ArchivesNext

How can more members get involved with the SAA Annual Meeting – and involved in general?

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that per the previous post the SAA Annual Meetings are held in locations that are affordable to the largest number of members possible. That still doesn’t mean that the meeting will be engaging for all the members who attend, and there will still be lots of members who can’t attend for one reason or another. [Oh, wait, disclaimer time: 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.]

Two recent conversations on Terry Baxter’s blog inspired this, so I’ll be ~~stealing~~, I mean referencing ideas liberally from his posts (see here and here). Yes, as Terry points out, this is about diversity, in the broadest sense. The annual meeting is one of the premier products produced by the staff and members of SAA; countless hours of work go into making it as intellectually stimulating and professionally rewarding as possible. Given its importance, it seems odd that SAA has not put more emphasis on making meeting content available to those who cannot attend. The American Association of Museums has a Virtual Conference option, as does ALA and AASLH. AASLH has podcasts of selected sessions available online for free downloads.

Here are the sections of SAA’s Strategic Priority Outcome and Activities FY2010-FY2014 that relate to this topic (Strategic Priority #1, Desired Outcome #3:

e. As a prototype/proof of concept, record and provide audio and video podcasts of appropriate 2009 Annual Meeting sessions (e.g., plenaries). (FY 2010)
[This activity was begun at Austin 2009 with videotaping and podcasting (via SAA’s Facebook page) of two plenary sessions, one education session, and several person-on-the-street interviews. Fiscal Impact: Direct costs of plenary and education session videotaping totaled $4,400. There were no direct expenses associated with podcasting.]

f. Pending CTWG recommendations, Finance Committee review, and Council approval, apply for IMLS funding to support virtual access to annual meeting. (FY 2012 – FY 2013)
- Conduct scan of associations to determine possible/likely impact of virtual meeting access on Annual Meeting revenue. (Felker, Jurczak; January – March 2012)
- If deemed appropriate, identify potential grant writers and hire a writer to prepare an IMLS grant. (Executive Committee, Beaumont, Jurczak; May – June 2012) [Fiscal Impact: FY12 Budget = $2,000 for grant writer]
- Following consultation with all appropriate parties (e.g., Communications Technology Working Group, meeting planners) and review by Executive Committee of key narratives, submit grant to IMLS (assuming no other, higher-priority grant proposal is being submitted during same cycle). (Executive Committee, Beaumont, Jurczak, Grant Writer; December 2012)

g. Based on evaluation of outcome of activities e. and f. (participant feedback, cost/benefit analysis), consider broadening opportunities to participate in the Annual Meeting via current and emerging technologies. (FY 2013 – FY 2014)

h. Investigate feasibility of virtual participation in traditional-format workshops and other educational offerings, including mechanisms for evaluating participant satisfaction. (FY 2013 – FY 2014)

After reading this, I found it curious that SAA was having to apply for a grant to fund “virtual access” to the annual meeting when so many other comparable organizations were doing it right now. So, I picked up the phone and called the people at Learning Times who seem to be supporting most of our peer organizations’ online conference options. They were very forthcoming about the costs and resources required to provide a virtual component for an annual meeting, and they stated that most organizations they work with make a profit on their online conference options.

I’m not suggesting that one phone call makes me an expert on what it would take to provide an online option for the SAA conference, but I do think that perhaps there may be other options to explore that would put us on a faster track to increased access to the meeting content. And that’s important for all the reasons that were discussed on Terry’s blog. (Really, go and read both those posts and the comments if you haven’t already.)

What I hear Terry and his readers saying is that SAA needs to find ways to make the annual meeting more open in every sense–more open for those who can’t be there and also more open for those who are, for example by providing more opportunities for informal information sharing, which many find more productive than the formal sessions. But I also took away from Terry’s discussion a sense that people had problems that went beyond the annual meeting, and I’ve heard this before, many times. Does SAA make it hard for interested members to get involved? If you don’t get to go the annual meeting every year, are you basically out of luck?

For me, this is really about how dedicated SAA is to providing services and opportunities to all its members. I think it’s great that Terry will get these issues on the agendas of the Membership and Diversity Committees at the annual meeting in August, but I agree with him that more is needed. An open “talk back” session at the meeting, to allow people to express their views might do some good, but again, only the voices of those present will be heard and it’s also possible people might refrain from publicly voicing their real opinions. How likely would it be that people would complain openly in front of potential future employers? Also, of course, it’s probably too late to get it on the schedule.

I can’t state it any better than Terry did, so I’ll close with his thoughts:

It might make sense for an organization like SAA to study this a little. My guess is that they really don’t know as much (and neither do I, for that matter) as they need to about what the membership really wants. Are members blocked from participation by conference costs? Does real participation require annual meeting attendance? What do members want from SAA? What do they want to give to SAA?

Of course, it might also be worth asking people who are not members about their reasons for not joining too. That said, I would hope that we don’t have to wait for the results of such a study to speed up the timeline for making the SAA annual meeting more accessible in the same ways that our museum, library, and history colleagues have done. But what do you think about making the meetings–and SAA in general–more accessible? Do you have anything to add to the thoughts shared on Terry’s blog?

Archival profession, Conferences, Salary & career issues for archivists, Society of American Archivists (SAA) | Kate T. | July 19, 2010 6:21 pm

7 Comments

By Alison L., July 20, 2010 @ 5:59 am

Correct me if I’m wrong but the Annual Meeting is one of the only times of year when lone arrangers and archivists who do not work around other archivists get to see their colleagues. It’s certainly been true for me over the years.

I would hate for these sorts of technological broadcasts to diminish SAA’s focus on making the actual meeting more affordable. Podcasting the sessions should be no excuse for having it in DC every year (for example) because it is most cost-effective for the organization.
By Tanya Zanish-Belcher, July 20, 2010 @ 6:22 am

Dear all,

I am posting this as Chair of the SAA Membership Committee, which will be meeting on Tuesday afternoon (2-5) at the annual meeting. We are, of course, open to any SAA member that would like to attend. The Committee is in the process of being reorganized, and I hope this will help in the process of SAA members feeling more connected to the organization and feeling that it is meeting their needs.

One of the many issues we will be discussing is in regards to the dues increase. The Membership Committee is not necessarily focusing on the actual increase, but the fact that it will be voted upon by only those attending the meeting. As we grow larger, those who are unable to attend the annual meeting will be unable to vote on issues of great importance to the group. Is this fair? Is this something to be changed? This would involve a constitutional revision, and so, will be one of our topics for discussion.

Here is our current agenda, and if anyone thinks there are additional issues we need to consider, please do not hesitate to let me know at tzanish@iastate.edu. I will also be posting this to the Archives listserv, and please feel free to forward along to anyone who might be interested.

Welcome
Agenda
2009 annual meeting minutes

Introductions
Review of the Membership Committee Charge and Membership
Restructuring
Appointments
Current Subcommittees
2009 Report
Announcements of Committee-Sponsored Events
a. New Member and Key Contact Breakfasts
b. Networking Café
1. Career Center
2. Mentor-Protégé Meet-and-Greet
d. Navigator Program

Strategic Issues for Membership
Proposed Dues Increase
Proposed Constitutional amendment to the dues grace period
Institutional membership—issues and discussion
Electronic voting for annual business meeting
Broader issues related to membership: participation, diversity, and possible survey

Review of Past Year–Short Reports and Discussion Points
a. Subcommittee Appointments
b. Adriana Cuervo, Vice-Chair
a. District Representatives
b. Key Contacts
c. Renna Tuten, Career Center
a. Additional resources for continuing development
d. Task Force on Student Membership
e. Jamie Roth and Teresa Yoder, Mentoring Subcommittee
o Review goals established last year and changes made
o Utilizing online program similar to ALAMentor
o Outreach for 2010-2011
o Training possibilities for 2010-2011
o Ask an Expert-developing an online resource
f. Navigator Program
g. Diversity Committee
a. Mosaic Scholarship and Student Recruitment

Goals for 2010-2011
By Kate T., July 20, 2010 @ 6:32 am

Ah, Tanya, you’re stealing my thunder! The next post in this series is about the dues increase and the need to revise the process for approving them, exactly as you describe it. Longtime readers will know this issue came up–was it just last year or the year before? Yes, in my view the current process is unacceptable and needs to be changed. I hope this topic is also discussed at the Council meeting on Monday.

I am also glad to see that you plan on including in your discussion “Broader issues related to membership: participation, diversity, and possible survey.”

Good work and thanks for sharing what the Membership Committee is working on!
By Kate T., July 20, 2010 @ 7:49 am

Alison–No, absolutely not, sorry if that was unclear. The meetings should be as affordable for attendees as possible for the reasons you point out. But I do think that providing a supplementary virtual conference option is critical for supporting the educational and networking needs of those people who for whatever reason can’t come to the conference. Interestingly, I think ALA actually does their virtual conference after the “real” one, which would mean that people who can afford it could attend both.
By Susan, July 20, 2010 @ 10:09 am

This will be my first meeting but I’m wondering what advice very active members would give to not as active members looking to get more involved? I assume going to section meetings is a good way.

But what if in the future there would be an exhibit or poster session that showcases the work of the various sections in the same place at the same time? An “involvement fair” or sorts. Instead of going from meeting to meeting, interested members could plan to attend at a particular time and get a lot of info at once. Or is there something already like this I’m missing?
By Bev, July 20, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

@Kate
It seems as though adding a virtual component to the SAA meeting may be an idea whose time has come. I applaud you and your fellow bloggers for giving the ‘rank and file’ a voice. I think that has been a big part of the problem – that SAA doesn’t or can’t ‘hear’ us. I believe that they do try, but the give and take of a blog or other social media outlets is helping to democratize the process and let other voices be heard. Thanks!
By Bill Landis, July 22, 2010 @ 9:50 am

Just briefly to Susan, I’d suggest picking topics that interest you and attending committee meetings if you can be there on the days they meet (frequently before the actual start of sessions, so not always an option, especially for newer members). Also, yes, the sections and roundtables are a great way to start discussions with archivists interested in similar issues. If there are topics you care about, figuring out who is also thinking about them and trying to wrestle together a session proposal for next year (regardless of whether you do/don’t want to speak) is also good. One of the things I love about the annual meeting, and one of the reasons I don’t miss it even as I have to increasingly pay for more/all of it out of pocket, is the opportunity to get input on things I care about and to listen to/talk with other smart, passionate people who can help me to frame things in useful ways that I can take back to work with me.

I think Susan also raises an interesting conundrum … organized stuff at the annual meeting vs. giving attendees time to socialize in unstructured ways. I’ve found that overly organized things tend to inhibit participation and dialogue. It’d be great for SAA to experiment with topical discussion groups that engage virtual attendees with in-person attendees around specific issues/concerns/theoretical frameworks, etc. I’m not sure exactly how that might happen, but we’ve got so many creative people in this profession, it seems like we ought to have some annual meeting space dedicated to trying things out and not being too concerned about failing. It seems more important to try, and to give participants the opportunity to evaluate and give feedback.