4. GOVERNANCE: CONSTITUTION/BYLAWS CHANGES AND COUNCIL POLICYMAKING

Changes to the Association Constitution or Bylaws require the approval of the voting members. While members have the official capacity to petition for such changes, during the 1980s, as throughout the history of the Association, members voted on such changes based on amendments proposed by ASA Council. As the primary elected body of the Association, ASA Council considers issues that may require changes to the Constitution and Bylaws, including alternations to the dues that exceed cost of living and revisions of the ASA Code of Ethics.

Only ASA Council has the authority to set the policies of the Association and issue policy statements on behalf of the Association. Such initiatives could originate with committees, sections or other groups established by Council; member resolutions, or from Council itself. During the 1980s, ASA Council clarified ASA policies and practices in several areas that do not require membership approval, including the Association's participation in amicus briefs, and awards bestowed by ASA. Council also adopted a number of member resolutions, thus signaling ASA support for these policies and issues.

The Bylaws also allow members to take actions otherwise within the powers of the Council. The process for doing so is specified in Article II, Section 8 and requires voting members' adopting a resolution advanced by at least three percent of the voting members of the Association. No such resolutions were advanced by the members during the 1980s.

The ASA Constitution and Bylaws
From 1980 through 1990, ASA Council approved the following changes to the Constitution and Bylaws (for a more complete statement of each change, see Appendix 15):

• The 1981 Council approved an amendment to the Bylaws increasing the minimum number of members required to establish a new section from 200 to 250, and keeping the existing limit to retain section status at 200 members.
• The 1982 Council made two important changes to membership practices, by changing (a) the definition of Association membership, and (b) the process for increasing the dues structure (see preceding section on Membership).
• The 1983 Council approved emeritus membership for persons 70 years of age or older, who would be entitled to all rights of active membership except journals, without further payment of annual dues, provided that at the time of application, they were dues paying members of the Association for the preceding 10 years.
• The 1985 Council approved changes in the structure of the Program Committee to increase its membership from 9 to 11 members.
• The 1988 Council amended the ASA Constitution by adding the current President and Past President as voting members of the Committee on the Executive Office and Budget (EOB).
• The 1989 Council voted to adopt an eight-district proposal for revising the ASA election system. A five-district system for nominating procedures for ASA elections had been instituted in 1965, but demographic shifts and the decision of Canadian sociologists to form their own national association had made the districts uneven in size. In January 1987, Council appointed a subcommittee to "examine ASA redistricting, with the objective of creating a more equitable system based on geography and the distribution of the ASA membership." A December 1988 Footnotes article summarized the pros and cons of a five- versus eight-district system.
• The 1990 Council adjusted the qualifications for the emeritus category, by removing the existing restrictions of age 70 and consecutive ten-year membership prior to that age.
• The 1991 Council passed a resolution giving students the right to vote and hold office, noting that students choosing the low-income category (at the same dues rates) already enjoyed full membership privileges.
  

Code of Ethics
On several occasions throughout the 1980s, Council stated that the ASA Code of Ethics should be viewed as a "living" document and revised periodically.

The Code was revised in 1980 and approved by Council and the membership in 1982. At the time, Council upheld the recommendation of the Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE) that the document be voted on by the membership in its entirety rather than section by section. In addition, a request was approved from the Ad Hoc Group of Sociology Editors to incorporate a statement on multiple submissions to journals, which had been deleted from an earlier version of the Code.

In 1983, Council accepted a recommendation by COPE for an implementation section to be included as part of the ASA Code of Ethics. Council also voted to clarify the extent of COPE's enforcement jurisdiction, indicating that allegations of ethical violations of the Code could only be adjudicated against members of the Association.

A report by COPE in 1988 recommended updating the Code of Ethics to improve the form of the Code and to address ethical standards of those employed in sociological practice. New sections were also added on ethical standards on fair employment practices and on the rights of human subjects of research. After extensive discussion and feedback, Council approved the revised Code of Ethics in January 1989.

In August 1989, COPE reported that ethical standards for teaching responsibilities and ethnographic research were still problems, and approved changes relating to Item III of the Code on these issues.

Brajuha Case
A landmark case with wide implications for ASA as well as the ethics of conducting research in general was decided in 1984 in the federal courts. The case involved a graduate student in sociology at SUNY-Stony Brook, Mario Brajuha, who was ordered to turn over data he had been collecting for his dissertation while employed at a local restaurant. Brajuha's research notes were subpoenaed after a suspicious fire at the restaurant.

On September 5, 1983, Council approved a motion upholding the applicability of the Association's Code of Ethics in a situation where research notes are under subpoena. The ASA Council notified Brajuha's lawyer that if research documents prepared under promise of confidentiality were provided by the sociologist, it would place him in violation of the ASA's Code of Ethics. A decision by federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York on April 5, 1984 ruled that, "[s]erious scholars cannot be required to turn over their fieldnotes in a grand jury investigation when the government fails to establish 'substantial need' for them to do so." (Footnotes, August 1984:11; Footnotes, December 1985:1,13)

On September 1, 1984, the prosecution appealed the Brajuha ruling, and ASA filed an amicus brief in support of the decision. Kai Erikson, the President of ASA in 1985, and William Foote Whyte, Past President of the ASA, appeared in court as witnesses on Brajuha's behalf on February 13, 1985. Council appropriated $2,500 in behalf of Brajuha's defense, and ASA worked vigorously to raise awareness of the case and support on his behalf.

Judge Weinstein's decision was reversed on appeal and the case was remanded back to the lower courts for additional evidence. At the same time, the Federal District Attorney's Office went through an organizational change, and after several continuances, it accepted Brajuha's redacted notes as fulfilling the subpoena (as did the county District Attorney). While the case in general resulted in a positive solution, questions remained about what constituted "scholars privilege" and the types of research that may be protected (Hallowell, Footnotes, December 1985:1,13).

Husch Case
In 1988, Jerri Husch of Tufts University filed a complaint to the ASA Executive Office alleging that her dissertation had been plagiarized by Steven Barnes, who was then Dean of Fine Arts at Eastern New Mexico University. An Ad Hoc Committee of ASA Council investigated the matter and rendered a unanimous opinion that plagiarism had indeed occurred. In February 1989, Executive Officer D'Antonio wrote to the Edwin Mellen Press, the publisher of the Barnes book, requesting that certain actions be taken. Since he received no reply from the publisher, D'Antonio wrote to the University, asking that the University take action, and indicating that ASA would report the case to the Chronicle of Higher Education if no action were taken by May 1st. An article on the case appeared in the Chronicle on May 10, 1989.

The Eastern New Mexico University took up the case, and Barnes left the university in August 1989 following an internal faculty review. Edwin Mellen Press, however, refused to take action and published a second edition of the Barnes book with certain changes in attribution. With the strong support of the Committee on Publications, Council adopted a resolution In January 1990 urging the publisher to take appropriate actions, and outlined specific measures that would be taken against the Press, should it not comply. In March 1990, Herbert Richardson, publisher of the Mellen Press met with the Association, and worked out an agreement to withdraw the Barnes book from print, notify libraries and those known to have purchased the book that its contents were plagiarized, and refund money to those who returned the book. Richardson also agreed to write a letter of apology to Husch for the adverse publicity caused by the incident, and to write a letter to the ASA Council detailing the action taken by the Press, thus bringing the case to a close.

Amicus Briefs
ASA was involved in a legal case in 1989, which led Council to examine procedures for the Association signing on to future amicus briefs. In 1989, ASA became involved in the case of the Unification Church vs. Molko/Leal (No.88-1600), which involved two young adults who alleged that they were unwittingly coerced to join the Unification Church (often known as the "Moonies"). At issue for the ASA was whether or not the Association should remain as a signatory on the amicus briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. At a hearing at Council on August 12, 1989, Richard Ofshe, presented the argument against the ASA's position on the case and John Lofland and Richard Anthony spoke in support of the ASA's position. Council also raised questions about precedents for ASA actions in legal cases. Council voted to appoint a subcommittee to review the procedures by which the ASA should sign on to legal briefs, and also passed a motion that the ASA withdraw from the amicus brief in the Unification Church case. (Lawsuits brought by Ofshe and Margaret Singer in 1992 against the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, principal officers of these organizations and others in 1989, were dismissed in 1994. Executive Officer Felice J. Levine and President William A. Gamson-in consultation with past officers-worked with the ASA legal counsel on settlement of the case.)

The Subcommittee on Legal Briefs reported back to Council on August 14, 1990. Wendy H. Baldwin reported for the Subcommittee and Council minutes note that, "[I]n the past ASA relied on the Executive Office to handle such matters, but an alternative structure with specific procedures would be preferable. Ideally, all decisions on legal briefs should be brought before Council. However, in between regular meetings of Council when action cannot wait, Baldwin proposed that a subcommittee should act on its behalf." Council then offered some guidelines on how the Subcommittee would operate in deliberating on whether to join in legal cases.
At the request of Council, Executive Offi cer (William D'Antonio) and Executive Officer-designate (Felice Levine) jointly filed a report in January 1991 "affirming the adequacy of existing procedures as outlined in the Bylaws: Specifically, the Executive Officer, as chief administrative officer of the ASA, 'shall consult with the President and Secretary as questions of policy arise,' and may choose jointly to act on behalf of the Association, poll Council members by mail ballot, or defer action to the next regular meeting of Council." Council took no further action on this issue at that time (Council Minutes, January 1991).

Awards Policy
The ASA has made honorific awards to individuals since the 1950s. Concerned about the proliferation of new named awards, Council approved a new policy in March 1979, resulting in four categories of awards: General, Traditional, Section, and Special Awards and Monetary Prizes. According to the new policy, the General Awards were renamed (to the ASA Award for a Distinguished Contribution to Scholarship, and the ASA Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award), and the practice of naming ASA awards for individuals was eliminated. The policy also authorized sections to make awards within guidelines established by Council. Over the past quarter century, Council has looked to the Committee on Awards Policy for oversight of and guidance on policies and procedures for all awards. The Committee on Awards Policy (which has had various names) was first established in 1954.

Awards policy issues during the 1980s centered on the nature and timing of awards announcements, the presentation of awards (i.e., at what point during the Annual Meeting should the awards ceremony take place), and the proliferation of new awards. Two new awards were established: In 1985, Council approved the ASA Distinguished Career Award for the Practice of Sociology with Conrad Taeuber as its first recipient in 1986, and the Dissertation Award, first presented in 1989 to Richard Biernacki. Council also approved a recommendation by the Committee on Awards Policy that Award Committees name award recipients early enough for publication prior to the Annual Meeting. By the end of the 1980s, the Awards Ceremony was held at the same event as the Presidential Address.

Concerned about the proliferation of awards, and how to respond to the requests for special award nominations, Council approved a Committee in January 1991 consisting of the Past President, President, President-Elect, and Executive Officer to handle such requests. At the same meeting, Council approved a Committee consisting of Barbara Reskin (Chair), Joan Aldous, Myra Marx Ferree, Jill Quadagno, and Executive Officer D'Antonio to develop guidelines for handling gifts and grants to the ASA and to assess the structure of and mandate to the Committee on Awards Policy (see Chapter 2).

Member Resolutions
ASA Council approved a number of resolutions passed by members at the Association's Business Meetings, which take place at each Annual Meeting. These include resolutions on human rights and international issues (see the discussion on International Activities), federal government policies and domestic issues, and issues relating to ASA policies and practices. For example, Council passed resolutions (1) urging the U.S. Government to direct all agencies to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) condemning violence against gays, (3) supporting rights for non-married domestic partners, (4) opposing any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, (4) supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1984, (5) encouraging support for research on AIDS, (6) urging the free flow of government information (which was to be submitted for vote by mail ballot), and (7) opposing the death penalty.

Member resolutions approved by Council relating to Association activities, included: (1) banning the Central Intelligence Agency from access to ASA employment services at Annual Meetings, (2) urging ASA to undertake a survey of departments of sociology, (3) urging action to ensure equity for minorities and women at all levels of ASA, (4) calling on ASA to only use airlines that have collective bargaining arrangements, and (5) urging ASA and its membership to take action regarding the closing of departments of sociology.

Proceed to the next section of this chapter