2001 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference

 

                          Minutes of the 3/24/01 Business Meeting at the Princess Royale Hotel

                                                             Ocean City, Maryland

                                                 Approximately 20 people in attendance

 

The meeting came to order at 7:30 PM and Pres. Ed Otter welcomed the audience and then sought approval for the 2000 Business Meeting minutes.  Mike Barber requested an updated treasurer=s report since the last report did not reflect the proceeds from last year=s annual meeting.  Pres. Otter accepted Barber=s request and stated he would notify the Treasurer accordingly.  Faye Stocum then moved to have the modified minutes accepted and her motion was seconded by Dave Mudge.  The motion was approved by voice vote from the floor.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

1.  President=s Report: President Otter submitted a written report (see attachment) which he related to the audience.  Pres. Otter addressed two main issues, MAAC=s non-profit status in relation to its by-laws and the organization=s web page.  He also noted that MAAC=s executive board, by virtue of its authority as provided in the by-laws, has agreed to maintain the current structure of membership fees, and Faye Stocum added the fee structure would remain the same for the next three years. 

Pres. Otter reviewed MAAC=s application for non-profit status.  The application was submitted prior to the 2000 meeting, but was pending approval based on the IRS= need to have certain issues clarified, such as MAAC=s exact fiscal year, its dispersement of assets should it dissolve, and the nature of our revenue and publications.  These questions were addressed in letter form and through a commitment to address needed changes in MAAC=s by-laws, which were accomplished.  The IRS responded and granted MAAC its non-profit status, so we are now a 501.c.3 and a 509.1.2a organization.  The by-laws changes have been drafted and approved by MAAC=s executive board and have been distributed and posted for the membership=s consideration and will be presented for final ratification later in this meeting.

With respect to the web page issue, Pres. Otter reviewed concerns expressed last year about the lack of the official web page=s updating, the confusion of having Roger Moeller essentially maintain a separate web page, and the contorted system for getting information updated through the American University system.  Otter had discussed this matter with Dennis Curry of NetImpressions (and American University) and Curry submitted an invoice for payment, and if payment was made, further updates could occur.  Otter noted that the executive board=s discussion did not reach an agreement on this matter and the invoice was not paid.  Otter stated that the web page issue will be discussed later in the meeting, but that he sees the biggest problem as getting information collected and posted on the web page in a timely manner.  He also noted that the executive board further discussed the matter today and has a recommendation for the discussion later.

 Return to top

2.  Treasurer=s Report (see attached report): Carol Ebright presented the organization=s financial statement, noting first that MAAC=s accounts have been moved to the First Union Bank which has a wider distribution.  MAAC now has two accounts, one for business checking and one that is interest bearing.  As of mid-March 2001 MAAC=s balance was $15,285.49 and as of today (3/24), with increased revenues from registration and the expense of printing the final program, the balance increased to $18,755.28.  This total does not reflect this meeting=s hotel expenses, which will be considerable.  Faye Stocum moved that the Treasurer=s report be approved and Dave Mudge seconded her motion.  The motion was passed by voice vote from the floor.

 

3.  Committee Reports:

a.   Archival Committee:  Dave Mudge reported that the Committee (Mudge and Sanford) had accepted archival material from Faye Stocum and that he=ll review that material for deposition with the University of Delaware library which will serve as the archive for MAAC, as it does for the Eastern States Archaeological Federation (ESAF).  Mudge called upon past officers to contribute their past records and stated that he=ll accept those at the ESAF meeting.  He emphasized that we=ll need to make sure the material does not reach an excessive level - namely, that MAAC store a few boxes rather than much larger amounts.  Ned Heite, noting a similar concern among other archaeological organizations, requested that MAAC deposit a full set of meeting abstracts and programs.  Faye Stocum responded that she thinks the MAAC material she submitted mostly has that information on hand.  Ned Heite noted that he has a complete set that he would be willing to offer.  Howard MacCord commented that if everyone contributes their files, we should be able to put together a full set of programs and abstracts.  Dave Mudge repeated his call for submitting materials at ESAF and next year=s MAAC, and then summarized general guidelines (provided to the Secretary, Doug Sanford) for submitting and accepting records (taking out paper clips, staples, rubber bands; having a separate storage system for photographs and tapes, etc.).  Mudge commented that MAAC had previously disseminated a collection summarizing its first 10 years and Pres. Otter acknowledged his role in that effort.  Mudge added that he will put out a general call for submission of materials.

 

b.  Awards Committee: Liz Crowell reported that the committee had received two nominations for awards and that the committee had made one award for lifetime achievement, with that going to Herb Craft.  Faye Stocum asked about costs concerning the award and Liz responded that Varna Boyd has information on that matter.  Pres. Otter asked if any invoices have been submitted for such costs, but Crowell did not know that any had and repeated that Boyd has that information, but that she=s not attending this meeting.  Treasurer Carol Ebright stated that she would contact Boyd by e-mail on this matter.

c.  Membership Committee (see attached report):  Faye Stocum reported that for the year 2000 MAAC had 193 members (129 individual, 39 institutional, 17 student, and 18 joint memberships), reflecting a downward trend again, down from 238 memberships last year.  The trend over the last three years has been a steady decline in memberships.  At present for 2001 there are 150 paid members and she estimated another 10 memberships occurred at this meeting.  She projected there will be about the same number of members this year as last year, unless we get a new influx.  Faye added that this total is below the break-even amount needed to support MAAC=s journal (that is, 205 memberships).  No memberships have been received for 2002 and beyond because the fee structure was not decided until today=s executive board meeting.

As the result of last year=s meeting and past President Chris Bergman=s directive for Faye and Ned Heite to address the issue of MAAC=s Amarketing@ and membership issues, Faye constructed the information contained in her report regarding the relationship between MAAC=s finances and membership fees for the last three years.  Faye noted that the membership fee of $25.00 represents a breakdown of $22.50 in cost for the journal (to Roger Moeller) and $2.50 for the organization based on the individual and institutional membership categories.  Conversely, MAAC makes $12.50 per joint membership, while losing $2.50 for each student membership.  In the past couple years these funds (Aprofits@) have decreased from about $685 to $477.  From her discussion with Ned Heite, Faye suggested we discuss MAAC=s philosophy as to whether to remain a fluid, volunteer, and small organization, or go to a more sophisticated corporate status and mentality (like SAA or SHA), although that move would involve paid positions for which MAAC has little money and would involve changes to our fee structure. At present, our funds would not allow such expenses.  Faye noted at present she can save money for correspondence largely by using e-mail or the mailing services of her office.  She makes similar use of her office phone.  Overall, Faye raised the question of how best to market MAAC membership and its conference while addressing issues of membership and financial costs. 

Faye then noted relevant issues of discussion such as: (1) not wanting to provide the current membership list on-line due to commercial or private exploitation (Aspamming@) of mailing lists; (2) the problem of who would maintain this information and making it password-protected on the web - which probably represents a cost for someone to do this; and, (3) her current method of handling membership renewals by e-mail in the summer - although complicated by the lack of current e-mail addresses, people who do not have e-mail service, and her costs in terms of time, stationary, postage, etc.  Faye commented on how she has tried to amend the membership form posted on the American University web site to have an entry line for e-mail addresses.  Faye reiterated the issue of whether MAAC should promote its membership more by Internet or by mailings, with the latter representing more of a cost.

Faye related her recent discussion with Alice Guerrant, MAAC=s former treasurer, as to Alice=s access to the server delaware.net, which for non-profit organizations it will register domain names for $100.00 and an annual fee of $20.00.  Alice has offered to do this for MAAC and maintain its web page.  Another issue raised by Heite would be to use such a web page to access e-mail list serves related to archaeology, which could link MAAC to relevant groups and expand MAAC=s presence and purpose.  Faye summarized the problems of how people try to obtain information on MAAC and the value of having a web presence such as through Roger Moeller=s siftings.com web site.  One idea for such a presence would be to have an interactive logo providing links to other relevant groups per state for the states that are part of MAAC.

Faye next raised the issue of targeting membership groups, such as students who are encouraged by academics to attend and participate at MAAC (noting the past efforts of Michael Stewart and Bill Gardner as examples).  Another suggestion was to put together posters to provide information about MAAC in general, its conference, and its publications to academic departments.  Such a poster could include Arip sheets@ for membership and could be designed to be non-state specific.  Faye also underscored the need for academics to lobby their institutional libraries to subscribe to MAAC.  Ned Heite added that MAAC, like book publishers, could send library request forms to professors to conduct such activities.  He also commented that there are audiences we=re missing, such as Indians and Native American organizations, historical societies, archaeological societies, and college programs without graduate schools.  Faye advocated SHPO=s and public libraries as other target groups, as well as consulting firms, particularly since there are only two or three CRM firms as institutional memberships to date.  All of the above can be done on the web, but MAAC should and must do some mailings as well to get the word out to broader audiences and to continue the regular practices of membership, call for papers, meeting notices, etc.  Faye stated she will continue to do e-mail reminders about membership, but that she needs help for maintaining an up-to-date list, for the recommended marketing activities, for having a current web site with its logo, and then having contacts per state to update the links to our web page.  Heite reinforced that MAAC=s main product is its conference and that we are only reaching a limited audience of academics and consultants, and that we need to reach other groups of the types mentioned earlier.  While each group would provide only a few persons for our meeting, collectively they would greatly expand attendance, registration, and interest in the journal.  Heite recommended we could reach people effectively with a poster in January.

Pres. Otter asked who would be willing do a poster and Heite responded that he would.  Faye recommended relying on a couple of consulting firms to aid this production effort and that MAAC should integrate its membership efforts via a poster with states= archaeology week/month programs.  Otter asked for information regarding the production and distribution costs of such a poster and Kurt Carr commented that Pennsylvania produced 8,000 posters for $2,500, which were designed in-house.  Heite stated that we don=t need an expensive four-color poster like Pennsylvania=s and he and Faye debated the merits of how Aslick@ a poster is needed.  Carole Nash suggested that MAAC limit its spending on such an effort and Pres. Otter agreed.  Faye asked how we would generate a list of mailings for the poster and suggested that we not have a calendar-specific poster, so it can be re-issued.  Heite stated we should be able to use other people=s mailing lists and Faye added we could use their information to guide the number of posters produced.  Paul Inashima called attention to the costs of mailing posters and the problem of losing bulk rate mailing status if we keep re-mailing such posters, and a discussion ensued of costs of using small tubes (about $3-4 per tube).  Discussion also included the relative merits of slick posters, brochures, and different products for different audiences, and Carol Ebright recommended that MAAC consider an alternative brochure or handout.  Mike Barber suggested that MAAC link distribution efforts to state groups, such as the Archeological Society of Virginia and the Council of Virginia Archaeologists in Virginia.  Faye asked whether we needed a poster committee or not and Otter responded by calling for a motion on how to proceed.  Roger Moeller proposed that a committee of three individuals should work out the format, costs, and relevant logistics for producing and distributing a couple types of posters, including firm lists for mailing.  Moeller added that the committee should meet prior to next year=s meeting and be prepared to report on its recommendations at next year=s meeting.  Carole Nash seconded the motion.  Further discussion from the floor included how the poster could facilitate increased membership, such as through each current member providing a poster to another non-member.  The motion was passed by a voice vote from the floor.  In developing members for the committee, Ned Heite agreed to become its chair and stated that he will seek two more members.

Howard MacCord asked the rhetorical question of what is MAAC trying to achieve, with the response being to get more people to attend the meeting and join the organization.  He suggested that we work through state societies and professional societies, such as through doing news releases to these groups= newsletters.  Discussion from the floor generally agreed with this suggestion, particularly since newsletter editors usually need such information.  Carole Nash then brought up the question of how to market MAAC=s journal, since that is related to marketing MAAC=s conference and its membership.  She reinforced the need to discuss the journal=s contents in the same notice to newsletters noted by MacCord and Heite.  Heite added we could do the same for MAAC=s call for papers, announcement of awards, and the preliminary program.  Faye suggested making this activity part of the program chair=s task.  Pres. Otter asked who should be responsible and Liz Crowell volunteered herself as someone to do this task, with Otter noting the job would be easier once MAAC=s web presence is established.

George Tolley commented on the loss of so many (about 80) members between 1998 and 2001, asking why such a loss occurred.  Is it due to apathy or did something specific happened?  Pres. Otter responded that MAAC had grown in membership until 1997 and Faye Stocum clarified that MAAC had 270 members in that year.  Faye also stated that decline coincided with the program leaving the Sheraton and going to Cape May, New Jersey - although the main reason for leaving the Sheraton was the cost charged by that hotel.  Mike Barber noted that other archaeological groups have experienced similar declines in attendance and membership.  Otter commented that the loss in membership and attendance hasn=t been closely analyzed, but that we need to reach out to as many new and old members as possible.  Faye also responded that she both has a current membership list reflecting the last two to three years and has retained older lists of members.  Faye added that several loses are students, including students who present papers one time only, and that they represent one key to MAAC=s future.  Kurt Carr asked whether we should be so worried about the situation, noting that MAAC is in good shape financially, so why not use those funds as we see fit, including for the journal.  In that sense, Carr believes we should be less concerned about membership and our future.  Ned Heite revisited the rhetoric question of what is our purpose, to which Pres. Otter responded with the mission statement of MAAC (contained in its by-laws).

Pres. Otter, recognizing the need to bring discussion to a close, asked for further relevant comments.  Upon hearing none, he thanked the membership committee for its work.

Return to top 

4.  Conference Report:

a. Arrangement chair: Kurt Carr reported that there are about 158 people in attendance (a couple less than last year), including 54 walk-ins (more than last year).

 

5.  Journal Editor Report:  Roger Moeller reported that he=s still having problems with a number of manuscripts and that he has less than 100 pages so far, with no other manuscripts in the offing.  He suggested that MAAC consider suspending its journal if we don=t increase our membership (with reference to the earlier discussion of membership funds), with the latter problem compounding that of providing the journal.  One possibility includes suspending publication next year, pending the outcome of the membership total.  Ned Heite noted that a similar problem occurred many years (30?) ago with Stanley South=s historic sites conference.  Both Heite and Mike Barber suggested MAAC could try to obtain more grey literature, while Faye Stocum suggested having a thematic issue on larger CRM projects.  Heite wondered if MAAC could get Phase III reports made public through the journal, due to the legal requirement for such in Section 106 projects.  Howard MacCord agreed with Heite, noting that CRM firms do provide technical reports to the SHPOs, but not to the public.  He suggested having SHPO=s put emphasis on such a publication effort.  Discussion ended without any final motions.

 

6.  Other Old Business:

a.  Logo: Pres. Otter inquired as to the status of the logo, besides the drawn version he has from Chris Bergman, and Kurt Carr responded that he has an electronic version.  Otter responded that the electronic version will be needed for the web page.

 

b.  Conference equipment: Based on discussion last year wherein Kurt Carr was authorized to purchase necessary equipment, Pres. Otter asked for an update on the situation.  After stating he had Adropped the ball@ on purchasing, Carr did obtain cost estimates for a podium with lights and for an overhead projector as $1,600.00; whereas the costs of renting these per year is about $120.00.  Otter put forth the question of whether MAAC should rent or purchase such equipment in the future.  The membership responded that we should borrow projectors from our own organizations, but need to look into having a podium with working lights.  The organization does have two laser pointers, but we need a podium light.  Otter closed discussion on the matter, asking Carr to check on the cost of podium lights.

Return to top

c.  Non-profit status & By-laws Changes: Referring back to the earlier discussion of this matter, Pres. Otter returned to the issue of MAAC=s changed by-laws.  While the new by-laws had been approved by the executive board, Otter noted that the membership at large needs to ratify the new by-laws and he called for motion to do so.  Dave Mudge made such a motion, which was seconded by Mike Barber, and the motion was passed by voice vote from the floor.

 

d.  MAAC web page:  After the earlier discussion of this subject=s recent history, Pres. Otter commented on the fact that MAAC=s official web page has not been updated since November 1999; that the web page provider has not been paid since that time; and, that we have another option (as noted earlier by Faye Stocum) that may be attractive, especially in comparison to complex logistical problems for producing the web page through American University.  The executive board preferred having direct access to a web server, such as through Alice Guerrant.  Pres. Otter asked for comments from the floor.  Receiving few responses, Otter described the board=s consensus as having MAAC=s web page handled by Alice Guerrant through delaware.net.  Ned Heite questioned the cost of this method and Faye Stocum and Otter responded that the costs are $100 to register the domain name, with annual maintenance as $20.  Otter stated that as a non-profit we should be able to keep costs to a couple hundred dollars per year.  The main question remains having a conduit to get information posted and through earlier negotiations, president-elect Mike Barber has offered to serve as the conduit for the web page, forwarding information to Alice Guerrant.

Otter asked for any discussion on this option.  An audience member questioned how this new web page would be an improvement over Roger Moeller=s Asiftings.com@ web site.  Otter responded that the first improvement would be to have someone within our organization collecting the information (which hasn=t happened before), and that Alice Guerrant will do the web page herself rather than having to format the web page information and then having it posted by another technician.  The audience member repeated the issue of improvement as compared to the Asiftings@ site, to which Otter reiterated that Asiftings.com@ is not MAAC=s web page, but Roger Moeller=s web site and that Roger can decide what he may or may not do with that site as a whole.  Mike Barber added that the new web page would have expanded facilities and information capability.  Carole Nash moved that the membership accept and ratify the executive board=s recommendation regarding the web page, and Ned Heite seconded the motion, which was approved by a voice vote from the floor.

Return to top  

NEW BUSINESS

 

1.  2002 Conference (place/date, program, program chair): Carole Nash reiterated that the 2002 conference will take place in Virginia Beach at the Cavalier Hotel, with rates being comparable to those here in Ocean City.  After discussion about the dates for Easter and the SAA meetings, the schedule set for the conference is March 15th to 17th, 2002.  Dave Mudge moved that these dates be accepted and Kurt Carr seconded this motion, which was approved by voice vote from the floor.  Proposed Arrangements co-chairs are Carole Nash and Mike Barber, while Doug Sanford and Mike Klein were proposed as Program co-chairs.  These positions were moved, seconded, and approved.  Proposed conference ideas included the topic of archaeological sites related to presidents and to have each state archaeological organization represented.

Discussion turned to the 2003 MAAC meeting, and after a review of the dates for Easter and the SAA meetings, proposed dates included either March 21-23 or March 28-30, 2003, with Faye Stocum suggesting that we leave some latitude at present while hotel arrangements are explored.  Faye moved that the above alternative dates be approved contingent upon hotel negotiations, a motion seconded by Dave Mudge and approved by voice vote from the floor.   Discussion turned to a meeting venue, with Howard MacCord proposing Solomon=s Island, Maryland where ESAF met.  Pres. Otter asked whether sufficient hotel resources where available there and upon hearing positive responses, particularly from Bernard Means, Otter asked Bernard to check on arrangements and to provide more details.  George Tolley asked whether we have to commit to holding the conference at Solomon=s Island or could we stay another year at Virginia Beach.  The audience responded that the matter be further discussed at the Virginia Beach meeting next year and by that time, we would know whether we like the facilities there or not.

 

2.  Nominating committee: Pres. Otter appointed president-elect Mike Barber as head of the nominating committee, with the power to recruit other members to the committee.