Centennial - Chapter 2 Part 5 | American Sociological Association

5. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURAL CHANGES

During the 1990s, ASA Council modified its award policies and enacted major changes to its governance system by (1) restructuring ASA committees, (2) establishing guidelines for section operations, (3) restructuring dues, (4) decoupling dues from journals, and (5) changing the legal status of the American Sociological Foundation (ASF). Council also made changes to the Committee on Freedom of Research and Teaching (COFRAT) and dissolved the Certification Program.

Awards Policy

During the 1990s, Council undertook several major efforts to examine and adjust Association policies on awards. Major initiatives included:

In 1992, Council adopted a revision to awards policies relating to the procedures for acceptance of and establishment of new awards. Earlier, in 1991, Council considered the need to: (1) devise a policy for responding to potential donors who would like to establish named awards or grants under the aegis of the ASA, (2) clarify the difference between grants and honorific awards (and in the case of grants, the nature of ASA liabilities), and (3) determine the most appropriate ASA vehicle for reviewing gift offers, since the Award Policy Committee met only once a year. Guidelines were proposed (e.g., to accept “named awards” only if the gift is of $100,000 or more and to accept no gift that entails the expenditure of ASA funds, unless specifically approved by Council). Both the Section Board and the Committee on Sections viewed these revisions favorably and they were adopted in Council on August 24–25, 1992.
In 1995, Council modified the timing, nature, and name of certain awards: The Jessie Bernard Award was to be conferred on an annual rather than biennial basis. Council explicitly discouraged conferring two awards, but stipulated that the award could be conferred for a lifetime achievement or a major work. The DuBois-Johnson-Frazier Award would be an annual award, rather than a biennial one.
In 1995, Council approved the establishment of an annual Award on Public Understanding of Sociology.
In 1997, Council adopted a new awards cycle on a two-year trial basis. On recommendation from the Awards Policy Committee, Council approved changing the cycle for conferring awards (from nomination through selection) so that the process occurred during the year immediately leading up to the conferral of awards, instead of a year in advance. Under the new system, awards committees worked between Annual Meetings, calling for nominations in the fall of each year and making selections no later than June 1. It was anticipated that effective use of electronic mail, conference calls, and other means of communication that became available would support committee work. Yet, some members of Council expressed concerns about the absence of face-to-face deliberation, or the attendant costs to the Association were some committees to request an additional meeting separate from the Annual Meeting. The experiment was ended after one year, because selection committees preferred the practice of meeting face-to-face to discuss candidates and make a selection a year in advance. To phase back to the prior system, two award committees for each year were needed for each award in 1999 (one to select a 1999 winner and one to select a 2000 winner).
How best to structure the Awards Ceremony was a recurrent concern of both Council and the Committee on Awards. Various strategies to honor awardees, yet limit the amount of time for presentations and acceptance speeches were tried, and despite guidelines set by Council (such as specification of word and time limit), a number of people involved in the Awards Ceremony still exceeded these formats. Council discussed various approaches for improvements, and in 2000 recommended that the Committee on Awards continue to address this issue.

Restructuring of ASA Committees

In January 1998, Council approved a major change in the ASA committee structure by creating a more streamlined system with five components: (1) Constitutional Committees (those that are central to ASA governance operations and functions; in the initial reports and Council recommendations, these Committees were termed “Constitutional”—even though the actual modification was to the Bylaws and not to the Constitution), (2) Awards Selection Committees, (3) Status Committees, (4) Advisory Panels, and (5) Task Forces. Under this new model, ASA Councils could create task forces to address specific issues that require the attention of the Association. (See Appendix

16 for specific committees and task forces.) This restructuring had the greatest effect on entities that previously were standing committees but were not reclassified as (1) through (4) above. Those standing committees that could identify issues or activities under their aegis appropriate to a task force could request of Council to be reconstituted as a task force.

The reorganization was intended by Council to create a more dynamic and flexible committee structure that was better aligned with the work of Council, that was more responsive to the changing needs and demands of the discipline and Association, and that used the volunteer talent of the membership in a more optimal way. This effort created long-term committees specified in the Bylaws only for the essential governance functions of the Association. For all other entities, Council would specify the charge; specify how it served the Association; and the process for reviewing its charge, activities, and continuation.

Background
In January 1998, then Past-President Neil Smelser noted that there had been a “proliferation of committees in ASA without clear guidelines as to their mission and charge as well as to when committees and task forces should be formed and discontinued… [and he] believed it would be worthwhile to initiate a review of the committee structure of the Association.” Indeed, concerns had been expressed for years about certain aspects of the committee structure. Some committees met regularly and performed vital tasks, while others met infrequently or were poorly attended.

The committee structure had evolved into a complex organization that was seen by Council as “rigid, bureaucratic and costly to administer.” Members also found it frustrating to join committees for which there was no meaningful work (Footnotes, March 1998:1).

In January 1997, Council decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the committee structure and process, and appointed a Subcommittee of Council for this purpose consisting of Linda Waite (Chair), David Snow, Cheryl Townsend Gilkes, and Neil Smelser. The Subcommittee worked intensively from August 1997 to January 1998 to study the committee structure and to obtain comments and input from existing ASA committees and members.

Restructuring of Committees, January 1998
In January 1998, the Subcommittee on Committee Restructuring presented its recommendations, and Council approved the proposed system of five types of committees: Constitutional Committees, Awards Selection Committees, Status Committees, Advisory Panels, and Task Forces. As noted above, the most significant change in the reorganization took place with respect to certain standing committees, a number of which were eliminated without further activity and four requested spin-off Task Forces.

Task Forces are to be established and appointed by Council for specific tasks and fixed terms (generally no more than two years) based on advice from the membership, sections, officers, staff, or Council itself. All existing committees not identified in the revised committee structure were eligible to become task forces—which, at the time of the reorganization included Committees on: Sociological Practice, Sociologists in Government and International Agencies, Employment, Sociology in Elementary and Secondary Schools, Teaching, Hate Bias on Campus, National Statistics, International Sociology, COFRAT, ASA/AAAS Relations, and Archives. Council asked these Committees to review their work and submit recommendations by September 15, 1998 for Task Forces. Council was to then make a determination as to whether these Committees had viable proposals for Task Forces.

Overall, the net effect of the committee restructuring in 1998 resulted in the following changes (specific changes to the Constitution and Bylaws required by the restructuring are summarized in Appendix 15):

The Constitutional Committees were expanded to include the Committee on Sections and the Committee on Awards. The Committee on Membership and the Committee on Committees (COC) were eliminated as Constitutional Committees in 1998, but, as noted below, COC was subsequently reinstated.
The Constitutional Committees, Awards Committees, and the Status Committees, were to have vacancies appointed by the President and reviewed and approved by Council. The shift to the ASA President for appointments was planned to substitute for the role of the Committee on Committees. Elimination of the Committee on Committees was only temporary. Based on a resolution brought by the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) at the 1999 Business Meeting, Council appointed a Task Force on the Reexamination of the Committee on Committees and the Committee on Nominations. The purpose of the Task Force was to examine the decision (approved in the spring ballot) to discontinue COC and to modify the Committee on Nominations (CON) to reduce its size and eliminate regional representation. The Task Force recommended that the COC be reinstated in altered form (defined set of committees to recommend to Council) and with a specified composition to diversify CON. A special member referendum in September 2001 reinstated a modified COC, and in 2002, the COC was again elected by the membership.
The Committee on Nominations (CON) was reduced in size from 16 to 11 members and elections would no longer be held by districts. This change reflected Council’s belief that a smaller committee could be more thoughtful about nominations and that at-large elections would allow the members more voting choices. After review by the Task Force on the Reexamination of the COC and the CON, no recommendation was advanced to further alter the Committee. Strategies were outlined to strengthen diversity on the CON and to improve the procedures by which they worked.
The ASA journal editors would no longer be non-voting members of the Committee on Publications. This change was brought about by a concern that the number of journal editors was much larger than the number of elected members and that their service on the Committee, even without vote, conflicted with the Committee’s independent oversight function of the ASA journals.
Starting in five years, Council was to review the Status Committees to determine if this structure was the most effective method of achieving the ASA’s commitment to diversity and inclusiveness in the Association and the discipline. (See Chapter 3 for summary of reviews submitted by the Status Committees.)
With reporting to Council, the Executive Officer was authorized to establish and appoint members of advisory panels as needed to provide advice and guidance to Executive Office programs and related activities.

Formation of the First Task Forces
In February 1999, speaking for the Subcommittee on Committee Restructuring, Chair Linda Waite summarized the work undertaken during the fall of 1998, and especially the review of reports of committees that were invited to propose Task Forces as part of the transition from their continuing work. The Subcommittee ultimately recommended, and Council approved, the formation of five Task Forces. These five Task Forces had their first organizational meetings at the 1999 Annual Meeting. (Appendix 16 contains a list of Task Forces created from 1999 through 2004.)

Strengthening the Work of CON
In August 2001, the Task Force on the Reexamination of the COC and CON reported that the Task Force considered a number of possibilities regarding the nomination process and the Committee on Nominations (CON), including “(1) that Council members receive a more extensive statement on diversity guidelines; (2) that a task force be reconstituted in four years to review the guidelines and results of implementation; (3) that ASA move forward as soon as possible, to create a relational database so that information about persons who can be potential nominees can be easily created; and (4) that there be some tracking of networks for names, where nominations come from (e.g., Footnotes) , and any patterns in declination of candidates who are asked to run.” (Council Minutes, August 21, 2001) The Task Force recommended (and Council supported these steps) as well as leaving in place the altered structure, previously approved as a Bylaws change by the membership.

Status Committees
Over the past several decades, the Status Committees, including the Status of Women in Sociology (CSWS); Status of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Sociology (CSREMS), Society of Persons with Disabilities in Sociology; and Status of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons in Sociology (CSGLBT) have played a vital and dynamic role in advocating for the presence of minorities in the Association and the discipline. Since the early 1980s, a series of Biennial Reports have been produced by the Executive Office under the guidance of the CSWS and CSREMS reflecting analysis of data and trends on the participation and representation of women and minorities in all aspects of the Association and the discipline (see Appendix 13). The CSGLBT and the Society of Persons with Disabilities also had a strong voice in shaping ASA policies in a number of ways, including, for example, decisions relating to site locations for and services at ASA Annual Meetings. All four of these Status Committees have also strongly advocated for an increase in efforts to include women and minorities on the editorial boards of the major ASA journals, as well as on committees, sections, and other governance entities of the ASA.

ASA Sections during the 1990s

ASA sections continued to be a vital part of the Association during the 1990s, and were generally regarded as “an important vehicle for member participation as well as taking on leadership positions.” (Council Minutes, August 22, 2001) Many of the same themes that shaped the discussion of sections in the 1980s also existed in the 1990s (e.g., concerns about section role and growth in ASA, their role in the Annual Meeting, their taking policy positions, fragmentation, and internal governance issues). Sections continued to press for more flexibility in setting dues, newsletter allocations, and awards policies. Some sections however, had weak governance structures (e.g., no election of officers) and communications systems (e.g., no newsletters). Council took several initiatives from 1996 to 2000 to set guidelines for section operations and activities in order to clarify some of these issues and to enhance the role and participation of sections within the Association, including clarifying the role and responsibilities of the Committee on Sections (COS).

The discussions on sections also reflected differing views of the role of sections in the Association. On the one hand, there was the model of sections as independent groups; on the other, sections were perceived as a benefit of membership in the parent organization to facilitate interaction in specialty areas. In order to avoid fragmentation, ASA had always operated on the latter model (EOB Minutes, June 1996). The January 1996 Council meeting reached a “consensus that, through sections, the Association has been able to accommodate diverse lines of work and give members an intellectual home. Council affirmed the importance of having a governance structure that is ‘of the whole’ and not based on representation of interest groups.” (Council Minutes, January 1996).

Sections played a key and direct role in a number of ASA initiatives during the 1990s. In 1996 for example, the Section on Sociology of Education organized a series of education policy conferences, and with funding from the U.S. Department of Education, produced a special issue of Sociology of Education , “Sociology and Educational Policy: Bringing Scholarship and Practice Together” (1996). In March 2000, Executive Officer Levine along with Pamela Barnhouse Walters and Michael Hout assisted the Spencer Foundation in convening a small research conference on future research directions in the sociology of education that involved leading members of the Education Section. Similarly, Executive Officer Levine and William Avison, Chair of the Section on Mental Health, met with the leadership of the National Institute of Mental Health and prepared a submission on translational research for the NIMH Advisory Committee “on the value of investments in sociology of mental health and how basic science in this area translates into applications.” (Council Minutes, August 10, 1999)

Section Growth in the 1990s
At the end of the 1990 membership year, section memberships stood at 13,263 in 27 sections (ASA membership was 12,841). By the end of the 2000 membership year, section memberships had grown to 19,223 in 40 sections (ASA membership was 12,854) (Appendix 14). In 2000, more than 60 percent of ASA members belonged to at least one section, and many belonged to at least two sections. Throughout the 1990s, the sections with the largest number of members were: Medical Sociology, Organizations/Occupations, and Sex and Gender. At its January 2000 meeting, EOB noted that sections were experiencing a generally upward trend, while ASA membership was holding steady around 13,000 members. Appendix 17 contains an outline on Section Formation History, including those sections that were formed and attained full section status during the 1990s.

Significant Events Relating to Sections in the 1990s
Council approved several major reports produced by committees established to study various aspects of section activities during the 1990s: (1) A 1996 subcommittee chaired by Patricia Hill Collins, explored issues pertaining to the role of and proliferation of sections; (2) A joint EOBCOS (Committee on Sections) Report on Section Finances, Administration, and Governance established guidelines for section operations (giving sections more flexibility with their funds and activities, but making them more accountable), and (3) A 2000 report defined a strategy for section budget allocation.

Council also considered issues pertaining to section formation, continuation, and termination, particularly if section membership dropped below the required number (200) to maintain sections. Council was guided in these areas by the COS, which had the responsibility for advising the ASA on the administration of sections—including on creating and continuing sections, advising Council on section policies and procedures, and serving as liaison between sections and Council.

In August 1996, ASA Vice President Charles Willie, Chair of the Council Subcommittee on Sections, presented the Report on section growth and its implications for existing sections and the Association. The Report noted (among other conclusions) that section growth “since 1992 seems to abide by requirements of the Section Manual that ‘sections should encompass a reasonably broad area of specified interests’ and that the ‘overlap’ if any, has not been harmful to existing and older sections.” (Council Minutes, August 19, 1996) The Willie Subcommittee also recommended several options for controlling the growth of sections, including, that the number of Association members required to form a new section should be increased from 200 to 300.

In January 1997, Council approved the Report on Section Finances, Administration, and Governance that was the result of a joint effort by the COS and EOB. The process involved extensive input from section officers and members, recommendations from Vice President Willie’s Council Subcommittee Report, and Council discussion from August 1996. In the summer meeting of 1997, EOB approved a plan to give sections an operating base-budget, but sections were required to prepare a budget and track spending. The more controversial change was perceived to be the guidelines for section formation and continuation, with some sections close to 200 finding it hard to meet the 300-member requirement. The use of qualitative criteria would ensure that sections operate under the guidelines (such as holding business and Council meetings), and would provide some flexibility in determining continuation irrespective of absolute numbers. On EOB’s recommendation, in January 1998, Council approved an operating base-budget of $1,000, plus $2 per capita amount. This change became effective in 1999, to be reevaluated after a two-year period. This formula for basic budget allocations was reaffirmed by Council in January 2000, which also specified criteria for adjusting budgets in cases where membership drops below 300 members.

Another important event pertaining to ASA sections occurred in January 2000, when Council approved a resolution to expand the COS to nine members. Council member Paula England, a member of COS, indicated that section officers were committed to this proposed structure because it would place section officers in leadership positions on COS. The resolution, which required a Bylaws change, stated: “Six members shall be appointed by Council for three-year terms based on the recommendation of the President. Three of these members shall be appointed from among the Association membership and three shall be appointed from among the Council members-at-large. Three members shall also be elected for three-year terms by current section chairs from among current section chairs according to section membership size.” The change was approved by the membership in a referendum in the ASA 2000 election.

Certification

The certification program at the ASA evolved through several phases over a 40-year history. Interest first surfaced in the 1950s, largely in reaction to the certification programs of the American Psychological Association (APA), but the ASA programs were discontinued in the 1960s. In the late 1970s, a revived interest led to Council’s approval of a certification program in 1984 and creation of a Committee on Certification, which devised the procedures for PhD level certification in six areas and a MA level certification for social research.

The Certification Program, launched in 1986 generated little interest, and ultimately only 62 people completed the certification process—nearly half of whom were members of the certification committees themselves (64 other members inquired about certification, but never completed the process). (See Chapter 1 discussion of Certification.)

In 1991, Council decided to continue monitoring the program, and in 1992, the Master’s Certification Program Committee was also placed under the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee (as the PhD Certification Committee had been earlier) due to low demand. The MA Certification Committee had concluded, “certification as a sociologist is being handled by the receipt of an MA or PhD. There may be value in certification of Practical Specialties, however the Sociological Practice Association is doing a good job of that for clinical practitioners.” (Kennedy, Footnotes , November 1994:4) Eventually the combined committee became the Committee on Certification and Licensure, which undertook a review of both certification programs in 1994. (The Sociological Practice Association [SPA] offers the Certified Clinical Sociologist [CCS], which provides an important credential to practicing sociologists.)

Council voted to suspend the Certification Program on August 24, 1992 because of low interest. In 1998, visiting sociologist John Kennedy undertook a review of the programs, including of its state-level monitoring program, and found that it operated at a minimal level for a number of years as well. Council officially terminated the Certification Program on August 25, 1998.

Committee on Freedom of Research and Teaching (COFRAT)

Created by Council in 1968 to handle complaints involving infringement of academic freedoms by institutions, the Committee on Freedom of Research and Teaching (COFRAT) continued to handle individual cases in the early 1990s. The debate that ensued over the mission, mandate, activities, and goals of COFRAT over much of its 25-year history, however, also followed it into the 1990s.

COFRAT’s mandates were quite general, its written guidelines for procedures few in number, and its work largely conducted by volunteer Committee members. Although COFRAT undertook studies (e.g., on initial appointments in the 1970s and on part-time faculty in the 1980s), for the most part, it saw itself in a fact finding role on individuals’ complaints against institutions, then making a judgment on cases, and recommending possible sanctions to Council. In a few cases, COFRAT took on a mediation or arbitration role, but these were exceptions. Increasingly, throughout the 1980s, COFRAT found itself in contentious relations with institutions under investigation, at times with the potential of placing ASA at legal risk. Tensions between COFRAT, COPE, and other ASA committees also complicated its work.

With the support of ASA President William Gamson, Vice President Barrie Thorne, and COFRAT senior Co-chair Essie Rutledge, Executive Officer Felice Levine undertook a comprehensive review of COFRAT in the fall of 1993, which resulted in a detailed and extensive report on the origins, history, procedures, and caseload of COFRAT (“The American Sociological Association: The Committee on Freedom of Research and Teaching [COFRAT], December 15, 1993).

On the basis of a discussion of the December 1993 Report, COFRAT recommended that President Gamson appoint a Task Force to address what ASA’s role should be on issues of academic freedom. The Ad Hoc Committee was composed of President William Gamson (Chair), Margaret Andersen, Barrie Thorne, Peter Meiksins, John Kennedy, John McCarthy, and Executive Officer Felice Levine.

The Ad Hoc Committee recommended to the 1994 Council that, “COFRAT’s mandate should be directed to dealing with systematic violations, rather than individual cases. COFRAT should seek to identify patterns in violations, and no longer adjudicate or act as a fact finding body on specific individual complaints about a department or institution.” (Council Minutes, August 8, 1994) The Executive Office was to work with COFRAT and other ASA committees to identify patterns, which required the attention of COFRAT.

Subsequently, COFRAT’s monitoring role on issues of academic freedom included situations such as those reported to the 1996 Council on sexual harassment of faculty and on H.R. 2202, “The Immigration in the National Interest Act” of 1995. No action was taken on the sexual harassment issue, but Council adopted a resolution deploring certain provisions of H.R. 2202 “as potentially detrimental to the future of science including the social sciences.” (Council Minutes, August 24, 1995) The Association was aggressive in opposing these provisions, including in the pages of Footnotes (see Levine, Footnotes , January 1996:2) and in a guest editorial written by Executive Officer Levine in Science.

COFRAT, however, remained largely inactive. In 1998, as part of the overall restructuring of Committees of ASA, COFRAT, along with several other committees, was asked by Council to review its work and to submit recommendations by September 15, 1998 as to whether it wished to continue as a Task Force. In February 1999, Council did not reconstitute COFRAT as a Task Force.

Dues Restructuring

A major restructuring of the dues was approved by Council at its January 1996 meeting, and subsequently approved by the membership in the spring of 1996. The revision was designed to make the membership dues structure more progressive, to reduce the incentive for the no-journal dues categories, and to “be revenue neutral, meaning that the income to ASA will be no greater or lower than the income generated by the current dues structure.” ( Footnotes , July/August 1996:3)

In the restructuring, the income categories of $40,000–49,999 and $50,000 and higher were subdivided into additional income categories: $40,000–$54,999, $55,000–$69,999 and $70,000 and over. Under the new structure, the lowest income category also changed from “under $15,000” to “under $20,000.”

The January 1996, Council also passed a resolution (which the members approved in the 1996 ballot) to eliminate the emeritus category membership. Council had recommended integrating emeritus membership into the regular income-based membership structure because of the varied income levels of retired colleagues. However, in August 1998, after a review of lapsed emeritus members, Council moved to “re-establish the Emeritus membership category for persons who have been ASA members for at least ten years and are retired from their primary employment, with such members receiving Footnotes but no journals as part of this membership.” (Council Minutes, August 25, 1998) In February 1999, Council voted “[t]o amend the ASA By-laws through a referendum in the 1999 ballot to permit reintroducing the Emeritus membership category.” (Council Minutes)

In the late 1990s, EOB also revisited the issue of embedding journal subscriptions into the dues structure, which had first been raised in the early 1990s. This “cafeteria plan” offered options ranging from no journals to two selections for dues at most income levels, but evaluations of this system indicated that it was complex and costly to operate and placed limits on “development of a dynamic publications program.” A document entitled, “Discussion Points: Decoupling Journals from Dues” was presented to Council at the August 2000 meeting to highlight key issues and stimulate further discussion. Further data gathering took place in the fall of 2000, and Executive Officer Levine retained Fran Marchbank, a consultant with expertise in publishing and membership in scholarly societies, to advise on this issue.

In February 2001, Council approved recommending to the membership a resolution “decoupling of journals from dues as recommended by EOB such that all ASA members (except Emeritus Members) be required to subscribe to one journal, that the cost to students be further subsidized, and that members be consulted on this change with their approval being sought through a member referendum following the Annual Meeting.” Better than 90 percent of voting members approved of this change. Council also urged a periodic review of the progressive dues structure, and asked EOB to conduct such a review over the coming year.

American Sociological Foundation (ASF)

In January 1997, at the request of the Board of Trustees of the American Sociological Foundation (ASF) and with the concurrence of ASA Council, the ASF was dissolved as a separate entity of the ASA. The portfolio of funds, valued at about $450,000 was transferred in the summer of 1997 to two restricted accounts to be used “solely for the purposes that had guided the ASF.”

The ASF was created in 1985 to fund projects that supported long-range needs of sociology as a profession and as a discipline (see Chapter 1). Funds were used for minority fellowships, a variety of public outreach projects, and from 1992, a Congressional Fellowship Program.

In 1995, ASF President William Julius Wilson appointed a Subcommittee chaired by Charles Bonjean to review the ASF due to the high costs of maintaining its status as a 501(c)(3) entity. The Subcommittee concluded that the goals of the ASF could be fully realized as a restricted fund within the ASA without the high administrative costs of maintaining a separate 501(c)(3).

In 1996, the ASF Board of Trustees and Advisory Committee agreed unanimously that ASF funds be transferred to two restricted funds: an American Sociological Fund, which would continue the goals of “’improving and promoting sociology’s scholarship, teaching and public-service on the long-term basis’ and would respond to opportunities to advance the discipline. The Board stipulated that income from ASA investments could be used as ‘venture capital’ to initiate programs or other innovative activities but not for on-going operational purposes. The Board also stipulated that Council create a second fund to ensure continued support for the Congressional Fellowship.’’ Council unanimously approved the conditions for transferring the funds to restricted accounts, thus assuring that ASF’s mission would continue, while the restricted nature of the funds would ensure that the donors’ original intent is maintained (Footnotes , July 1997:3,6).