Please add my name to the list of past presidents who oppose any
change in the present arrangement with respect to the full voting
status of the journal and newsletter editors.  They are, as Stan South
has pointed out, among the Society's workhorses, and if anyone's way
to meetings should be paid by the Society, it is they.  There is
otherwise no more thankless task than that as editor.  Editors are
recipients of all the grief and none of the glory.
    Bernard Fontana

----- Original Message -----
From: "BOYD, Varna" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: proposed changes in the SHA board structure


> I agree whole-heartedly with George's thoughtful comments and agree
that a
> change in the structure of the SHA Board is unnecessary and
potentially
> harmful to the organization.
>
> Varna G. Boyd, RPA
> Senior Project Manager, Cultural Resources
> Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
> 9001 Edmonston Road
> Greenbelt, MD 20770
> (301) 982-2854
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George L. Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 5:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: proposed changes in the SHA board structure
>
>
> 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.