5. GOVERNANCE: STRUCTURAL CHANGES
The Association accomplished its objectives through Council meetings, sections, committees, subcommittees of Council, commissions, task groups, and other ad hoc groups with specific charges and assignments. ASA also appointed official representatives to other professional and scientific societies. Major ASA committee work is considered elsewhere in this chapter under relevant functional or programmatic areas (e.g., Ethics, Publications, Certification, and Membership). Changes in key organizational entities (i.e., Sections) and other committees such as the Committee on Freedom of Research and Teaching (COFRAT), and the American Sociological Foundation (ASF) are discussed below. (See Appendix 16 for a detailed list of the ASA Committees and organizations to which ASA had official representation in August, 1990.)
ASA Sections
Sections, defined by specific areas of institutional interest, have consistently been affirmed by Council as a vital aspect of the Association, and an important part of membership in the ASA. Debates have surfaced occasionally, however, regarding various aspects of the Association's section structure, including sections': (1) proliferation, (2) viability, (3) role (and share of program sessions) at the Annual Meeting, and (4) internal governance structure (i.e., awards, dues, and so forth).
Section Growth in the 1980s
In 1980, ASA members held 9,006 memberships in 20 sections (ASA membership as a whole was 12,868). Section memberships declined from 1981 to 1985, reflecting the general trends in membership in the ASA during this period. Section memberships began climbing again in 1985 (with a slight dip in 1989) to a new high of 13,263 in 27 sections at the end of the 1990 membership year when ASA membership overall was 12,841 (see Appendix 14 for section membership counts for selected years).
At the January 1991 Council meeting, Executive Officer D'Antonio reported stability in the size of the ASA's 27 sections, with about one-half of the ASA membership belonging to at least one section, and more than 25 percent belonging to more than two sections. During the 1980s, about one-third of the sections showed growth in membership although two-thirds experienced declines, leading some Council members to request better data on section membership trends-especially for those members who drop and those who hold multiple memberships. Appendix 17 contains a table with years that sections attained full section status.
Significant Events Relating to Sections in the 1980s
An important change took place relating to section formation on January 23, 1981, when Council passed a resolution raising the minimum number of members required to establish a new section from 200 to 250, but kept the limit to retain section status at 200 members. The Committee on Sections also undertook a revision of the Section Manual to reflect changes in the Bylaws for the new procedures.
In January 1988, ASA Council voted to establish a committee to assess "the future course of relations between sections and the ASA, with Council liaison but composed of non-Council members familiar with other organizations and relevant fields of specialization." An Ad Hoc Committee on ASA Future Organizational Trends was created, consisting of Randall Collins (Chair), John McCarthy, Marshall Meyer, Pamela Oliver, and Jonathan Turner. At the request of ASA President Herbert J. Gans, the Committee examined "relevant data from sociology and other social sciences to develop some scenarios about what the increasing number of sections and the rapid growth of membership in sections, will mean for ASA and sociology in the coming decade." (Footnotes, October 1988:8)
The Committee delivered a Report to Council in January 1989, which addressed the nature and implications of section growth for the future of ASA and its governance structure. The Report reviewed the history of sections since the early 1970s, cited factors that might explain their popularity, and described their impact on the governance structure, as compared with other associations. In presenting the Report, Collins said that, "the ASA could be viewed as a 'peak' association with a number of options as to how it might relate to its sections, including curtailing sections, encouraging interlocking memberships, or becoming little more than a collection of sections. Extensive discussion ensued on topics such as who sections are serving, the characteristics of section members, the relationship to ASA voting patterns and such things as the demand for academic productivity, and how to interpret the growth and decline in sections." (Council Minutes, January 1989) The 1989 Report was published in full in the September 1989 issue of Footnotes.
Committee on Freedom of Research and Teaching (COFRAT)
During the 1980s, the Committee on Freedom of Research and Teaching (COFRAT) continued to handle complaints by individual members against alleged infringement of academic freedoms and rights by institutions. For example, COFRAT heard the case of Nancy Stoller Shaw in her complaint against the University of California-Santa Cruz that her tenure review had procedural irregularities. When the University administration refused to reopen the case, Council censured UC-Santa Cruz in February 1985 on COFRAT's recommendation for denying Shaw due process during her tenure and promotion review.
In the 1970s, COFRAT began to deal with and prepare reports on systemic issues underlying the cases brought before it, such as the Guidelines for Initial Appointments in Sociology (1978), which were widely circulated. COFRAT also prepared the Guidelines for Employment of Part-Time Faculty in Departments of Sociology (approved by Council in 1986). In 1989, COFRAT was asked by Council to examine the closing of the sociology departments at the University of Rochester and Washington University. COFRAT, however, reported back to Council in January 1990 that, as then constituted, "it was ill-suited to respond to institutional, as compared to individual cases."
Throughout the 1980s, COFRAT increasingly became involved in complicated situations involving acrimonious interactions, including actions between ASA legal counsel and the institutions against which complaints were directed. One COFRAT chair reported intimidation. COFRAT was therefore finding itself in cases that raised questions about the appropriate role of the Association, how effective it could be, and what situations potentially placed it at legal risk. (1993 COFRAT Report). Council continued to discuss these issues during the 1990s (see Chapter 2).
The American Sociological Foundation (ASF)
In January 1983, Council approved in principle a resolution presented by Secretary-Elect Theodore Caplow for establishing a "Memorial Fund" (as the Endowment was initially called) for the ASA, with the goal of achieving an endowment of $1 million. The purpose was to broaden the reserves of the Association, and use only the interest money from the fund to sponsor sociological initiatives in new directions. The Endowment, eventually structured as the American Sociological Foundation (ASF) in 1985, was incorporated as a separate, autonomous 501(c)(3) organization within the ASA, with decision-making authority entrusted to a Board of Trustees consisting of the five most recent past presidents of the ASA.
Council established the ASF to raise and provide funds for the long-range needs of sociology as a discipline and profession. When the fundraising campaign was launched in 1986, these needs were defined as follows: "The Foundation and its Endowment are responding to three particular crises of need and opportunity: first, increasing our minority fellowships and professional development at a time when outside support is plummeting; second, enhancing sociology's public image and policy pertinence during a period when we have more to say but too few may be listening; and third, continuing to enrich our teaching, so that quality is not sacrificed to quantity during a period of increased enrollment competitions." (Footnotes, February 1986:1)
The hard work of William Sewell and Jay Demerath especially did much to move the ASF forward. As Chair of the Endowment Campaign Committee, Demerath led the efforts from 1984 to 1986 to establish the Endowment and plan the fundraising campaigns. Other members of the Committee included Jack Riley, Beth Hess, Charles Willie, David Sills, and William Sewell.
In 1986, the ASF began an intensive three-year campaign to raise an endowment fund. By 1988, the Endowment Campaign had raised $200,000 in gifts and pledges from more than 900 donors. A significant contribution of $50,000 from Rev. Andrew Greeley was matched in a two-year (1987-88) Challenge Grant campaign directed at members. The Trustees of the ASF accepted the offer of a second challenge grant for a Congressional Fellowship program in 1990. In the early 1990s, however, a moratorium was placed on ASA's acceptance of further challenge grants. The ASF made its first grant of $10,000 (from interest earnings of the Endowment) to the Minority Fellowship Program summer institutes (later known as MOST I).
Proceed to the next section of this chapter
