but not always Past Presidents, and act as
front people for the hidden government. George Miller is doing this in
his letter to the editor and in his HISTARCH statement. I have also
carried out this function on several occasions. Although this is fully
allowable it must really piss off the presidents and others. They seem to
have no authority at all.

(2) THE SHA GIBRALTA. The other side of the debate is that these long-
lived offices and people in them are the anchor of SHA, its institutional
memory and perhaps even the reason the SHA has survived and flourished
over the last three decades. Miller does a good job of summarizing
this position so I will not repeat it.

PERSONALITIES - Now I am really going to go out on thin ice. Of the
three offices mentioned they are all the same in that they have power
beyond the office (voting membership on the Board and attendance at
all Board meetings) and are held for decades. Compare some other
offices such as the Book Review Editor or the Chair of the Awards
Committee which are not on the Board and have no power beyond what
is inherent in that office (basically "0"). However, it is as much
the personality of those holding these offices as the structural
form that creates any "problems."

Of the three "lifers", Norm Barka is so laid back that I am not sure
if he has publically ever expressed an opinion and Teff Rodeffer,
although a very strong and opinionated person, will only kick the
s--t out of you if you try to shove your way through the door of the
SHA Business Office. Then there is Ron Michael .......................
......................................................................
also know as the Gray Eminence, the Hidden Hand, the Power Behind the
Throne, and (this is a good one), Editor-For-Life. As Ron has grown
older, and he has grown old in the office (as he is now about 34
he had to have taken the mantle when he was 10), he has gotten more
and more actively opinionated about the SHA. I can say this because
I am very similar to Ron. We both care very much about the society
(and through it the field of historical archaeology), we are both
opinionated SOBs, and we are not shy about expressing out opinions.
Ron has opinions not only about the journal but about all functions
inside the SHA and thus all committees and other units. So do I.
I express these opinions via the famous (infamous?) "Schuyler Memos"
but Ron has much more powerful fora - the SHA Board and the SHA
Editorial Committee. This is, I sincerely believe, the hidden issue
behind this debate.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE (to quote Lenin):

I would suggest that we NOT change the structure of the SHA, its
governance or the consitution that have served us so well since 1967.
We must not do anything to weaken or deminish the offices of Editor,
Newsletter Editor or Secretary-Treasurer. Those who hold these offices are
taking a secondary full-time job without pay because they are
fanatically loyal to the SHA. We could pretend to elect the editors
(as the Sceretary-Treasuer is now elected) in uncontested slots but
this is window dressing. Why not just leave well enough alone.

So, keep the present system with these three offices as voting members of
the SHA Board, keep the Presidency as ONE year as sitting president,
again a system that has worked for decades, and move on.

BUT the Presdients and Boards should not be afraid to also be opinionated
and especially should pull individual officers back into their own
territory if they get imperialistic. Although they must understand that
such individuals will always have opinions.

Just hang in there. Norm is retired, Teff is about to go and Ron has
announced he will step down within the next 20 years or so. When the
new people come into office just bounch them off the wall two or three
times in regard to other committees and functions of the society and
then all will be well.

                                        Robert L. Schuyler
                                        Active and Opinionated Member
                                        of the Society for Historical
                                        Archaeology

P.S. Ron and I usually agee on most issues involving the SHA and
the few times we did not he, of course, was wrong.








Robert L. Schuyler
University of Pennsylvania Museum
33rd & Spruce Streets
Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6324

Tel: (215) 898-6965
Fax: (215) 898-0657
[log in to unmask]