SOPA has been around 21 years, as Bill Lipe points out, and I have been a member for most of that time. Over the years, SOPA has been a quiet, dignified, and focussed organization, low key and very professional. I have been proud to proclaim my membership. But I have never attended a SOPA meeting in all those years. Why? Because SOPA is one of the many organizations that meet in a cluster around SAA meetings. I don't belong to SAA, so I don't have any incentive to go to a SOPA meeting. I'm self-employed and I must watch my pennies. Over the years, SOPA has lived in the shadow of SAA, and has failed to assert itself as a distinct voice for the profession. I believe that much of that obscurity can be directly attributed to its too-close hstorical association with SAA. As for SAA, I am sure it is a fine organization within its scope, but lately it has demonstrated some really disturbing ambitions. For example, its membership list is labelled a directory of archaeologists. In fact, it is a directory of people who have paid money, which is quite different. The only real directory of archaeologists in North America is the SOPA book. How does SOPA/ROPA/SAA propose to resolve this incongruity? Will SAA change the name of its directory, or will they continue to insist that you may be dubbed an archaeologist simply by sending money? To merge SOPA into an organization so diffuse and unfocussed as SAA would be a disaster for both. One wonders if the SAA motive is the improvement of the profession, or just another example of rapacity and empire building. I smell a Caesar somewhere in this salad. Organizations with a mission need to stand alone, so that the mission can be clearly discerned. SAA is, and probably should be, a muddle of general missions and diverse constituencies. That's fine. They should have a code of ethics. And they should have the privilege of bestowing the title of "archaeologist" on anyone who sends them a check. There is no trademark on the title, but I question the professional dedication of an organization that throws it around so lightly. SOPA should do what it does best: identifying professionals and setting professional standards. SOPA is not SHA, SAA, or ACRA. They are all different, and they should stand alone. The success of ACRA, it seems to me, can be attributed largely to the fact that it has aggressively defined itself as separate from SOPA and the others, and meets independently, even thought it has overlapping membership with the other organizations. Each of us develops a suite of professional memberships that reflect our interests and beliefs. No single organization can, or should, serve all our professional needs. Archaeology is not a single profession, but an amalgm of specializations and of different approaches. That's what makes it interesting. The disturbing trend toward academic homogenization in the profession, leading to a day when all the practitioners have identical credentials, would be accelerated by subordinating other bodies into SAA. Instead of getting swallowed into the amorphous blob that is SAA, the SOPA organization needs to take a cue from ACRA and move to separate its mission and existence from other organizations. The other organizations, in turn, can further the cause, at no cost, by endorsing publicly that SOPA is a sister organization with a distinct purpose. When I was invited to run for SOPA office last year, I agreed only on the condition that I could include a statement against ROPA in the election brochure. Because election results are not released, I don't know how many people agreed by voting for my position, but I know that ROPA is not unanimously supported by the SOPA membership, or even by all the officers. Instead of spending all this effort to merge the various organizations into a super SAA, it would be more profitable, in my opinion, to organize SOPA in a more focussed and aggressive manner, with endorsement from all the dozens of organizations that are legitimately interested in the subject of professionalism..The endorsements would be cheap, and would achieve exactly the same purpose as the proposed ROPA, except that SOPA would remain distinct. Ned Heite Member, SOPA, ACRA, SHA, SIA, SPMA, SAS, etc., etc.