ArchivesNext

“Can we expect non-attendees to have the same interest in the Society?”

Over in the comments in the poll section, former SAA President Peter Hirtle and “Bookbug” have both posted comments defending the current requirement for in-person voting only for dues increases. Their complete comments are posted below, for your convenience, but my interpretation of their argument is that if you don’t attend the annual meeting you are not fully committed to the Society and therefore don’t deserve the right to vote on by-laws changes or dues increases. Well I think that there are many students, retirees, people with small children and/or mortgages, pregnant women, people who are temporarily between jobs, people with family or professional commitments that conflict with the meeting dates, and many other very good reasons for not attending a meeting who might take issue with that argument. Below are the comments, read them for yourselves and respond. Are people who can’t attend the annual meeting not entitled to the same rights as those who can? Why should SAA expect to be able to call on you for your full support when they regard you as a second-class member?

Peter Hirtle’s comment:

So I was on Council when the current Constitution and Bylaws were drafted. We talked about the possibility of mail-in ballot, but decided against it.

For me, the issue is one of commitment to the profession and the organization. No one really wants to see their dues go up. My worry would be that if we had mail-in or electronic ballots, people who belonged to SAA but who were not committed to the organization would automatically vote against any dues increase. Compare this to the last in-person dues increase vote in Chicago, where the membership in attendance voted overwhelmingly to pass the dues increase. Again, no one liked it – but the people in attendance had enough commitment to the organization to recognize that prices of everything go up. The in-person vote also provides an opportunity to discuss the dues increase in person (and there was interesting and passionate discussion on the impact of the proposed increase on students).

The changing nature of the membership makes the maintenance of in-person voting even more important. It used to be that we would get almost 50% of the membership at the annual meeting. The drop in that number is evidence I think that there are many more members whose commitment to SAA is real and important, but also more casual. I am delighted they belong – every archivist in the US should belong to their national organization – but can we expect non-attendees to have the same interest in the Society?

Remember that the interests of those who cannot afford to attend the annual meeting are respected in SAA’s tiered dues structure. If you don’t make very much money, you don’t have to pay as much in dues.

I might support a mail (or email) vote on bylaws changes if we included an automatic inflation increase in our dues. Then people would be voting on actual increases, new initiatives, etc. But right now, dues increases are calculated primarily to catch up with the inflationary increase since the last increase. If these increases are voted down anonymously and remotely, the society, and eventually the entire profession, will suffer.

“Bookbug”’s comment:

I agree with many of PH’s comments. It is a commitment to attend the annual meeting, and annual business meetings. It is an act of citizenship.

The business meeting provides an opportunity to amend motions and make new motions. It has the act of democratic spontanity (sic) that “mail in ballots” on amendments do not provide. To be upfront, You care, you show up.

I am less concerned about the number of folks currently attending meetings (percentage wide) vs. that percentage (50%) that used to attend. SAA has undergone major growth. 1700 people attended San Francisco, not a cheap city. That is more than 40% of current membership. Not bad, not bad at all.

If SAA wants to increase the number of folks, it might be better to look at second tier cities, or less expensive venues.

A more immediate idea is not to schedule the business meeting at the end of the day (where folks can skip out and have beer w/ their buds)or the end of the meeting, but to put it in prime time each and every time. Thursday Morning, 10:00 am. Beter yet, 9:30, just after breakfast and before the museums open.

Once we do that, let’s think about alternatives-maybe webcats.

But you have to show up.

Conferences, Society of American Archivists (SAA) | Kate T. | September 7, 2008 7:55 am

18 Comments

By Peter Hirtle, September 7, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

I am in favor of democracy. And I believe that ALA uses a mail ballot for dues increases, so the idea is not outlandish.

But what happens if dues increases are repeatedly voted down? The result will be that SAA can do less and the reasons for belonging to SAA will decrease. The result will be a downward spiral that could destroy the archival profession.

And to be fair, because of the graduated dues schedule, most members receive more benefits than they get for their dues. Their membership is supported by those with higher salaries – and with the extra revenues generated from the annual meeting. We don’t distinguish among members: any dues class can serve in office, be elected a Fellow, etc. But perhaps this one little distinction – in order to preserve the health of the SAA – may be worthwhile.

But as I said: give me an automatic inflation increase every year and I would be willing to consider a mail-in ballot. (This, BTW, from someone who could not attend the SF meeting – and yet wouldn’t have minded if the people in attendance had voted a dues increase.)
By Russell D. James, CA, September 7, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

So if I am a student and am one of 22% of the members of the society who are students and I have a job that pays me about $1000 a month and I have to pay $169 for a hotel room for six nights ($1014) and around $300 for a roundtrip plane ticket and $80 for cab fare and about $150 for meals because all the restaurants in the vicinity of the hotel charge way too much for bad food in small proportions, and I have to also pay $150 for a conference fee (twice as much or more for a regular member, disabled or pregnant or whatever), amounting to a total of $1694, then I am a second-class SAA member because I can’t afford to go to an annual meeting that 1) takes place at an overpriced hotel, 2) takes place in a neighborhood far from the airport, 3) takes place in a neighborhood with over-the-top expensive restaurants, and 4) costs me more than my utilities just to attend???? What a crock!

Isn’t denying 22% of our members the vote discrimination of some sort, like the Voting Rights Act?

I’m happy you make enough money to go to the annual meeting every year. I’m happy you can spend that kind of money. I’m also happy you can save that amount of money and be able to go. But not every SAA member can afford such expensive meetings. I don’t think a person’s financial situation is a good factor in determining their professional citizenship. My degree in political science says that is called a “plutocracy” not a “democracy.”

Make the hotel a normal hotel with normal room rates near the airport with cheap restaurants nearby and don’t charge any fees for attendance and you’ll get even more than 1700 people to attend. Otherwise, let every member vote. Student members who cannot afford to attend and every other member who cannot afford to attend are still members, right? They pay the same dues for the same services, right? They have the same opportunities to get involved, right?

This year, seven of my steering committee members could not attend the annual meeting and I GUARANTEE that all of them did more for SAA this past year than over 50% of those archivists who did attend the meeting. Who is a better member, a better SAA citizen, the ones who go to the meeting or the ones who get involved and do things to improve SAA?

Did you all know that one pot of coffee outside the meeting rooms this year cost $90 for us to put up and we had to work with the union at the hotel and have them deal with all the sound issues, which cost us more money? Neither of these was planned and no one is at fault, but could we not go for something a bit cheaper next year?

We don’t need swanky places to have the annual meeting – we already have great people and great meetings and great sessions. I think the money expected to be spent by members is outrageous and we could easily do with less in hotel accomodations and still get the best professional bang for our buck.

If the only people voting for anything at the annual meeting are those who can afford to go (not even counting the pregnant women who by LAW can’t fly and the people with families and the sick and elderly and others Kate mentioned), then are we not saying that the Society of American Archivists is an elitist group that caters only to the well-off and wealthy among its membership? Do we really want to get the reputation of being elitist? We struggle enough with our identiy to begin with, now we should be elitist? I hope not.

Not letting pregnant members who can’t attend vote could be called by some sexist, which is a violation of a large number of federal and state laws. The same for not letting disabled persons who are unable to fly vote. And not allowing persons with young children who must care for them and cannot attend vote could be a violation of about four sections of the Family Medical Leave Act. [Yes, I went to law school, too.] Please, try to make it easier to vote for our members who can’t afford to attend.

Everyone having the opportunity to vote is democratic and American. Those who don’t vote are not those who don’t go the annual meeting, they are those who just want membership for a line on their resume. My seven steering committee members who could not afford to attend this year sure were deserving of voting, I think. Don’t you?
By zbarchivist, September 7, 2008 @ 2:06 pm

As a recent graduate and student member of the SAA I am a little shocked at these statements. Am I to believe that because I cannot currently afford to attend the SAA conference that my dedication to the profession and organization is being brought into question?

You are making assumptions about over 50% of the organization, which is dangerous. I guess we could vote on the matter, but we would have to be present at a conference for that, too. Until you allow the entire membership to make decisions open to everyone, expect to have this argument again and again. Hopefully other members that care about the SAA but could not attend the conference will stand up and be heard.
By Renna Tuten, September 7, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

I agree with Russell regarding the exorbitant cost associated with attending the conference at a high-priced hotel (one this year that I paid $169/night for that didn’t even have an adequate bathroom door).

I work at a state university and the huge budget cuts are just beginning at these institutions around the country. Although SAA will be closer to my home next year, I am 99% sure that I won’t be able to attend because of the lack of institutional support.

Also, as a younger member who wants to be increasingly involved with the organization, I don’t think it’s really great PR for SAA to say to its newer members that they can’t vote after paying x amount of dues to be a member. This equates attendance at the annual meeting to a poll tax.
By ArchivesNext, September 7, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

Peter,

I think many members (including myself) would be in favor of establishing a regular schedule (say every two years) of automatic dues increases tied to increases in the cost of living. I think everyone could agree that as costs rise for SAA, our dues should rise to support its needs. If the membership voted for this (everyone having a vote, of course!), then we would only be talking about more votes when extraordinary dues increases–like the one Frank is proposing–are proposed.

I think you’re mistaken that those who attend meetings irregularly or not at all wouldn’t approve regular systematic dues increases to keep pace with inflation. Whether or not they would approve a dues increase targeted for a specific program goal is a different matter–as it should be. If Frank decides to go down that road then he will have to make his case pretty forcefully, I think. But he should have to make that case to all the membership, not just those present in Austin.

So now, perhaps, I’m supporting two by-laws changes. One to institute a schedule for regular dues increases tied to increases in the cost of living, and one to change the requirements so that for any proposed increase in dues, all members would have the opportunity to vote remotely. Well, I guess the first one would have to come before the second one, wouldn’t it?

Would you support me on those two by-laws changes, Peter?
By Kathleen Roe, September 8, 2008 @ 6:46 am

This is a difficult issue, as there are some merits in both directions. We do vote for officers by mail-in ballot in order to let the full membership take part. Has Council thought through how an issue like dues increase is different in its impact? Is there a previous history of voting by ballot on an increase in dues that demonstrates some clear problems or issues it raises? If so, it would be useful to know that so there is some solid basis for understanding the context (I love context, it’s the core of description, so let’s use it if we’ve got it!)

I do have concerns about the assumption that failure to attend constitutes non-interest. Having spent my SAA time this year dealing with a parent health crisis, I want to point out that my non-attendance was not lack of committment to SAA (I think I’ve demonstrated my committment for the past 29 years), but a far greater love for my father. And hey, aging parent issues will increasingly be there for many of us on the “other end” of the SAA years of membership rank. So whether student or long-time member, there are many reasons to not be at the annual meeting that have nothing to do with commitment to SAA. Has there ever been an analysis of why members don’t attend? It might be, again, some useful contextual information to contribute to the decision-making process.

Nuff said. Hope I am able to see you all in Texas next year!
By Patrick Cunningham, CRM, September 8, 2008 @ 7:25 am

I’m not certain that I fully understand the rationale for members to vote for dues increases. I further don’t understand limiting that vote to in-person attendees at the annual meeting.

As the immediate past Treasurer of ARMA International, I know that dues increases are inevitable. Over 15 years ago, I screamed bloody murder about an ARMA dues increase that had little or no transparency to the membership. That’s probably the event that most engaged me in the organization. Now, having seen how the sausage is made, as it were, I understand the impact of increasing costs on professional organizations. I also understand the impact of the changing workplace and the inability of many members to fully participate in the organization. This means that there is a greater burden upon association staff and it is ever more critical to attract and retain good staff. That means more money.

As ARMA’s Treausrer, I led the Financial Planning Committee in developing a formula that guides the Association in determining when a dues increase is likely warranted. This avoids the need to react to a deficit and impose a huge increase to balance the books. The formula is an indicator and it is up to the Board of Directors to decide if a dues increase is needed.

As for attendance at an annual meeting / conference as an indicator of “committment” to the organization, I don’t buy that. There are many reasons why someone joins a professional association and participates (or chooses not to participate). Yes, lack of committment could be embodied in the many members who join as a means to an end or because they were told to. But there are many members who would love to attend an annual meeting, but do not have the personal resources or institutional backing to attend.

SAA has some of the most reasonable dues around and certainly tries to allow all interested professionals the opportunity to join. To turn a simple matter of the cost of dues into a rift between members seems to be petty and short-sighted.

As for Russell’s comments about annual meeting venues, there are many factors that go into those decisions. First among those decisions is the ability of the venue to provide space for the meeting participants. That means a certain number of meeting rooms, exhibit space, and appropriate support (food, beverage, AV, etc.). Right there, that seriously limits the numbers of venues — and the “swanky” ones tend to come with the right amount of space. Next comes availability of lodging. There is typically a direct connection between the cost of the venue and the number of rooms that will be taken up by attendees. In the case of SAA, I think some consideration is also given to overall location from the standpoint of city attractiveness and the number of institutions in the host city. Lastly, I suspect, SAA staff looks at the cost for staff to attend (a not insignificant cost since most of the staff has to attend). There are many factors to balance and I have been impressed with SAA’s ability to hold its meetings in top tier venues for a modest cost.
By Lisa M, September 8, 2008 @ 11:40 am

I left a rather lengthy post in the comments section of the poll on how the organization I work for provides for mail ballot approval of amendments to bylaws, while also allowing members in attendance at the biennial meeting to “have their say” about what is actually voted on in the mail ballot. It works for us, and probably could for SAA. In my non-archives work life (the part that has kept me employeed for the past 11 years after the archives was up and running) I coordinate all of our mail ballot elections. SAA is half-way there–we already elect our leaders by mail ballot. It isn’t that hard or far a leap to add approval of bylaws amendments to the mix.

But how about this for a totally radical (at least by SAA standards) Parliamentary move–how about amending the bylaws to provide that the SAA Council sets the dues? I elect Council members to lead, so would not have a problem if they actually are doing so and determining that the fiscal health of the organization requires a dues increase on a regular basis.

Something to ponder…
By ArchivesNext, September 8, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

Lisa,

I think part of the value people placed on in-person voting was the value of being able to watch and participate in an in-person debate about the issues before voting. We can still save the value of that and increase it by webcasting (or otherwise making available the content) of the debate for those who can’t attend. Of course, people can also debate the issues on the listserv, blogs, or whatever other electronic means they chose. Only after there has been this opportunity for debate would a vote take place. That seems like the good compromise your organization has reached (but maybe without the webcasting), right?

That is a totally radical suggestion–I’m not having a good feeling about it right off. I’d rather have automatic increases tied to some neutral third-party indicator. I think the members still want to have the choice to vote on extraordinary increases (and maybe even regular ones).

But it is something to ponder . . .
By t, September 8, 2008 @ 3:44 pm

A few quick observations. I’m not saying this is what Peter H is implying, but a lot of the time “commitment” to the organization is more easily done on someone else’s dime (ie employer, etc). To claim that because people cannot afford (economically, emotionally, whateverically) to attend the meeting in person that they lack commitment, seems to me pretty dismissive of a large part of SAA’s membership.

As for bookbug’s numbers, 1700 attendees (not necesarily members) would be about a third of SAA’s membership, not “over 40%”. And while that is great attendence, especially for a west coast conference, it still leaves 2/3 of the membership out of the picture. But I do like the idea of a more prime time business meeting.

Here’s an advertised benefit of SAA membership: “To vote on all matters requiring a vote which come before the Society as a whole;”

Is there any idea of the fiscal impact of doing a full member vote? I suppose that making sure that a dues increase vote was on the same ballot as officer elections would minimize that cost.

I’d support both of your by-law proposals, Kate. They are member oriented and fair.
By DollBoy, September 8, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

Dues increase are annoying when they mimic local bond issues: more new money but no new thinking. It’s all “cost of living, blah, blah,” like we all don’t buy groceries every week. I am not particularly afraid of a mail-in ballot. At least, the arguments against it are surprisingly way off base from the political reality that a larger percentage of non-attendees are just not convinced that the Society needs to add staff any more than it has in recent years. But I also remember clearly the last failed dues increase many years ago (before the last approved one). I went to the business meeting with every intention of holding my nose and voting yes, only to be presented with an amazingly lackluster, unfocused presentation that left me voting in just the opposite way.

Asking for money is about finessing the formulations of accountability and leadership. We should be asked to focus ourselves as a Society on an overriding goal — this something can and must be done. We are challenged by the inaugural address to finally take the huge step to establish a public policy presence in Washington. Some of us have been so “for” this measure for so long, well I was not amazed that Frank Boles all but basically blurted it out in spite of what on a sane day would seem to be against better judgment!

But I wonder: do we have on the whole sufficient oversight and competency, and I mean specifically on Council, to set direction and demand accountability? I have to question their commitment to the strategic priorities of the Society — the ones they set for themselves a few years back after a lengthy process and that are already falling into the background of the current crop.

Advocacy was one of those priorities of the Society. What I would like to hear (the year after a dues increase) is why we need another one so soon to meet this priority and what we can do with current resources first to help us get there? Could the regionals take on Archives Week and other promotional activities of SAA so that those budgetary expenses could be re-directed into the Washington presence? What other activities might we give up as good, but not as important right now? Are they reluctant or just kept too “busy” to do that big direction setting? Might we use some of our endowment income and get the new endowment fund going on this issue? Would members be more open to hearing about a dues increase that is yoked with a well thought out campaign of program and expense reallocation? I wonder.

I would like to be hopeful about Frank Boles’ call, but I am unconvinced that he will have the time to rally the SAA Council or the staff to market this message effectively to the membership. So what would you do if you were asked to mail in a ballot on an issue on which you hadn’t heard anything substantive? The “no” vote always turns out on election day. We should think about what it takes to get the “yes” vote out on an initiative of this importance.
By Peter Hirtle, September 9, 2008 @ 6:52 am

So everyone has convinced me. My primary worry was that a change to mail-in dues increase votes, while admirable as a principle, might end up needlessly hurting SAA. You have convinced me that even people who can’t attend the annual meeting would still be willing to vote for a dues increase. I am particularly pleased with your support for the idea of allowing CPI-based increases in dues (either automatically or through a simple Council vote).

It looks like we need and amendment to the Constitution. How about changing Section IV of the Constitution to read as follows:

“Changes in the membership dues not exceeding the rate of the U.S. Consumer Price Index may be made by a two-thirds vote of Council on an annual basis. Other changes in membership dues shall be determined by a majority vote of members voting on the issue.”

A couple of observations on this proposed language:

1. I thought it wise to say you needed at least 6 out of the 9 members of Council to raise the dues in any year.
2. I thought it wise not to specify how the votes would be conducted. I assume it would be in conjunction with the election of officers, which is currently by mail. We may go to electronic voting at some point, however. It also seemed wise to specify that the relevant majority is among those voting on the issue.

Note that Constitutional amendments have to pass by a vote of people at the annual meeting. You will want to get this through Council if you want it to pass with a majority vote.

Of course, you reported that only 997 people voted in the last election, whereas there were 1700 at the annual meeting. In theory, therefore, in-person voting might result in greater participation than the mail-in ballot – but voting by mail might demonstrate a greater commitment to the profession!
By ArchivesNext, September 9, 2008 @ 7:17 am

Hooray! I knew you’d come around, Peter.

Thank you for pointing out that these issues are in the Constitution and not the By-Laws which means that they can only be voted on (now) in person at the next annual meeting. So we have lots of time.

I would strongly recommend that we separate these issues. I think most people are in favor of allowing non-in-person voting for dues increases. I don’t know if most people are in favor of automatic dues increases tied to the CPI. So the plan should be that in Austin we change the language in the Constitution relating to how we vote for dues increases, which will mean that everyone will be able to vote on whether or not we have regular increases (and also whatever Frank wants to propose, of course). We can also have discussion of the second matter at the annual meeting, of course, but not the vote.

I have no doubt that we would never get more than 997 people to attend a business meeting no matter how many people attended the annual meeting. I haven’t gone to all of them at the annual meetings I’ve gone to, but I’ve never seen more than 150 or 200, maybe. But that might have something to do with the timing of the business meetings too.

And, just to make sure everyone knows, “If approved by the council, amendments may be adopted by a majority of the members present and voting at the annual business meeting of the Society. If not approved by the council, amendments may be adopted by a two-thirds (2/3rds) vote of the members present and voting at the annual business meeting of the Society.” So if we get Council to approve this at their meeting just prior to the annual meeting, we only need a simple majority, not a 2/3 vote. I don’t think we’d have a problem getting a 2/3 approval, but it would make things easier if Council approved it. Next time you talk to a member of Council, tell them you’re in favor of this change. Or drop them a line–I’m sure they love to hear from members!
By Peter Hirtle, September 9, 2008 @ 7:28 am

You may be right about members not liking the CPI idea. If I remember correctly, it was voted down at the business meeting in 1999 when we did pass a dues increase, in spite of the recommendation in favor of the change from the Task Force on a Dues Increase. And I can see that there would be a certain cleanliness in changing the Constitution so that all business meeting votes (and not just votes on dues increases) were replaced by mail ballots.

Nevertheless, my personal preference would be to see the two be connected. I am still worried about the possible impact of changing the way we vote on the financial solvency of SAA. One way of mitigating this would be to set our current dues as a baseline.
By Linda Clark Benedict, September 9, 2008 @ 7:38 am

I’m a part time lonearranger. I just can’t afford to get to the conference most years. I do take part in continuing education opportunities when I can and follow the lists. I feel committed to SAA, are they committed to me? ALA has mail in ballots and our state library association, NYLA, has an online ballot.
By Elizabeth Keathley, September 10, 2008 @ 5:42 am

I am continually awed by the ability of this blog to move SAA in the direction of making effective, much-needed changes. Just reading the comments on this entry makes me less cynical about the direction of the profession as a whole.
By Jeanne Kramer-Smyth, September 11, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

This is a great conversation. A couple of thoughts:

1) I think it is valuable to consider the approach to voting in light of SAA’s goals towards increased diversity. I would argue that the more inclusive we can be of those who cannot attend annual meetings for financial and other personal reasons, the greater the diversity of those voting voices.

2) It would be AMAZING to figure out how to hold at least one online town hall style webcast to increase the communication and contact between the Council and archivists in many locations. This could support interactive text based questions from online to be fielded by those in the meeting – much as audience members physically present can ask questions.
By ArchivesNext, September 16, 2008 @ 4:45 am

Thanks for everyone’s comments and participation.

You might also want to check out this post on the Order From Chaos blog: http://braveastronaut.blogspot.com/2008/09/making-better-society-part-i.html

And Linda Clark Benedict also expressed her views (briefly!) on the Alone it the Archives blog:
http://lcb48.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/why-doesnt-saa-want-me-to-vote/

Let me know if I missed anyone else!