What exactly "IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE" Bob? What exactly is YOUR problem?
Because that's the way things appear to this long-standing, although
sometimes too quiet, member of SHA! How dare you sir! How dare you sit in
your small-minded world and impugn the character of people who have devoted
a significant part of their lives to the SHA! You may not like them
personally, you may have issues with how their offices dovetail into the
workings of the society, the SHA leadership, or the fact that work boots
don't really go with a coat and tie, but how dare you use this forum for
character attack!
You do raise some issues that SHA members should be aware of, albeit in a
generally obtuse manner (crypto-government? crypto-extension?? c'mon Bob!).
The general SHA membership needs to consider all sides of this argument to
make a considered and informed decision and you certainly would be the
perfect mouthpiece for the underrepresented! But to engage in blatent
character assassination and then sortof . . . kindof . . . veil it by
implying that "you're really friends so it's all ok" is just so bush league
that I am dumbfounded! (Is there something beyond dumbfounded? Becasuse if
there is, I'm actually there!)
But I return to my original question, "what is this actually about Bob?"
Please take a good, long look into your own soul and try to determine what
it is that makes you so embittered or angry that you have to resort to this
sort of character attack in this forum. Again, you may not agree with the
manner in which the society operates, but for God's sake sir, let's try
(however hard that may be for some) to address these issues in an
intelligent and constructive manner without resorting to this type of
plebean attack on character.
Among those life lessons you should have learned in Kindergarden Bob, If you
don't have anything nice (i.e., good, constructive, edifying) to say, maybe
you should keep your mouth shut!
(And if you're going to insult someone, at least have the courtesy to spell
their name right (Tef not Teff) so they are absolutely certain that it's
them that your insulting!)
Rarely indignant but this kind of thing makes my blood boil,
Matthew A. Sterner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Schuyler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 5:29 PM
Subject: Proposed Changes in the SHA
> 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]
>
|
