ArchivesNext

Excellent article about how SAA decides where to have Annual Meeting, but are assumptions valid?

[This post will be one of a planned series about some SAA issues, including a discussion of other issues related to the Annual Meeting and one about issues related to the proposed dues increase. Please note that in this and all future blog posts, all the views represented are strictly my own and nothing I say should be interpreted in any way as representing the views of SAA or the SAA Council.]

The Jan/Feb 2010 issue of Archival Outlook contains an excellent article by SAA Executive Director, Nancy Beaumont, describing the process by which SAA determines its site selection for the annual meeting. The first thing I’d like to say is that this article offers terrific insight into a complicated process, and I applaud Nancy for providing this kind of transparency into a decision-making process that is, I know, always subject to criticism and second-guessing. I think SAA can truly benefit from more transparency of this kind, on every level.

In earlier discussions on this blog and elsewhere, people have complained that the annual meeting almost always takes place in very large cities which dictate very high room rates for the conference hotel (and for most hotels nearby as well). For many people, the cost of the hotel room is the biggest chunk of their expenses for attending the annual meeting. Why, they ask, can’t we meet in places like Portland, Pittsburgh, Nashville, Minneapolis, Cleveland . . .

Why not, indeed?

The article describes the current assumptions that dictate the criteria on which site selection is based. These assumptions are (note most of this text is verbatim from the article):

1) at least one major hotel with sufficient meeting space and sleeping rooms to accommodate member expectations for an annual meeting, preferably in a downtown location [Note that this dictates that the preference is for having all conference events in one location.]

2) a variety of cultural, educational, and recreational opportunities for archivists

3) a sufficient number of SAA members to serve on the Host Committee.

4) Geography is a principal factor in choosing potential cities. With a national membership, it is important for SAA to move systematically around the country, from region to region.

5) Council determined some time ago that SAA should meet in Washington, D.C. (historically the largest draw), every four years.

6) In 2008 Council decided that Chicago should host our annual meeting every other even-numbered year. (With the exception of 2011, when SAA will celebrate its 75th anniversary in its hometown.

7) We cannot meet in cities that are “gaming destinations,” which it was said made them off-limits for Federal employees.

8 ) It is desirable that the hotel be not more than an hour’s drive from a hub or secondary airport.

9) And, of course, if possible affordable sleeping room rates, preferably with free Internet access; relatively easy and affordable access by air or car; inexpensive food options; access to cultural venues; and good weather.

As you can read in the excellent article, based on Assumption #1, there are only 117 possible hotels in the country for the SAA meeting. Applying the other assumptions–particularly that we can’t meet anywhere near Washington or Chicago–rapidly narrows down the choices to a handful of options. Our next meeting locations are Washington (2010), Chicago (2011), San Diego (2012), New Orleans (2013), Washington (2014).

While I’m sure Washington, Chicago, San Diego and New Orleans will be lovely (although D.C. and New Orleans perhaps not so much in August), I wonder whether it isn’t time to ask the membership to assess how accurate these assumptions really are to them. The first three on the list are dictated by a 1991 Council Resolution. After nearly 20 years, it seems fair to ask the membership what is most important to them about the location in which the annual meeting takes place. I have a hunch that affordability would come out in first place. How important is it to you that all the events take place in the same location compared to how much your hotel room costs? If Orlando is affordable, how much do you care that it doesn’t have “cultural” opportunities? What are you willing to trade off for? Holding the meeting in the same cities (Washington and Chicago) allows for multi-year contracts that give SAA more power to negotiate and therefore keep costs down. But what do you think about having the meeting in Chicago and D.C. so often?

Are there other options we can consider? Must we have 8-10 concurrent sessions, or could we do with fewer? What about partnering with some other related organizations, like AASLH, AAM, or RBMS, for joint meetings to try to negotiate better deals? Should SAA or the Host Committee take a more active role in trying to help people find roommates or providing information about lower-cost housing?

I bring this up now because I know quite a few people who either won’t be able to come to DC this year or who are still trying to figure out how to afford it, and the prospect is even grimmer for next year. I’ll take up the topic of how to expand the annual meeting options to those who can’t attend in a future post, so for now, I’d like to hear your thoughts about whether or not things need to change in SAA’s current site selection process.

Conferences, History & related professions, Society of American Archivists (SAA) | Kate T. | July 19, 2010 5:54 am

36 Comments

By Alison L., July 19, 2010 @ 6:27 am

I would love to think that the Annual Meeting could be held in smaller cities from time to time. Is that not how the Austin meeting was perceived?

That said, surely one of the other constraints–apart from having enough SAA members in a location–is having enough SAA members in a biven location *with enough time* to take on this enormous planning task. And, for that, you almost need a surfeit of SAA members, and we’re back to the largest cities again.

And, to conclude my two-cents’-worth here, I like having the meeting in D.C. so frequently, but could skip the reliance on Chicago.
By Matt Gorzalski, July 19, 2010 @ 6:39 am

I will be going to DC this year, my first SAA meeting of my still young career. I was surprised at the total cost once I added up all of the numbers, and wouldn’t be able to attend if my institution was not paying for the travel and hotel costs. I agree that affordability would be number one on a revised list. I think I would trade off number 2, cultural, educational and recreational opportunities. Wanting to get the most out of conferences, I am usually in sessions and attending conference related events throughout the day. By the time things slow down around dinner, these attractions are typically closed. I also feel that it is important not to take advantage of the funds being given to me by my institution for an expensive conference. Additionally, I don’t think that having SAA in Chicago every other even year is a good idea because then all even numbered years would either be in Washington or Chicago. Chicago should be the meeting place for SAA anniversaries and any other time it is decided that the meeting hasn’t been in Chicago for a while. I tend to agree with everything else on the list.
By Marcella, July 19, 2010 @ 6:40 am

Would teaming up with another national organization like AAM or AASLH make a conference more affordable? I think it would just make it more overwhelming (AAM I know is already overwhelming enough!)

I don’t mind DC and Chicago being the host spots so often–reasons for both cities make sense, and at least Chicago is central to the country. (Perhaps they could trade off every four years instead of every two?) I do agree that the odd years should be reconsidered by Council, including taking a survey of the membership about what they hold most important for the annual meetings.
By Steve, July 19, 2010 @ 7:51 am

Personally, my first priority would be that the conference is affordable for the members. I don’t consider the $200 hotel rooms in D.C. to be all that affordable. It might be cheap for D.C., but that just points to why it’s not necessarily a good idea to keep going back there.

Having the meetings in DC and Chicago allows SAA to negotiate better rates for the meeting expenses, which means they can make more money on the conferences. Remember that over 25% of SAA’s annual revenue comes from the annual meeting. I don’t think SAA cares if it’s the same 1400 or 1600 people who can afford to keep coming to the meetings every year (and more and more, those are people who have institutions who can afford to pay their expenses), as long as they keep the numbers high enough to make a profit.

But maybe I’m just cranky because I’m trying to figure out how I can afford to pay for a trip to D.C. (and registration, hotel, parking, food, etc.) out of my own pocket this year.
By Renna, July 19, 2010 @ 8:09 am

I think everyone agrees that the most important thing to consider is affordability. Like Matt mentioned, one has to actively plan to skip a day of the conference to go out and enjoy many cultural offerings that make the location so appealing in the first place (food and drink not withstanding). Or they have to spend the extra $$ to arrive a day or two before or after.

I feel like the term “affordable” used in regard to lodging is like putting lipstick on a pig. I wouldn’t pay that much to stay somewhere on vacation, so am I really going to pay that much to stay somewhere for a professional conference? Yes. Why? Because I feel like I have to (to the delight of American Express and to the detriment of my checkbook). I’m not sure how we can make the conference hotel more affordable, though. This is tough since lodging costs more than registration and transportation put together in many cases.

The article states, “Given the decisions to meet every four years in D.C. and Chicago, close-by cities in the east and Midwest
wouldn’t provide sufficient regional rotation.” I’m curious about what cities they’re referring to and what proximity puts another another city out of the running. If we’re talking Baltimore, I can kind of see where you’re coming from. If we’re talking Philadelphia, not so much.

Yes, survey the membership to help the Council reassess. I think the turnout will be similar to that when we vote each year, but it’s still important to let people speak out.

Just some thoughts….
By Jordon, July 19, 2010 @ 8:34 am

Despite loving the idea of having the conference in second tier cities, I’m wondering if the cost of airfare to fly into one of these places would negate the savings on hotel accommodations. For example, just ran a cursory search on Kayak for comparison. Philly to Chicago is currently around $200 round trip, Philly to Detroit is about $300, and Philly to Cleveland is around $340.

Also, maybe by having it in big cities that have decent public transportation, it makes it easier not to stay at the conference hotel and get back and forth. The conference hotel’s always too expensive for me, like most people, but I found a cheaper hotel in DC and can just hop on the Metro. If you have it in Orlando and you still can’t afford the hotel, your options are reduced. You could even stay in a DC suburb and get in relatively quickly if it were on the Red Line.

It’s super-boring that SAA keeps having the conferences in the same cities, but maybe it winds up being cheaper.
By Steve, July 19, 2010 @ 8:43 am

Yes, but I just looked at hotel room rates for Pittsburgh and they’re all running at about $100. So wouldn’t that savings make up for the (possibly) higher cost of travel? I know SAA does take stuff like that into account but I do think that getting locked into just two cities 50% of the time is a mistake. At the very least, I think it’s something they need to ask the membership about. Were we consulted at all when they set those deals up? I don’t remember it.
By Scott, July 19, 2010 @ 9:09 am

I love being in the conference hotel for convenience. However, it is expensive.

I book Priceline Bid your own price and commute to the hotel. Generally I get a similar class hotel at about 1/3 of the cost. Share with a roommate and this goes lower.

My past SAAs:

2007 Chicago- stayed Hyatt for $99, moved down the street to ocnference hotel for more.
2008 San Franscisco- Hotel 480 for $75 (killer view, better hotel), moved to confernece hotel for much more.
2009 Austin Holiday Inn Town lake for $45. Ten minute walk to conference, kind of sucked but price was right.
2010 Marriott Key Bridge in Arlington, $70. Looks like a 20 minute metro ride. Might regret the commute but Dupont Circle seemed pricy and a little dodgy if you went down in stars. I also stayed at the Hilton in 2006 and wasn’t impressed with the area (though that may have been because of the heat).

Sooner or later things like Priceline are going to hurt conferences (and SAA they have a big financial stake in filling the rooms).
By Mary Jane, July 19, 2010 @ 9:12 am

Speaking as someone who is lucky enough to get funded every year (so far-fingers crossed!), part of what I enjoy about going to SAA is seeing different places, and I think I’m may decide to swap SAA out for another conference in one of those DC/Chicago years.

I know there are people out there who think that SAA is an elitist organization, and if they want to combat that, showing a real commitment to bringing down member costs for the annual meeting would be a good step.
By Bev, July 19, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

I’d have to agree that affordability is the #1 concern of those who would like to be able to attend SAA meetings. I do think that the quality of the meetings, and the no. of concurrent sessions has improved your chances of finding that the SAA meeting is worth your while, and I applaud SAA for their efforts in that area. I have been going to SAA meetings for more than 20 years, and in all that time, the main complaint has been the expense. Forgive me if I tend to think that this isn’t going to change. I don’t know that I’m cynical enough to believe that SAA really doesn’t care that it’s the same old, same old in terms of those attending, so long as they make a profit or break even. But, I share the frustration of many who would like to have the experience of going to the annual meeting and cannot because of the expense. I have been asking for years why SAA can’t do a videoconference at a lower rate. I’ve never gotten a really good answer. Other organizations do that – why can’t we?
By Alison S., July 19, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

I’m in agreement that so-called ’second tier’ cities really, really deserve a chance as SAA conference sites… I’m with Steve – that if nothing else (and I’m not convinced that other conference expenses) the hotel rooms in such cities would prove to be cheaper than the same cities that SAA tends to gravitate to for our annual conferences…
I say it’s time to poll the membership to see what the collective voice is on this…
By Jennifer, July 19, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

I am a student member of SAA and attending my first conference this year. I would love to see affordability be a higher priority, because I have no funding opportunities available besides the one scholarship through SAA. This is all out of my own pocket, out of my student loan. I know for most students and younger archivists, definitely those of us making lower salaries, affordability is the biggest issue. If SAA is concerned about having newer members be involved in the organization at the national level, they need to focus on this.

From other conferences I’ve attended, I barely have time to eat outside the conference center. So it would be good to have them in second-tier cities, as I never get to really visit the city while at the conference anyway. Their hotel rooms would also be cheaper, and more people might be able to drive to these cities and afford to park there, or afford hotels closer to the conference center. That way, there would be less reliance on public transportation.

@ Scott: The cons of using a service like priceline name your price, from what I remember, is that you don’t know what hotel you are in and can’t be sure how far away it is from the conference center or any public transit stations. For visitors with disabilities or health problems, that is a major problem, and doesn’t solve affordability for everyone.
By Scott, July 19, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

@Jennifer,

You have nailed the risk of Priceline, along with the fact that once you book your money is gone- no cancelation. Pricleine does lets you choose location so one could choose something central downtown and it will be within a walk to a metro.

I think people also need to understand the annual conference makes alot of revenue for SAA. Most people don’t know this but it is one of SAA’s main revenue streams. Minimize this and either member services go down or membership costs go up.

Furthermore, hotels in “secondary” cities are not neccesarily cheaper, they just are not large enough to house a conference of SAA’s size. Thus the conference is in multiple venues or a convention centre. If you are in multiple venues, there goes the trade show- more loss of revenue.

I wonder if any US university has conference facilties big enough for SAA? I think haivng a university conference every four years would be great and affordable.

The Association of Canadian Archivists was in Kingston at Queen’s University in 2007 and it was fabulous- everyone (almost) stayed in the dorms for $65 CDN a night (single room- shared bathroom). Of course that was 300 delegates not 2000.
By Susan, July 19, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

I think a survey of the membership (and possibly of potential members- it could be sent to the listserv as many who use it are not dues paying members of SAA) is in order.

I think it’d be worthwhile for a few reasons. 1. I’d be curious to know what is the average amount of travel support archivists get (and does it depend on if they are a presenter or heavily involved with a section or RT), 2. how much of conference costs do archivists tend to pay out of their own pocket without reimbursement. 3. are there any trends in income in terms of who attends and who doesn’t.

Also, I think it’s worthwhile to find out why most people attend the conference. Is it primarily because they are involved with committees and sections? Pre-conference workshops? Sessions? Sightseeing? Networking? All of the above?

Is the reliance on D.C. and Chicago and other large cities for meetings a factor in some archivists not joining SAA? If costs were cheaper to attend the annual meeting, is there reason to believe more people would join the organization?

And good weather? Are the hotel rates for the small list of possible destinations best in August or would a different month be more cost effective? (Maybe SAA has looked at this, I don’t know)

As far as tradeoffs go, I’d like to see a somewhat shorter conference in a cheaper location.
By Kate T., July 19, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

As always, all of you have great ideas and feedback. This is exactly the kind of dialogue I think it would good for SAA generate and pay attention to from its members–and as Susan rightly points out, from non-members too. Maybe especially from non-members?

One issue that I anticipate would come up if this idea actually gets discussed by SAA would be that putting together a survey/discussion like this and analyzing the results would require resources to support it. Basically, who is going to do this work? This is kind of a transition into the next post in the queue about increasing involvement with SAA. If SAA needs volunteers to help gather this kind of information, do you think there would be enough volunteers to make it happen? I think there would be.
By Peter Hirtle, July 20, 2010 @ 1:36 am

As Nancy’s article makes clear, site selection is a balancing act. When I was on Council, we approved the regular meetings in DC as a way of “subsidizing” meetings in smaller places like Birmingham and Indianapolis. I suspect (but don’t know) that the Chicago meetings were organized as a way of saving money – SAA doesn’t need to pay to have staff fly to a different city for a week – as well as securing what is usually the 2nd largest attendance (and don’t we want as many archivists as possible at our meetings?).

The big limitation that I see with smaller cities is the hotel space. Traditionally, SAA has wanted to be in one hotel in order to maximize networking. Perhaps we have gotten too large for that. But we also need a whole slew of meeting spaces. I know that people complain that there are too many sessions, but a bigger complaint every year is how many good sessions don’t make it past the program committee. Furthermore, many people can get more in travel money from their employers if they are on the program, which means that as attendance increases, the number of sessions should also increase. It may be time to go to two hotels and a conference center – but in the past, that was too costly an option, and would have destroyed the financial surplus that comes from the meeting. Since SAA is already forgoing positions, it can’t afford to absorb any more revenue loss. Should the money come from a much greater dues increase instead?

At least there have been some efforts to reduce costs. Not having sessions on Sunday means that some people can leave on Saturday, saving a night’s hotel. In large cities, there are often housing options (and fortunately, SAA hasn’t yet had a problem selling out its block of rooms). Students have arranged shared housing at some meetings.

The old days when SAA was small enough to meet at a university and people sleep in dorms is gone. I think that is a good thing – in size there is strength, and the large attendance at SAA meetings is sign of our vibrant profession. But I hope that we don’t have any more meetings like Boston where we are squeezed into too-small spaces, making it hard to enjoy the annual meeting.
By S, July 20, 2010 @ 5:29 am

Peter brings up a good point, “as attendance increases, the number of sessions should also increase”
By Faceless Archivist, July 20, 2010 @ 6:33 am

I said something like this over on Terry’s site, so I hope you forgive the repetition: what if the annual meeting were a break-even venture for the organization, not a money-maker? What if SAA, as an organization, decided that making the annual meeting and other educational opportunities a good value (cost/benefit) to its members was more important than making a profit off the members? I know SAA has overhead costs it has to meet (don’t we all?), but maybe less bureaucracy and lower fees would serve the membership better than the “advocacy” (in quotes because I’m dubious of the cost/benefit value to the average member) and leadership we’re supposedly paying for.
By Kate T., July 20, 2010 @ 6:45 am

Hi Faceless – Thanks for repeating your comments here too. In FY10 the annual meeting generated over $425,000 for SAA. In FY11 (the DC meeting), they project revenues of over $775,000. (Note that this is revenue only and does not reflect the costs associated with the meetings.) (The budget numbers are available to everyone on the SAA web site.) That’s a lot of money to give up. I don’t disagree with you that perhaps SAA has come to rely too heavily on the annual meeting as a revenue generator, but as Peter pointed out above, the most likely alternative source of income is a dues increase (and probably a substantial one), so I don’t think that’s a viable option either. I’m going to take up the topic of the dues increase and what I think is your larger point in the next post: what are our dues paying for and is it what the membership most values?
By Kate T., July 20, 2010 @ 6:58 am

Peter–Thanks for your sharing your perspective here. It’s important for people to be reminded (or informed, if perhaps the information is new to them!) about why some of these decisions were made. As far as wanting to secure the big attendance numbers that both DC and Chicago generate, yes, but, are those going to be largely the same people who can come to those meetings year after year? Yes, if you live in DC or Chicago, SAA can count on your attending those meetings, but what about people for whom both those locations are not easy to get to? They now have a 50% lower chance of ever being able to get to a meeting.

The key thing for everyone to remember is, as you point out, that site selection is a balancing act. Since the annual meeting is such a key part of what SAA does every year, my concern is that everyone needs to clearly understand what needs to be balanced (such as SAA needs to make money) against what the members and other potential attendees want most from the meeting. And Nancy’s article did a great job of starting that process of understanding. As she described, SAA leadership goes into this decision making process with certain constraints and assumptions. I think it’s worth considering if those constraints are appropriate and the assumptions still correct. (Although I am in complete agreement with you about not wanting to feel like a sardine again–that hotel in Boston should be off the list permanently!)
By Eira, July 20, 2010 @ 7:10 am

This is a great discussion, and I really appreciate the topic being raised. This will be my first time attending SAA, and since I am very early career (I am employed full time at an archives situated within a university, but I am also working on my MLIS) I am thrilled for the opportunities that I anticipate from my first conference.

Luckily I have full funding for the pre-conference workshop I am attending, but only partial funding for the conference itself. I will still be spending quite a bit of my own money for the conference. Since I am actually still a paraprofessional, this has involved making some considerable financial sacrifices on my part, but I’ve decided that for me it’s worth it. On the other hand, not many people in positions similar to mine have the luxury of any funding whatsoever and I think that it does create a real barrier for early career archivists/archivists in training who want to be more involved in the profession.
By Faceless Archivist, July 20, 2010 @ 7:23 am

Is the assumption that government employees can’t attend conferences at facilities that include gaming/gambling correct? I did a quick review of GSA’s Federal Travel Rules through their website and couldn’t come up with any restriction of this sort. I bring this up because staying in hotels with casinos, while not everyone’s cup of tea, is often much less expensive than staying in a non-gambling-subsidized hotel. If this assumption (that SAA couldn’t be held, for example, in Las Vegas because of government travel restrictions) is not correct, it opens up a few more possible venues.
By Faceless Archivist, July 20, 2010 @ 7:27 am

@Kate, looking forward to your next post!
By Lurking nonmember, July 20, 2010 @ 7:43 am

Please do try to poll nonmembers. I would love to attend the annual meeting but I would have to pay for it all out of my own pocket, since I get zero travel dollars now – a very few travel dollars in past years. I’ve never attended one due to cost and location. I’ve had to use what precious little travel funds I had for smaller, more affordable conferences.
By Kate T., July 20, 2010 @ 7:52 am

Hi “lurking”–if you couldn’t afford to travel to the annual meeting, what would you think about attending a “virtual” version, which would contain a subset of the sessions? (See examples in the post that follows this one.)

And thanks for temporarily de-lurking!
By Lance, July 20, 2010 @ 7:53 am

Thanks for sparking this great discussion, as usual, Kate. This will only be my second SAA conference and I am able to attend because I am lucky enough once again to receive generous funding from my employer. I would certainly defer to people that are more experienced in this matter but these are some of my general impressions on the hotel and city issue.

For me, I would much prefer to stay in a hotel separate from the conference and have more affordable room rates. In my very limited experience, I found most of the networking I did happened at the receptions, sessions, and evening plans and had nothing to with the fact I was in the same hotel. Most of the people I know can’t afford to stay at the conference hotel anyway. Not being tied to one site could also mean that you do not have to start with a hotel with regular room rates of well over $300, as is the case of the Marriott. From the membership side this seems like a no-brainer. However, as Peter brings up, apparently this means SAA could lose money in the deal somehow, although a further explanation of this would be helpful.

If we dump the idea of being tied to only really large conference-hotel facilities and cities it seems like we can open up our options here. Yes, there will be some drawbacks to doing the conference in so-called second tier cities but it does seem like it would be worth it (many smaller places have culture, by the way). At least exploring if the savings at the venues could outweigh the possibly more expensive flights would be worth while.

If this situation does not change, which I think is very likely at least for the near future, I am wondering of the possibility of people organizing a kind of hotel room pool with cheaper rates outside the aegis of SAA. There are so many people staying off site due to cost anyway, they could at least ban together and use the advantage of numbers.

I think a member survey would be a great idea. I totally understand Kate’s point about it requiring resources, but I am sure there would be enough volunteer support for it. I for one would be happy to help put together a Survey Monkey or something like that (I prefer Survey Monkey because it is so fun to say). That is free and also produces some pretty readable data that can be used for analysis.
By Kate T., July 20, 2010 @ 8:04 am

Thanks, Lance. Your comment reminded me of two more points in favor of “second tier” cities. First I think I case can be made that by going to some of these smaller cities SAA would be able to attract people who can’t or don’t usually travel to the regular venues, and therefore reach a more “diverse” (in the general sense) audience. Second,(and this is off the top of my head) staying in a smaller area might give SAA a greater opportunity to do outreach or advocacy on behalf of the profession in that community. What I mean by that is that there might be more opportunities to organize local volunteer opportunities (people could volunteer to all help re-house collections for a morning, or something, at a local site), visiting archivists could give lectures or talks to local venues, and maybe even make arrangements for some local media coverage. I know that’s probably pie-in-the-sky talking, but I think that’s worth throwing into the mix as well. I’m not sure how often or how well SAA actually reaches out to the local community when we’re visiting.

And I’ve got you on the list as a volunteer, Lance. Also love the idea of a “second tier” hotel block at the more expensive locations.
By Alison S., July 20, 2010 @ 8:30 am

One thing that occurs to me is – in response to the idea that sometimes (and I’m not convinced always) that ’second tier’ cities would necessitate securing multiple venues for sessions/meetings/etc. is that mostly always (and I’m thinking of several cities here – and in particular my own hometown of Detroit, which would be a GREAT city for SAA) the hotels and conference facilities are grouped together in a downtown area…
And – from being in on planning several conferences now – I know that’s a bit of a logistics-jump, it is far from impossible…

Oh – and I also very much like the concept of a “second tier” hotel block at the more expensive locations!
By Peter HIrtle, July 20, 2010 @ 10:38 am

Kate is going to have such fun playing with these issues…

People seem to assume that a second-tier city would be cheaper than the big ones. The hotel rates might be lower – but as Nancy pointed out, they don’t have hotels that have sufficient meeting and banquet space. That means that rather than getting all of that space for free in exchange for guaranteeing a block of rooms, SAA would have to pay for meeting space in a convention center. That is really expensive – and the cost would have to be added onto the registration rate for the meeting. Take a look at ARMA, which has a $1000 registration rate for its meeting.

One should also be aware of an equity issue. The meeting in Birmingham, which had 1000 attendees, proved that there are probably 800 SAA members who will attend the meeting regardless of where it is held. So is it better to get 200+ non-regulars who can drive there attending in a place like Birmingham, or 900 non-regulars attending the meeting in Chicago? As Nancy wrote, Council is committed to trying to spread the meeting around the country, even if it means attendance drops. But an argument could be made that having meetings that are as big as possible every year, by being in places that people either can easily visit or want to visit, is a better service to the profession. (And again, as long as SAA is committed to trying to be in one hotel, and with lots of sessions, the options for 2nd tier cities are very, very limited.)

Lastly, one does have to think about the finances. It looks from last year’s budget that the annual meeting brought in about $90,000 more in revenue than it cost. This was invaluable in a year in which SAA had to make severe cutbacks in order not to go deeply into debt. I suppose that SAA could have cut the registration fee back by $20 and broken even on the meeting, but that $20 isn’t the difference between anyone attending – and that revenue needs to come from somewhere. And if you don’t make some money in places like Washington and Chicago, then you can’t risk losing money in places like Orlando and Indianapolis.

Nancy and Kate both cite the 1991 Council resolution on annual meeting placement. That resolution states that the annual meeting needs to be held in September. SAA has quietly ignored that resolution (without, as far as I know, changing it) because it can get cheaper hotel rates in August. I know Nancy has done everything else she can to keep the cost of the meeting low. But she doesn’t have control over airfare and room rates, which are the big expenses for attendees.
By Lindsey, July 20, 2010 @ 3:31 pm

It would probably be beneficial to look at conferences that draw a similar number of attendees and see where they are able to hold their conferences, as well as the registration and hotel costs. MARAC, AASLH, RBMS are smaller (or at least that’s my impression), and I imagine ARMA, mentioned above, is a larger organization but I really don’t know. Conferences within our generalized field would be ideal, but even looking at other groups with similar attendance levels would be helpful. Might provide some evidence to supplement all of our guessing!

This is a great conversation, thanks for hosting it, Kate.
By Noah Lenstra, July 21, 2010 @ 11:55 am

@Jennifer

My thoughts exactly! As student membership in SAA reaches beyond 25% (and possibly higher if you also include bridge members and other members who are employed part-time or between jobs with no prospects of getting employer funding) it is, in my opinion, almost suicidal to not make affordability be the number one consideration above and beyond EVERY other. I would like to see SAA try to poll members who do NOT receive funding from their employers (or who don’t have employers to fund them) about what they would like to see SAA do to find ways to make the conference accessible to them. I think a lot of the leaders who operate on the assumption that most members will provide funding to attend conferences would be in for an eye-opener.

Some ideas:
1) having SAA collaborate with the Regional Associations to bring SAA to the regionals…Not sure what political or other constraints could block this, but worth pursuing.
2) Doing low-cost, low-res broadcasting. Having helped organize two symposiums that broadcast out video and audio live I can say that the costs are low, especially if you have in-house expertise (and if SAA leadership doesn’t have this expertise they need to aggressively recruit it!!). I would imagine archival educators that operate distance education programs could have some expertise to share.
By Bill Landis, July 22, 2010 @ 7:30 am

Just wanted to follow up on some comments about the Birmingham meeting, for which I co-chaired the Program Committee with Kris Kiesling. It was the last attempt by SAA that I recall to meet in a relatively small city. For those who attended, I think it was a compelling program that transcended the limitations of place (mainly that much of downtown Birmingham closed down at night and on weekends). Alden Monroe, who chaired the Host Committee, did an amazing job of coordination work with Kris and me to insure that Southern archivists from less-well-funded institutions were placed on program sessions. Birmingham was also where SAA introduced the whole notion of an Archives 101 track to attract newer members. There are a lot of things that could be done to make meetings in smaller (ostensibly more affordable) cities successful, but they require a huge commitment to coordination by the various committees that put together the annual meeting. It helped in Birmingham that Steven Hensen was president and committed to having the annual meeting reflect contributions of Southern professionals.

I think its a good idea and while I’m not sure it is doable every year, I think it would be great for SAA to be able to meet in smaller, less obvious places with some regularity, and for the organizational infrastructure to be able to make that happen. My main point, though, is that it takes a good bit of work to really insure success and to make those kind of meetings unmissable for people who aren’t as interested in visiting the place!
By Kate T., July 22, 2010 @ 7:58 am

Bill–I have been meaning to post a comment here about the Birmingham meeting too, so thanks for bringing it up! I know for a lot of people that meeting was one of the most meaningful and memorable of their SAA experiences. The hotel wasn’t great, and getting to nightlife was a challenge (although a do remember there being a “party bus”), but people took away a lot of memories that are more important than that. I agree that meetings in “smaller, less obvious places” have a lot of potential benefits, as well as challenges, and that it’s an option that should be included on a more regular basis.
By Lurking nonmember, July 22, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

Kate T.
Virtual sessions would be much more doable.
By Susan, July 24, 2010 @ 12:01 am

As an ex-member, I saw no use in membership at high rates, when conferences were too expensive and on the edges of the country. MAC is more affordable and more responsive to what members want as content in conferences, rather on what people’s research-for-tenure interest is.

Conference cities as vacation destinations is absurd for a low-paying profession, and many “second tier” cities have more culture than “first tier”. Somehow Louisville and Indy manage to find enough rooms for major sporting events, but not enough for SAA? My husband is a travel agent, so I know about breakout rooms being tied to the number of rooms rented, but there really are other places to meet, outside a hotel, at least in smaller cities. In walking distance, on the bus line, share a cab. We’re not doctors, we’re on a budget.

ALA suffers from the same fallacies about dues and conferences. Sure, you can be a volunteer – if you can attend all the meetings and pay all the expenses. After all, were the only game in town, and you do need to build up your resume.

I’ve been on the planning and operating committee for several 1000+ people conferences, all in “second tier” cities and requiring many more breakout rooms. All were much more affordable than SAA and set up by a dozen local volunteers and new members who joined because we came to them. All covered costs plus a small staff in a “second tier” city.

My suggestions:

Let cities bid on conferences. Put together a plan with the number of rooms and spaces, the number of people available as volunteers locally, etc. Send a copy to SAA, and bring a copy to your chamber of commerce and city agencies. Cities do a lot to bring conferences in, with their room nights and local spending! Bringing in a new conference results in newspaper space, local news coverage, and local business sponsorship. Cities fight over who gets FAA and car shows, folks!

Audio CDs? Really? There are much better and cheaper ways to distribute presentations these days. Even in the South.

SAA offers no benefits to membership except a specialized journal and the chance to go to annual or a workshop at excessive cost. No regional meetings, no job-hunting help, no nothing. The dues should match the benefits and the salaries of members. It’s not like we can deduct them as business expenses.

Get out of the box! Get in touch with non-members, otherwise, SAA is preaching to the choir- good for the ego, bad for the profession.
By Brigette, July 25, 2010 @ 9:02 am

The most important thing to me personally is the cost of attending the conference – that is the reason why I unfortunately cannot attend SAA in DC this year. I work at a small historical society, and there is no money in the budget for this and I do not make that much as it is to be able to afford it myself. It is really disappointing as well because the DC conference is the closest annual conference to me, so unless something changes I will not be able to attend an SAA conference until it comes back to DC in a few years.