4. GOVERNANCE: BYLAWS, ETHICAL STANDARDS, AND POLICY CHANGES

As noted in Chapter 1, ASA Council has the authority to set policies for the Association within the framework established by the ASA Constitution and Bylaws. The Bylaws also allow for the membership to act on behalf of the Association by bringing resolutions in the form of referenda to the membership (see Article II, Section 8). From 1991 to 2002, ASA Council took a number of steps to clarify policies and the policymaking process and also brought issues to the membership for their vote, several of which involved Bylaws changes. During this period, no matters were brought directly to a vote of the membership through a referendum process.

ASA Bylaws Changes

According to the ASA Constitution, amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Association may be proposed by Council or by a petition of at least three percent of the voting members of the Association; amendments to the Constitution must be approved by a two-thirds affirmative vote of voting members of the Association in a referendum (Article IX), and amendments to the Bylaws by a majority affirmative vote, also submitted to the voting members of the Association (Article VIII).

Several important changes were made to the Bylaws of the American Sociological Association from 1992 to 2001. All such changes were made following Council resolutions and recommendations, and, with one exception noted below, all were approved by the membership in referenda held for this purpose. Appendix 15 contains a detailed summary of all modifications to the Bylaws made since 1980, including a definition of each amendment, dates and nature of Council action, and dates and outcomes of membership referenda.

Several types of actions and events resulted in changes to the Bylaws. In two cases, alterations were made to bring provisions of the Bylaws into conformity with changes made to other institutional policies: (1) In February 1992, Council made changes to the Organizer’s Manual aimed at promoting diversity in nominating Program Committee members. A Council subcommittee was also appointed at the time to recommend alterations in the minor inconsistencies that had emerged between the ASA Bylaws and the Organizer’s Manual . (2) In January 1997, following the revision of the Code of Ethics, Council recommended a number of changes in the ASA Bylaws based on suggested alterations from the Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE), the Executive Office, and ASA legal counsel. Proposed changes included, for example, the inclusion of the Committee on Professional Ethics as a constitutional committee and clearer definition of conditions of membership (including the requirement to comply with the provisions of the Code of Ethics).

Also, at that time, members voted on a Bylaws change to eliminate the emeritus membership category and clarified guidelines for section formation and operations. Based on a January 1996 Council resolution, the membership voted in the spring 1996 referendum to eliminate the emeritus membership category and to incorporate those members in the regular income categories (the change to the Bylaws on this point was approved by the membership in the spring 1997 referendum referred to above). However, following a survey of lapsed emeritus members in 1998, ASA Council voted in February 1999 to reestablish the emeritus category. The measure to reinstate the emeritus membership was approved by the members in a Bylaws change in spring 1999, and became effective in the 2000 membership year.

The most sweeping Bylaws changes took place beginning in 1998 with Council action taken to restructure ASA Committees (see discussion below). Based on Council resolutions passed at the January 1998 meeting, nine amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws required to accomplish the restructuring were submitted to the membership for a vote in the spring of 1998. These included proposed actions such as to eliminate the Committee on Committees (COC), to reduce the Committee on Nominations to 11 members and eliminate elections by districts, to change the status of the Committee on Sections and the Committee on Awards to Constitutional committees, and to remove ASA journal editors as members of the Committee on Publications. All proposed amendments (see Appendix 15) except one were approved by the membership (the proposal that the Committee on Publications be appointed by Council on recommendations of the President rather than elected by the voting members of the Association failed in the membership referendum).

Subsequently, based on a resolution brought forward at the 1999 Business Meeting, Council appointed a subcommittee to examine the discontinuation of COC, which ultimately recommended that COC be reinstated. A special member referendum in October 2001 to reinstate the COC and so alter the Bylaws was passed, and, in 2002, the COC was again elected by the membership.

The final Bylaws change through 2002, related to section governance. In January 2000, Council approved a change to the composition of the Committee on Sections by increasing its membership to nine members to also include “three members elected for three-year terms by current section chairs from among current section chairs according to section membership size. All terms will be staggered.” This change to Article V of the Bylaws was approved by the membership as part of the spring ballot. (Footnotes , September/October 2000:15)

ASA Code of Ethics

A major revision of the ASA Code of Ethics was undertaken from 1994 to 1996. During that time Council reviewed several draft versions, and in January 1997, endorsed the revised Code of Ethics. The ASA membership approved the revised Code in the spring of 1997. The Committee on Ethics, consisting of John Kennedy (Chair), Sue Hoppe, Anthony Cortese, Joyce Miller Iutcovich, Barbara Melber, Eleanor M. Miller, Helen Moore, Bernice Pescosolido, and Bette Woody as well as Council Liaisons, Cheryl Townsend Gilkes and Ida Harper Simpson, and staff liaisons, Felice J. Levine and Cynthia B. Costello worked intensively for more than two years to produce a revised Code. The membership was kept informed of revisions through articles in Footnote s and on the ASA homepage; and members, section officers, committees and other groups (e.g., department chairs at the Chairs Conference) were afforded extensive opportunity to provide input, comment, and feedback in the summer and fall of 1996. The 1997 Council scheduled time to review the revisions at its August 1996 Meeting, and ASA President Neil Smelser also reported that he and Vice President Charles Willie had served as commentators at a special session on the Code during the 1996 Annual Meeting.

The goal in undertaking the revision was to make for a more informative and useful Code of Ethics by fleshing out key components and addressing issues heretofore unaddressed. For example, more systematic attention was paid to research, teaching, service, and practice; new material was added on conflicts of interest, data sharing, and the issue of confidentiality was broadened to cover sociologists in all facets of professional work as well as limitations on confidentiality guarantees. Also, the enforcement procedures were revised to improve and better specify the processes as well as the steps involved in filing and handling a complaint. ASA legal counsel, who brought interest and expertise in professional ethics, provided useful guidance in revising the Code and the enforcement procedures.

Amicus Briefs

Over the years, the Association has joined in legal actions in cases of significance to sociology and the profession. As noted in the previous chapter, in January 1991, based on a report prepared by Executive Officer D’Antonio and Executive Officer-designate Levine, Council affirmed a process for determining whether to participate in filing an amicus brief. As with policymaking more generally, and as stipulated in the Bylaws, the Executive Officer consults with the President and Secretary on matters of policy and may jointly act on behalf of the Association, conduct a ballot by mail, or defer action to the next Council meeting. Councils were reflective in making determinations about whether to participate in amicus briefs. In 1991, in the Exxon Valdez Case , the Committee on Sociological Practice urged ASA President Stanley Lieberson to write to the presiding judge to express ASA opinion in this case involving a suit filed by Exxon against Impact Assessment Inc. (IAI), a private social research firm hired to poll Alaskan citizens on oil spill damages. Exxon and the owners of the Valdez had asked for a court order to impound all of IAI’s research instruments and data. The issue of participating in amicus briefs was referred by Council to a Subcommittee chaired by Wendy Baldwin to examine the issue more fully. At the January 1992 Council meeting, the Subcommittee recommended that no further action was needed by Council at that time.

Throughout the years, the Association was strong in its support of the ethical standard of confidentiality of research information. For example, as described in Chapter 1, ASA filed a brief in the case of Mario Brajuha, a graduate student in sociology whose field notes were subpoenaed in 1984 by a federal court. In 1993, another case emerged involving scholar’s privilege and a potential conflict with ASA’s Code of Ethics. Richard (Rik) Scarce, a doctoral student in sociology at Washington State University, who was conducting a long-term study of animal rights activists, was held in contempt of court and jailed on May 14, 1993 when he refused to reveal confidential information about his sources to a federal court. (See: James Richard Scarce v. United States of America 5 F.3d 39 [1993]). He remained incarcerated until October 18,1993. Scarce cited the ASA Code of Ethics, which affirms the obligation of confidentiality. After a mailed ballot of Council, ASA filed an amicus curie brief in April 1993 when the case went up on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The ASA argued that, ”social science inquiry is dependent upon guarantees of privacy and confidentiality and that the ethical and societal values underlying social science standards support recognition of a qualified privilege from disclosure.” (Levine, Footnotes , August 1993:2)

In considering the Scarce Case , Council again raised the issue of the need to develop a policy to guide the Association in determining how to respond when members request support involving legal action. A Subcommittee of Council consisting of Barrie Thorne (Chair), Ida Simpson, and Janet Chafetz was appointed to consider the need for a legal defense fund, and if appropriate, a guiding policy. Thorne “later reported a committee consensus that the emphasis of the Association’s position should be on the importance of and adherence to ethical guidelines. ASA should continue to take an active interest in ethical and legal issues involving human subjects and should periodically review its ethical guidelines. However, ASA cannot be responsible for either the informal or formal contracts and arrangements made between researchers and their subjects or clients. The Committee also did not think it would be wise to set up general guidelines or a standing committee to review specific legal cases. It did recommend that a general statement be written that might apply to all cases, although each case brought to the ASA would, of necessity, be handled in an ad hoc way. A concern was also expressed that an ASA legal defense fund would encourage frivolous law suits.” (Council Minutes, January 1993)

ASA Policy Statements

In 1993, Council decided to reexamine the process by which it took policy positions. In January 1993, Myra Marx Ferree, Chair of the Council Subcommittee on the Business Meeting, reported that there needed to be greater clarity regarding the consideration and disposition of resolutions adopted at the Annual Business Meeting. Two issues were key in leading to this reexamination: First, Council sought to specify a process that would allow for issues coming before it to be based on a deliberative process, not just fl owing from issues that surfaced at the Annual Business Meeting. Second, Council sought clearer articulation of what resolutions should entail. In August 1993, the Subcommittee further reported back to Council, leading Council to adopt a new policy on a two-year trial basis. The key elements of this policy include:

• Resolutions can arrive via the Business Meeting, from ASA sections and committees, or from individual ASA members who solicit 50 signatures to accompany their requests.
  
• Resolutions can come any time during the year.
  
• Resolutions should show direct relevance to sociology as a discipline or profession or be grounded in the substantive expertise or knowledge of the discipline.
  
• Resolutions must include documentation to guide Council’s understanding.
  
• The proposed resolution must include specific suggestions about what Council action is requested. The goal was to have in place a process that would support the possibility of the Association taking policy positions, but only those that build on sociological knowledge and expertise. The policy was officially adopted in 1996. From 1993 to 1998, only a few resolutions were submitted to Council.
  

In August 1998, Council temporarily suspended the use of the guidelines in place for ASA taking positions on public policy matters. Council also appointed a Subcommittee on ASA Policymaking and Resolutions chaired by Patricia Roos, to review ASA policymaking. In January 1999, Council provisionally accepted the Subcommittee’s report and recommendations, which concluded that the Association should only take policy positions on issues related to ASA’s mission as a learned society or pertaining to how ASA operates as an organization. In advancing this policy, Council emphasized that the Association offers members many vehicles for connecting sociology to public policy in their work from the ASA Annual Meeting Program and the Spivack Program in Applied Social Research and Social Policy to the Fund for the Advancement of the Discipline. Along with provisionally adopting this policy, Council called for a comment period with a final policy to be adopted in winter 2000.

In January 2000, Council asked the Subcommittee to continue its work for another year. Since Past Vice President Roos would leave Council by August, Richard Alba was asked to chair the Subcommittee and report back in winter 2001. Council hoped the additional period would give members the opportunity to express themselves on this issue. In February 2001, the Alba Subcommittee agreed with the Roos Subcommittee on all but one point: The Alba Subcommittee recommended that no limits should be placed a priori on Council’s taking policy positions. Consistent with the policy officially adopted in 1996, the Subcommittee recommended that Council should have the latitude to take positions on issues beyond the Association’s mission as a learned society, and should do so based on sound and sufficient sociological knowledge. Furthermore, the Subcommittee recommended a procedure whereby Council would appoint an expert subcommittee to provide advice on how to proceed with an issue.

ASA Council adopted the Report and its recommendations. The language of the Report reads as follows: