|
|
|
2002 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference Minutes of the 3/16/02 Business Meeting at The Cavalier Hotel Virginia Beach, Virginia Approximately 34 people in attendance The meeting came to order at 7:40 PM and Pres. Ed Otter welcomed the audience and then sought approval for the 2001 Business Meeting minutes. Dave Mudge moved that the minutes be approved and his motion was seconded by Jack Hranicky. The motion was approved by voice vote from the floor. President’s Report: Pres. Otter commented that most of the off-season consisted of activities conducted by the Conference Program and Arrangements chairs and that those individuals will report later in the meeting. OLD BUSINESS 1. Treasurer’s Report: Carol Ebright reported that coming into this meeting, MAAC has a total of $17,490.49 (see attachment). With respect to the 2002 Conference, she estimated that it will produce $9,100 in income and amount to about $5,700 in expenses. She reinforced that MAAC is not in any financial difficulty. Dave Mudge moved that the Treasurer’s report be approved and Jack Hranicky seconded Mudge’s motion. The motion was passed by voice vote from the floor. 2. Membership Report: Faye Stocum was not present, but she supplied a written report summarized by Pres. Otter (see attachment). As of the last meeting in March 2001, there were 150 memberships (96 Individual, 35 Institutional, 14 Student, and 7 Joint). As of December 31, 2002, paid membership reached a total of 202. Pres. Otter then noted the numeric trends for MAAC’s membership as follows: 1998: 250; 1999: 238; 2000: 193; 2001: 202; and that MAAC needs 205 memberships for Roger Moeller to cover the production costs of the Journal. Consequently, we have not met that number since 1999. Pres. Otter continued that at last year’s meeting there was a discussion about how to market MAAC, but the Membership Committee has not come back with methods to do so. He also mentioned that Faye reported difficulty with obtaining membership dues and with having to track people down to do so, including for giving papers at the conference. She suggested that MAAC come up with a remedy for this problem. Pres. Otter indicated that he believed no one should be put on the conference schedule until the membership had been paid, and that such activity is conducted by the Program Chair. He suggested a need for such a motion, to be followed by a discussion. Howard MacCord moved Pres. Otter’s motion, which was seconded by Dave Mudge; namely to enforce the rule that people must be paid members of MAAC in order to be on the program. Cara Blume reinforced the point that people who don’t submit checks for membership with their abstract should not be put on the program. Mike Barber commented that this rule already exists and upon further discussion, the above motion was amended to include the phrase “as per existing protocols” at the end. Secretary Sanford restated the motion for the audience and as Program Co-Chair for this year, he remarked on the difficulty to getting people to pay the membership fee and of having to potentially remove people from the program with only a short while to go before the conference. Audience members stated that they thought such individuals should be taken off the program. Sanford replied that if such a rule had been enforced at the stage of the preliminary program, MAAC would have lost about a third of the entire program. Nonetheless, over time most people paid their dues, but only after continued efforts by Sanford and/or Stocum. Liz Crowell added that she faced the same difficulty as the 2001 Program Chair. Carole Nash suggested removing people from the program early, rather than letting those individuals remain on the program. Mike Barber also added that some individuals are exempted from the membership dues, such as people who aren’t professional archaeologists. Cara Blume and Howard MacCord reinforced this point, adding that people who are invited speakers can be on the program by receiving a waiver. An audience member asked how many speakers at this conference were exempted from the membership rule and Sanford responded it was a small number, maybe five to eight speakers, as in past years. He also commented that exemptions always have existed for invited guests, students, and related professionals. An audience member noted that the problem largely stems from MAAC members and is a procedural issue. She then suggested that MAAC could send a letter to unpaid members stating that they would have to pay their dues within 10 days or be considered off the program. Carole Nash added that another problem existed by having to send checks to two different places (one for registration, one for dues), and that despite the logic behind this, it would be easier to send the checks to one place. Treasurer Ebright responded that MAAC, for tax purposes, has to distinguish between payments for memberships and funds for the conference, and accomplishing that usually takes two checks, although many members don’t do that. She reinforced that since MAAC now has a non-profit status with the IRS, it’s important to keep our accounts straight. Pres. Otter returned the discussion to the motion at hand. Pogue questioned why MAAC was so stringent about the policy since the organization obtained the money eventually. He asked Program Co-Chair Sanford if he thought he should have disqualified a third of the program, if most of the funds were finally obtained, despite considerable difficulty. Sanford responded that he did not want to remove that many people from the program and Pogue reinforced MAAC’s overall desire to have a good conference. Pogue further commented that the above discussion seems excessive in light of the final results (many speakers, membership dues paid), and questioned the need to “legislate morality,” which always is difficult. Pres. Otter added that MAAC’s by-laws contain a provision that speakers cannot present a paper without being a paid member, and that the motion-at-hand will give the Program Chair the power to keep people off the program and prevent the situation where people will show up at the conference and have to be confronted about paying their dues or not speaking. June Miller asked about the policy for invited speakers, and audience members responded that they are given waivers. Ebright commented that this motion will make the Program Chair’s job much harder. Cara Blume asked for a recounting of the policy’s history and why such a rule was enforced. Pres. Otter responded that is was done to increase membership and cover costs. Pres. Otter asked the members to vote on the motion, but the close voice vote required counting hands. The motion passed based on 13 yea votes as compared to 8 nay votes. 3. Secretary’s Report: There was no news to report, but Sanford stated that last year’s Business Meeting minutes were available from him and on MAAC’s website. 4. Awards Committee: Liz Crowell, noting the temporary absence of fellow member Varna Boyd, reported that there were no submittals this year for awards. Pres. Otter asked Crowell to mention that two categories of awards exist and she commented that there are lifetime achievement and special contributions awards. June Miller wanted the call for awards to go out with the call for papers and abstracts. An audience member asked if the information was on MAAC’s website and Crowell confirmed that it was. 5. Journal Editor Report: Roger Moeller commented there are no manuscripts in hand or in backlog, although he’s had lots of promises of papers. He suggested that it may be time to shift the Journal to an occasional publication, or to a monograph or a special issue, such as for worthwhile CRM reports. Moeller reinforced that he’s willing to accept manuscripts, whether presented at MAAC or other meetings. Pres. Otter asked for thoughts concerning the Journal’s status, especially given its importance to the society and the conference. Mike Barber stressed the need to continue to solicit manuscripts from presented papers, but especially to maintain the publication as an annual journal. Moeller commented that he receives several manuscripts to be considered for different journals and that the authors often specifically don’t select the Middle Atlantic Archaeology journal, but favor other publications that may have wider, more diverse audiences. Dennis Pogue asked “What is the Journal’s core audience?” Moeller responded that it used to be anyone doing research in the Middle Atlantic region, but that audience has changed. For example, the Journal doesn’t serve student needs since it tends to be too specialized. He also thinks that people have become more specialized and that the CRM realm is not conducive to publication, since the reports are too large or too small. Pogue asked about the print run size of the Journal, and Moeller replied that he used to print 500 copies, with over the course of the year there were about 200 memberships, with another 150 sold. Over the past few years, the over-the-counter sales have dropped to about 50 copies, so he only prints about 300 copies. Overall, there is not a continuing demand, despite the regular advertising of the Journal and its back issues on the web. Howard MacCord commented that the same problem exists with other journals in other states and suggested that SHPO’s could play a role by having all submitted CRM reports published in the journal, with this process seen as a public education responsibility since CRM projects use public funds. Dave Mudge responded that CRM work is limited with respect to publishing due to contracted projects’ length of completion and restrictions from agencies on publication. MacCord responded that it can be done if planned on that basis from the start and that he’s done so on a couple of projects. George Tolley re-emphasized the need and importance of MAAC’s Journal, and that we should pull material from conference sessions, in that session papers would be submitted with the notion of being published from the outset. Tolley further noted that we should be able to publish 10 papers out of the 90 presented this weekend. Josh Duncan suggested that a student session could be a way to encourage submissions for publication, and that students could form a core of younger members that could be built upon for the future, if MAAC would commit to publishing their papers. Roger Moeller responded that he’s not concerned about labels or categories of paper presenters (professional, student, amateur, etc.), so he’s in favor of student submissions. Mike Barber suggested that we could publish the conference papers’ abstracts, to which Moeller agreed, but not enthusiastically. Pogue returned the discussion to the overall issue of what makes the Journal valuable and why people want it on their shelf. For instance, does the Journal supply current, cutting edge information that people see as necessary to their jobs? Pogue then added, for whatever reason, MAAC has struggled with this mission and its core audience. He indicated that if MAAC doesn’t have enough support, then the Journal could cease publication. Moeller responded in part, by noting that a professional librarian commented on the MAAC Journal’s high rate of citation, based on certain indices, despite the small membership. He added that the Journal gets a lot of use, but still has few submissions and such a small base of regular contributors. June Miller reinforced the need for emphasizing papers coming out of conference sessions and wondered if sessions, especially thematic sessions, when first organized could be undertaken with the understanding that participation means submitting presented papers for publication. Pres. Otter asked Moeller why this hasn’t worked in the past. Moeller reiterated his position that he receives lots of promises on this basis and that people have good intentions, but often don’t follow through. Also, Moeller reinforced that delivered papers can’t be just transcribed, and often need a lot of polishing and editing before these can be published. Pres. Otter asked if there was more discussion on the Journal, although it appears we haven’t found a particular solution to the problem. Mike Barber repeated the need to look to our own work, but also to “beat the bushes” of the conference and the membership. Pres. Otter agreed and urged members to push this need at the meeting. 6. Arrangements Chair Report: Moving onto this year’s conference, Pres. Otter thanked both the arrangement and program chairs for their work and commented on the quality of the overall conference, to which the audience agreed by applauding. Carole Nash reported that 280 people had registered, including 50 walk-ins (a typical figure). She commented that while there’s no doubt that this conference’s expenses are greater than last year’s, we also took in more money. In consultation with Treasurer Ebright, Nash believes we should clear about $3,000. She added that while we were charged more money for tables ($55 per table), this expenses was covered by the sale of books provided for display by four publishers. Nash also commented that Julie King had about 16-17 people for her luncheon workshop on 17th-century sites, which is a new and successful addition to the conference. Jack Hranicky requested a clarification as to table fees, such as those for the Archeological Society of Virginia (ASV). Nash responded that the fee was $55 per table, but that a lot of negotiation occurred as people indicated their ability to pay. Hranicky complained that $110 was too expensive for the ASV and that the fee should be something more like $25 per table. Nash clarified that the ASV was charged $55 for both tables. Mike Barber added that he thought the charge was extremely reasonable and that dissemination of the ASV’s information was worth the cost. Hranicky stated that he wanted an upfront rate and Nash responded that there was such a rate and condition, although the point continued to be debated as to timing and the exact information provided. Nash asked for any comments on the Cavalier Hotel, but otherwise she had nothing else to report. Secretary Sanford commented that he heard several positive comments from people concerning the provided food and drinks, and that the service in general was good. Pogue added he thought the meeting rooms were good, as were the overall accommodations. Hranicky asked for figures regarding the distribution of attendance and wondered about the domination of Virginia attendees and conference presenters, including as a possible negative influence other states’ participation for the conference next year. Dave Mudge commented that there were two sessions on archaeology in New Jersey. Secretary Sanford also responded to Hranicky’s question by noting that of the 230 registrants (prior to this weekend’s meeting), about 90 were from Virginia, 50 from Pennsylvania, 30 from Maryland, and overall, people came from 13 states (Maine to Georgia), with about 10-15 each from New York and New Jersey. Varna Boyd asked about the past policy of moving the conference every few years to “market” it better, although she commented she thought this was one of the better conferences in the past few years and that she heard nothing but positive comments from people on the conference. Hranicky indicated that he wanted more publicity, such as through a publicity chair, with information provided to state archaeological society newsletters. He also wanted to have more contact between MAAC and these organizations. Hranicky suggested that MAAC have a publicity chair. Wayne Clark commented that he thought the conference was a “good show” and suggested having it Virginia Beach again next year. Pres. Otter responded that we will discuss this matter in the New Business portion of the meeting. Carole Nash finally added that the Council of Virginia Archaeologists donated $400 for the evening reception. Mike Barber, the other Arrangements Co-Chair, also commented on the field trips offered this year and asked if the audience wanted more of these in the future. Mike Madden responded that he heard several favorable responses about the field trips (55 people participated). He asked “When was the last time field trips were offered at MAAC?” June Miller commented that she thought the field trips were a new and outstanding feature and would love to see more in the future. The audience broke into a discussion of this question and most members could not remember the last time field trips were provided. In general, people agreed that field trips should occur at future conferences. 7. Nominations Committee Report: Pres. Otter noted that President-Elect Mike Barber, as head of the nominating committee, offered the following candidates for officers: Cara Blume, President-Elect; Doug Sanford, Recording Secretary; and Carol Ebright, Treasurer. Pres. Otter asked if there were any new nominations from the floor, and upon receiving none, Mike Barber moved that the nominations be closed. Barber’s motion was seconded and approved. Pres. Otter asked that the nominated slate of officers be approved, which was accomplished by voice vote. At this time, Ed Otter stepped down from the presidency, which he turned over to Mike Barber. President Barber asked for any new items to go under New Business, beyond his issues of spending MAAC’s funds, the possibility of a newsletter, and the 2003 meeting date and place. Secretary Sanford added the issue of MAAC’s webpage. NEW BUSINESS 1. Newsletter: Pres. Barber asked whether the members felt MAAC needed a newsletter, including as a way to reinforce MAAC’s actions and needs six months after the conference. Mike Madden responded that a newsletter should go out to other organizations, which would help with the need for publicity. Barber noted the value of a paper reminder, as compared to the Internet, and asked if MAAC is willing to do a newsletter. Barber responded that he would be willing to do the first issue out of his office. Carol Ebright replied that a newsletter would be a useful way to summarize the business meeting. Roger Moeller commented that a newsletter sounds useful, but since it will have a limited mailing list, it should be replicated on MAAC’s website. Moeller added that he does have an e-mail listing he is willing to share for this purpose. Moeller made a motion to have a newsletter, which was seconded by Ed Otter. The motion was approved by voice vote from the floor. 2. MAAC’s Website: Carole Nash stated that she thinks MAAC’s logo should go on the webpage, an idea to which Pres. Barber agreed. Secretary Sanford asked for a show of hands from the audience for those who used the webpage in preparation for this meeting. The majority of the audience did use the website. Otter also requested that we add a counter to the webpage. Pres. Barber agreed to pass on these suggestions to Alice Guerrant, MAAC’s website manager. 3. MAAC’s Funds: Pres. Barber commented that MAAC now has about $17,000, with another $3,000 to be added soon, so he asked for suggestions as how to spend some of those funds to benefit MAAC and its purposes. MacCord suggested donating $5,000 to the Archaeological Conservancy to purchase sites in the Middle Atlantic area. Pat Gibble suggested a graduate student scholarship for conference attendance and paper publication purposes. Mike Madden suggested that a gratuity go to the hosting organizations (Jamestown and Cactus Hill) for this year’s field trips and those in the future. Pres. Barber stated that he agreed with Madden’s proposal and thought this would a proper gesture, especially since $600 was produced from the two field trips. Carole Nash suggested the formation of a committee to spend funds, and made a motion to that effect, which was approved by voice vote from the floor. Pres. Barber requested Nash to serve and she agreed. An audience member suggested having a member from each state. Carol Ebright also agreed to serve since she’s treasurer. Finally, Joan Walker agreed to serve. George Tolley made a motion to pay $250 each to the ASV and the APVA in recognition of their hosting efforts, including the waiving of fees at Jamestown. Otter suggested splitting the profit and paying $300 to each organization. The motion was seconded by Dave Mudge. Joel Hardison asked whether funds should go to the ASV or ASV/Cactus Hill fund, with the latter option considered the most appropriate. These amendments were accepted as friendly to the original motion, and the motion was approved by voice vote from the floor. Barber added that he would send a letter of appreciation to both groups. In a related matter, the issue of stationary was brought up for discussion. Dave Mudge moved that MAAC should have stationary, a motion seconded by Varna Boyd, and approved by voice vote from the floor. 4. Awards Committee: Pres. Barber mentioned the issue of staffing committees. Currently Varna Boyd and Liz Crowell comprise the Awards Committee and they agreed to continue their service and mentioned that they wouldn’t object to a third member. Pres. Barber requested a third member and asked for a volunteer. Obtaining none, he decided that the committee with continue with the two current members. 5. President-Elect position: Pres. Barber informed Pres.-Elect Cara Blume that besides performing the traditional role of acting as chair of the nominating committee, that she would act as MAAC’s information officer, including as liason to MAAC’s website (Alice Guerrant). 6. Membership Committee: This committee currently is composed of Faye Stocum and Ned Heite. Pres. Barber asked for more volunteers, but obtained none. 7. 2003 Conference Date, Location: Howard MacCord suggested a return to Rehobeth, Delaware, but Blume replied by noting the lack of sufficient hotels there. Varna Boyd repeated an earlier motion that we return a second year to Virginia Beach. Her motion was seconded by Roger Moeller. Otter and Madden asked for information as to dates for next year and the issue of attending during the off- or on-season. Nash responded that the on-season begins in May. Pres. Barber commented that MAAC usually meets in March and noted that three weekends were available. After discussion, the membership agreed to March 14-16th as the conference’s tentative date, with March 21-23rd as the backup date, with this schedule accepted as a friendly amendment to the original motion. The motion was approved by voice vote from the floor. Pres. Barber then mentioned the need for arrangements chairs. Nash and Barber agreed to return as co-chairs. As to program chairs, Pres. Barber sought volunteers, but none came forward. Doug Sanford thanked the other Program Co-Chair, Mike Klein, for all of his efforts and on behalf of both program chairs, expressed thanks to all the speakers, chairs, discussants for coming forward and contributing to a great conference. Pres. Barber responded by calling for a round of applause from the audience for Sanford and Klein. June Miller asked for suggestions for sessions at next year’s conference. Cara Blume issued a challenge to continue developing relations with Native Americans groups as partners and she offered to chair another session. Nash suggested that a session look at other such “communities” as well. 8. Member-at-Large: Pres. Barber was reminded by Ed Otter as to the need for a member-at-large on the Executive Board. Pres. Barber responded that he wants to do more research on the matter and consult with MAAC’s officers. Pres. Barber made a motion that meeting should adjourn to the reception. Ed Otter made such a motion, which was seconded by Roger Moeller, and approved by voice vote from the floor. The meeting adjourned at about 9:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Douglas W. Sanford Recording Secretary
|
|
Send mail to Alice Guerrant with
questions or comments about this web site.
|