Comments on the proposed changes in the structure of the SHA Board.

     In the summer SHA Newsletter Doug Armstrong proposed some changes in
the structure of the SHA board that among other things would make the
Editor and Newsletter Editors ex officio non-voting members of the SHA
board.  In the fall SHA Newsletter wrote a response to these proposals and
since then have talked to a number of past presidents of the society and
others about the proposed changes.  At the annual meetings in Mobile, there
was a pre-business meeting so that these proposals could be discussed by a
broader cross section of the membership.  Unfortunately, there was still a
major session honoring Stanley South's 50 year contribution to historical
archaeology coming to a conclusion at the same time as the meeting called
to consider changes in the structure of the SHA.  This important session
was also in competition with papers by Louis Binford and Leland Ferguson in
addition to Stanley South talking about his reminiscences and reading some
of his poetry.  Needless to say, this a major session limited the size of
the turnout for an important discussion on the proposed changes in the
structure of the SHA.  The resulting turnout for the discussion of the
board changes was much smaller that it could have been if it were not
playing against such a stellar event.

     The feeling of several of us attending the discussion of the proposed
changes was that these issues have not had wide exposure to the membership
and that feedback has been limited to a small group who attended the
pre-business meeting.  Because a number of us feel strongly about these
proposed changes, I have decided to present our position to HISTARCH where
it will probably receive more attention and discussion and perhaps a more
extensive dialog will be of use to those considering the changes to the
board.

     This discussion will only address the proposed changes in the status
of the Editor and Newsletter editor.  Both of these positions have always
been voting members of the SHA Board.  The proposals presented by Doug
Armstrong in his letter to the Newsletter were to make them non-voting
members of the board because they were appointed by the board rather than
being elected.  While this is true, it does not seem to be a good reason to
change the status of these two positions.  What other reasons are there for
asking for a change in an arrangement that has been working extremely well
for almost 35 years?  The old adage comes to mind 'if it ain't broke, don't
fix it.'

     One guise under which these changes were proposed is that they would
save the cost of paying for the trips to the mid-year meetings of the board
for the two editors.  While this is again true, it seems rather ungracious
in terms of reward for the effort they put forth.  In a recent email from
Stanley South, he stated that:

     The editor and newsletter editors are critical in their connection to
     the SHA membership more than other offices.  Along with the Secretary
     they are the workhorses of the SHA.  The other offices are primarily
     figurehead positions.  If they deserve a vote the workhorse editors
     certainly do in my opinion.

In addition to the amount of work performed on behalf of the SHA by our
editors, they have brought a good deal more to the table beyond the
excellent performance of their duties.  Over the years, those occupying the
editor positions have brought invaluable institutional support that often
has included work-time, storage facilities, office equipment, and supplies.
I very much doubt that the invoices to the SHA for office expenses reflect
the full costs of hosting the editor positions.  It is the editors who have
brought these unacknowledged contributions to the SHA table.  They have
saved the society a good deal of money that their institutions have
provided gratis.  To withdraw the invitation to the feast of the person
that brought the main dish seems rather callous to me.

     Beyond the above argument for keeping the editors as active voting
members of the Board there are a number of very good reasons for not
changing the present structure which has worked very well over three
decades.  These reasons are:

1.   The long lasting service of our editors means that they have become
     and are the institutional memory of the SHA.  Most board members are
     there for three years and gone.  In the past we had at least two
     members elected to the board who did not attend a single meeting
     during their three-year term!   Institutional memory is very important
     in avoiding pitfalls and it is the way we learn from past mistakes.

2.   Because the editors have a long history of dealing with members who
submit articles to the journal and       items to the newsletter, they have
a better feel for who can and will deliver on what they are offering, as
opposed to those who are just blowing smoke.

3.   With the possible exception of the president (and not always so) the
editors spend more time working for the SHA than almost all board members.
It seems strange to want to take away their attendance at the mid-year
meaning and to take away their vote.

     Beyond these considerations, we need to consider where future editors
are going to come from.  Both Ronn Michael and Norm Barka will be stepping
down after long years of service at minimal cost to the society.  It is
doubtful that those that follow them will serve for such long periods.
Bill Lees has agreed to become the new editor of the Newsletter.  Given the
active role he has played in the SHA and the job he is undertaking, it
seems shortsighted to take away the board member status of the position.
Replacing our editor will not be an easy task, however, we are fortunate to
have a pool of Associate Editors who have had the experience of editing
individual volumes to choose from.  In addition, this pool of talent that
Ronn has helped develop will be a reassuring thing for anyone coming into
the Editor position.  Again, someone willing to undertake this important
role as our editor should not be made a second class member of the board,
and they should be a voting member along with the elected members.

     Over the last several months I have talked to many members about this
issue and generally found agreement with keeping the editors as voting
members of the board.  The following past presidents of the SHA all feel
that the status of the editors as members of the board should not be
changed: Bill Adams, Jim Ayers, Norm Barka, Mary Beaudry, Glenn Farris,
Karlis Karklins, Terry Majewski, Henry Miller, Rick Sprague, and Garry
Stone.   Only two of the past presidents that I talked to were supportive
of a change in the status of the editor positions, however, it was not
clear as to how they would change the structure.

     I feel that this issue should be discussed by a broader cross section
of the membership, and HISTARCH seems the best vehicle to generate such a
discussion.  There were other structural changes proposed, but that is for
someone else to bring up.

George L. Miller.