Draft Minutes APSA Council Meeting.
Council Members: Robert O. Keohane, Robert Jervis, Randall Calvert, Ada W. Finifter, Luis Fraga, William Galston, Ira Katznelson, Edmond Keller, Gary King, Atul Kolili, George Marcus, Cynthia McClintock, Eileen McDonagh, Nancy McGlen, Helen Milner, Guillermo O'Donnell, David Rayside, Catherine E. Rudder, Virginia Sapiro, Fritz Scharpf, Christine Sierra, Roberta Sigel, Sven Steinmo, James Stimson, J. Ann Tickner, Howard Silver.
Council Nominees Attending: Richard Brody, Robert Holmes, Sandy Maisel, Doris Marie Provine, Robert Putnam, Mark Schneider, Robert Kaufman, Kathryn Sikkink, Katherine Tate, and Margaret Weir.
Guests: Tony Affigne, Paul Beck, Norman Bradburn, Georgia DuerstLahti, Valerie Martinez, Bert Rockman, Ron Rogowski, Kay Schlozman, Lee Sigelman, and Beth Simmons.
[Note: These minutes are intentionally discursive and detailed, as the Council's discussion of the report of the Strategic Planning Committee was the main item of business rather than the usual series of Council actions.]
1. Introductions and Order of Discussion of Agenda Items
President Robert Keohane asked the Council members, guests and APSA staff to introduce themselves.
President Keohane pointed out that the Council has to consider several important reports and proposals and that an agreement on how to proceed is needed. He suggested that the Council begin by considering the procedural suggestions from the Administrative Committee, review and approve the minutes of the Administrative Committee and next take up the appointment of the new APSR editor. The Council could then turn to agenda item #4, the Report of the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC), beginning with the proposed APSA Mission Statement. The order of SPC recommendations for consideration the morning would be:
10:30 a.m.-ll:00 a.m. - Annual Meeting
11:00 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. - APSR
11:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. - representation and governance
In addition, he pointed out that there are issues in the SPC Report that are covered also by reports before the Council from other committees and the reports with complimentary issues could be considered in conjunction with SPC recommendations. Where there were conflicting recommendations, more time would be needed for discussion. The Council would break for lunch at 12:15 p.m. followed by remarks from Norman Bradhurn, Assistant Director, Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, NSF. The Council would reconvene at 2:00 p.m. to continue its discussion of the SPC report and action items on the Agenda: establishing an Electronic Publications Advisory Committee, Report from the Treasurer and proposals regarding graduate student membership, items numbered: 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
2. Approval of the April 29, 2000 Council Minutes
The minutes were corrected by substituting "idea of" for "recommend" on the last line on page 3.
Council Action: George Marcus then moved to approve the Minutes. Eileen McDonaugh seconded the motion which was passed unanimously.
3. Appointment of a New Editor of the APSR
President Keohane referred to his statement on behalf of the appointment of Lee Sigelman as editor of the APSR, accepting the formal recommendation and report from the Search Committee for Editor of the APSR. He elaborated on the thorough and deliberative search process and on the strength of the candidates for the editorship. In light of Keohane's own background in IR, he said he was aware of the reservations people might have about another "Americanist," but he said he was convinced Lee would broaden the Review. He commented on the skills and disposition that Lee Sigelman brings to this position. Jim Stimson introduced a motion to appoint Sigelman APSR editor.
Council discussion followed. Cynthia McClintock spoke highly of Sigelman's professional, administrative and collegial abilities. Atul Kohli noted that this would be seen as a vote for continuity in editorial leadership by a scholar whose principle field is American politics. Robert Jervis responded that the Search Committee was mindful of this perception as is Sigelman who recognizes the importance of addressing it. Robert Keohane affirmed this intent. Edmund Keller referred Council Members to Keohane's Council statement on the selection. David Rayside observed that having an editor who is aware of the need to create a sense of community may be attractive. Sven Steinmo commented that, as a member of the SPC, he had initially hoped for a change in perspective, but concluded that it is not wise to prejudge, but to encourage the new editor in his efforts to address these concerns. Keohane reported that he visited with Sigelman, prior to recommending his appointment and that Sigelman recognizes the complexity of the issues before the APSR and the concerns of APSA members.
Council Action: The Council unanimously approved the motion to appoint Lee Sigelman editor of the APSR.
Lee Sigelman joined the Council for a discussion about the future of the APSR. He thanked the Search Committee and President Keohane for their confidence in him and said he was looking forward to becoming the editor. He acknowledged that electronic publishing presents particular challenges. He invited questions from Council members.
Atul Kohli identified himself as a comparativist and editor of World Politics. He asked how Sigelman plans to incorporate under-represented areas of IR and comparative politics in the APSR. Lee Sigelman responded that, from discussions with his IR colleagues, he is aware of their view of the APSR as irrelevant and regards this as unfortunate and one that he wants to change. He also expressed concern about what he perceives as the anger of comparative politics scholars toward the APSR. He said that he will appoint associate editors from different subfields to reach out and bring in good submissions to have the APSR include the best work in a range of fields and demonstrate greater breadth. Other strategies he would employ would affect the selection of reviewers, the speed of the review process and related matters. He expressed the hope that cumulatively these activities would change the APSR and the perceptions about it.
David Rayside asked how these changes would be manifested. Lee Sigelman answered that he will use the "From the Editor" section of the APSR imaginatively to explain why the particular articles in each issue are worth a wide readership and to invite comments from readers. He promised also to emphasize excellence and clarity of presentation.
Sven Steinmo complimented Ada Finifter, current APSR Editor, for starting a movement for change and urged Lee Sigelman to address the challenges that face the APSR and to recognize the singular role the journal plays with respect to the careers of political science scholars of which he seemed well aware. Lee Sigelman concurred and remarked, "You are preaching to the choir." He reinforced his commitment to fostering exchanges across subdisciplinary specializations and improving the quality of writing as well as inclusiveness, while being mindful of the distinctive attributes of articles in different fields.
Fritz Sharpf cautioned that expecting the APSR to publish the best work in all fields may be too ambitious. Perhaps the journal should publish articles that are less technical but where "subfields talk to each other." Lee Sigelman answered that he is sensitive to this objective and its appeal to a broad readership in political science. He said that he is aware that it is important not to publish only cautious and technically competent work.
Robert Keohane thanked Sigelman for his comments which, he said, demonstrated why the Search Committee and he, as APSA President, had chosen Sigelman.
Council Action: Robert Keohane moved to thank the Search Committee for its work. The motion was seconded by Stimson and McClintock and passed unanimously
4. Report of the Strategic Planning Committee
Paul Beck, Chair of the SPC introduced the committee's report. He pointed to two broad conclusions in the report: a) in most respects, APSA is in fine shape; and b) some changes can make the future of the APSA brighter. He thanked the APSA staff for responding to the committee's requests for information, APSA officers and standing committee chairs, and especially President Keohane who had been so helpful along with the other members of the committee. Robert Keohane said that the SPC report represented remarkable accomplishment--unanimity among a diverse committee. This outcome reflects the leadership of Paul Beck and the willingness of the committee's members to express their views and to compromise. Keohane opened the meeting to discussion of the SPC report.
Mission Statement for APSA
Robert Keohane asked for comments on the need for a mission statement and whether there are errors of omission or commission in the statement.
George Marcus suggested putting "to foster" after teaching and to drop the phrase "deep scholarship." Robert Putnam said that while he is generally skeptical about mission statements, he is stunned that there are no references to the quality, efficiency and justice of political institutions (i.e. there are bulleted declarations regarding the self interests of the profession but little on the profession's obligations to the public and to the study of politics. This suggests that we/APSA have abandoned aspirations to contribute to political institutions locally, nationally, and internationally, he averred.
Robert Jervis said that broad discussion of the mission statement is needed as the process of vetting the SPC Report continues in order to reach closure in the coming year(s). The Administrative Committee and Council provide the forum for continuing discussion on the mission statement.
The reports of the Annual Meeting Committee and the SPC differed with respect to rules regarding the number of papers on the program with the SPC recommending a one-paper rule and the Annual Meeting Committee The Annual Meeting Committee recognized the problem of enabling more people to participate that the SPC rule would address but disagreed with the SPC recommendation for a one- paper rule. Cynthia McClintock, in support of the one-paper rule, noted the uneven rejection rates across program divisions and the especially high rejection rates in certain divisions. Gina Sapiro, speaking as a former Program Chair, member of the Annual Meeting Committee, as well as from personal experience, pointed out that confining participants to one paper would result in many people refusing to participate in panels that focus on the profession or other service panels or to co-author articles with graduate students, as these are secondary pirorities to presenting one's own research. She added that it would be unfortunate fo r APSA to eliminate child care since the service is so important to junior faculty, particularly women.
David Rayside pointed out that the Related Groups encourage other people to attend the Annual Meeting and could be put at a great disadvantage with a one-paper rule if people opt to present on the regular program first. Roberta Sigel said that there is merit to the suggestion that graduate students who are on the program be well along in their training. Helen Milner pointed out that the design of the program is very decentralized. The program chair(s) select only a portion of the division chairs that make decisions about sessions. Ira Katznelson observed that with such a diverse profession, the program chairs could not know about work at the edge of subfields. Moreover, the Annual Meeting structure represents classic incremental institutional development. He recommended looking at substantive rather than procedural issues at some point to see how the program divisions comport with the discipline. George Marcus pointed out that while APSA has a mechanism for forming and consolidating Organized Sections, there is no mechanism for doing so for program divisions. He also suggested that child care be recognized as a legitimate subsidy for Annual Meeting participants.
Ann Tickner raised the question of alternative meeting dates, an issue investigated periodically. Paul Beck noted that past evaluations show that there is no ready alternative date for the members and that a change in dates would cause difficulties and raise prices for hotel contracts.
Ron Rogowski said that the Annual Meeting is characterized by contradictory demands for appearances by senior scholars--which draw large audiences--and graduate students--(which draw small audiences). Tilting too much to the latter will decrease attendees, public attention, registration and revenues. The same contradictions apply to the disparities in demand and attendance across program divisions managed by Organized Sections. Consequently, the SPC recommended the one paper rule but two panel appearances. He endorsed child care but asked if APSA should provide a bigger subsidy than other associations, and suggested not doing so for established scholars. Sandy Maisel agreed that there are trade-offs between offering panels offering opportunities to present papers and round tables attracting larger audiences. It is likely that a good many papers are co-authored with graduate students.
Dick Brody suggested that if an objective of the SPC Report is to encourage graduate student membership, a contradictory message is sent if graduate student participation in the Annual Meeting is discouraged. However, he argued that graduate student panels would be unfortunate. Mark Schneider observed that people are not prepared for organizing poster sessions and that there should be more and better preparation to encourage participation in these sessions, which other associations use quite successfully. Catherine Tate agreed with Dick Brody's point about graduate student participation. She also suggested that chairs be selected in advance so that they can shape the sessions and improve quality.
Robert Keohane encouraged broad participation in the discussion of the SPC Report's comments and recommendations about the journals. He also deemed appropriate comments on the Publications Committee proposal for a new journal of political literature.
Sven Steinmo said that this was the most controversial and difficult issue before the SPC. He thanked Paul Beck for conducting the committee's discussion fairly. George Marcus noted that the SPC report is inconsistent insofar as it posed the objectives of speed and prudence in moving to electronic publication.
David Rayside endorsed the suggestion to feature integrative essays in the APSR to, appeal to a broad audience rather than launching a new journal. Robert Jervis cautioned that many of the pressures on the APSR are associated with its importance in tenure and promotion decisions.
Bill Galston said that he strongly favors the Publications Committee recommendation for a literature journal and for implementation of the proposal as quickly as possible. He cited the success of the Journal of Economic Literature that is an important reference featuring integrative and synthetic essays. If APSA wants a broader outlet for political science, a literature journal is a venue for practitioners and a public audience. Robert Putnam observed that the American Economic Association has three major journals: the American Economic Review, the Journal of Economic Literature, and the Journal of Economic Perspectives. The SPC Report addresses the objectives of the first two journals but offers no analog of the Journal of Economic Perpectives that focuses on policy. He asked if there were any discussion in the SPC of the relevance or attractiveness of a journal with special symposia and round tables that PS cannot accommodate. Paul Beck answered that the Committee did discuss such coverage and noted that P S: Political Science & Politics has a claim to this area albeit that PS covers many areas and might do more in this one.
Robert Keohane said that Robert Putnam's comments raise the issue of whether the APSA has become too inward looking and suggested that this could be a focus during Putnam's presidency. Robert Putnam agreed but persisted that coverage of the type of material featured in the Journal of Economic Perspectives is immediately relevant. Nancy McGlen reported that the SPC discussed different categories of publications that probably do require three journals, but recognizing the high costs of another paper journal, considered whether electronic publishing should take precedence before another paper journal is launched. She added that the SPC recognized the need to publish papers on policy issues but considered PS the venue.
Bert Rockman, Chair of the Publications Committee, summarized his committee's Report. He noted that the report results from the extensive discussions and email exchanges among the Committee's members. The Journal of Political Literature being proposed would contain much needed additional book reviews (only 20% of the books submitted are reviewed currently in the APSR) and synthetic reviews of the literature as well as coverage of the "perspectives" issues noted by Robert Putnam. The Committee looked closely at the strengths of electronic publishing but concluded that, since there is considerable demand for paper and since paper is still the only secure archival format, a new journal should be published in paper and electronically.
Kay Schlozman responded that the SPC did take all of these objectives into account but dealt with the fiscal realities in making its proposals, as starting a new journal is an expensive proposition. Sven Steinmo affirmed that the SPC confronted all of these issues as well as the question of whether APSA members should be able to choose among journals. All of the options are expensive and there was no consensus. The SPC decided that it was not appropriate to make a specific proposal since a new APSR editor was being selected simultaneously. The APSA should be committed to reviewing all objectives and options for its journals.
Robert Keohane acknowledged that the SPC made some strategic choices. Yet there is a general view that APSA is not providing enough book reviews and review essays, and there is the desire also to inform the polity. Since the APSA's budget situation is good and its endowment is increasing, the possibility exists to augment its journal offerings. Ron Rogowski responded that the SPC agreed about the value of a literature journal and this view is expressed in its report. Committee members were concerned about funding it at the annual cost of at least $180,000, particularly when revenues from library subscriptions continue to decline. In addition, the SPC preferred to keep review essays in the APSR. Ira Katznelson observed that adding pages to the APSR might be a cost effective way of achieving the desired objectives. Beth Simmons reiterated the SPC's concern about economic constraints in funding a new paper journal which led to the early proposal for electronic publishing.
The SPC wanted to link all of the desired content electronically to the printed copy and expand the APSR as the flagship journal in political science.
Paul Beck agreed that it would be advantageous to broaden journal coverage, both to APSA members and a larger audience. APSA may want to consider investing in publications in hopes of gaining memberships and public attention. Gina Sapiro cautioned about how difficult publications decisions are at this time when electronic communication is changing so rapidly. And, she suggested, there should be concern about placing too much of a burden on the APSR: considering the many fields and subfields in the discipline, how many pages would be required if the APSR is asked not only to cover all of the research but also to satisfy all of the other objectives? It would be wise to solve these issues without relying on the APSR alone.
Gary King said that the Publications Committee and the SPC worked hard and agreed that there should be an outlet for integrative essays and more book reviews. APSA should act on this and determine how to do so now rather than waiting. He observed that no journal ceased publishing on paper when it provided electronic copy. He suggested that a committee be charged with preparing a plan. Luis Fraga said that the SPC agreed about the importance of creating momentum for growth in membership and attracting a broader readership among teachers and practitioners but was constrained with respect to the mechanism. Roberta Sigel pointed to the appeal of integrative essays and the popularity of the Journal of Contemporary Psychology. Robert Keohane supported Gary King's suggestion that APSA take the initiative and budget now for a journal, perhaps by drawing on the Trust & Development Fund.
Representation and Governance
Georgia Duerst-Lahti addressed the Council and pointed to the positive SPC Report references to teaching and the representation of faculty from teaching institutions in Association governance. She would look forward to specific actions to implement these SPC recommendations, and she called for more attention to the recruitment of leaders and to an examination of the opportunity structures for leadership in the APSA. She pointed out that the representation of women varies considerably across Organized Sections and that eight sections have never had a woman president. The presidency of the APSA is of particular concern, and she had hoped that the Council would pass a non-binding resolution that a person of the same gender shall not serve as Association President for more than two consecutive terms. She reported that the WCPS will debate a motion at its Saturday morning breakfast to contest the election of the next president if the nominee is not a woman. She concluded by underscoring the benefits of recruiting women and people of color to the APSA and diversifying the profession. Robert Keohane suggested including this language regarding the objectives for representation for the APSA presidency in the letter sent to members of the Nominating Committee. Since there is energy on this issue, it will get attention. Robert Jervis said that it was the sense of the Administrative Committee that a revised letter to the Nominating Committee would be developed.
Guillermo O'Donnell stated that we should pay more attention to politics, applied research, and civility. We should also keep in mind that efficiency is important but things like individual ethics cases and the existence of committees to promote the status of under represented groups are more important. He said that APSA should celebrate and foster diversity, as efficiency and cost should not be the sole decision making criteria. He added that "high barriers" to new initiatives are too conservative and that APSA should lower the barriers to new and creative ideas.
Edmund Keller noted that the Status Committees and Ethics Committee norms on diversity and the support for diversity are valued characteristics of the APSA and should be fostered. The SPC objectives to achieve efficiency should not take precedence. Robert Keohane said that the urgency of the issues of representation in the APSA and in its governance is a reflection of the work of these committees and their constituencies.
Gina Sapiro addressed Georgia Duerst-Lahti's references to representation in the Annual Meeting. She pointed out that insofar as the Organized Sections are responsible for the majority of Annual Meeting sessions, there is less leeway to give consideration to representation in the Annual Meeting Program Committee. The burden of doing so falls to the Program Chair(s). She suggested greater integration of the Organized Sections into the norms of governance of the APSA. Robert Jervis referred to Matthew Holden's questions about the autonomy of the Sections and the difficult tradeoffs between the objectives of decentralization and more integration. There is a need for dialogue with the Organized Sections and attention to this issue in the coming year.
Luis Fraga responded that the SPC carefully considered whether the Status Committees should be merged. The SPC Committee hoped that APSA Presidents would appoint people who are committed and constructive to lead the committees. The SPC also recognized the importance of such leadership positions for the profession. Recommendations 19 on Ethics Committee, 20 on Status Committees and 21 Association memberships in other associations are appropriate for consideration. A renewed commitment to diversity in the Association and its governance is important. Robert Keohane said that APSA President's should take an active role in the selection of the leadership of the Status Committees and that the evidence of the impressive activity of the Committee on the Status of Latinos/Latinas this year indicates the importance of vigorous leadership. He concluded this discussion by saying that these issues are now before the Council as are all recommendations of the SPC.
Council Action: Robert Keohane introduced a motion to thank the Strategic Planning Committee for its hard work and excellent report. David Rayside and Gary King seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Council Minutes (Afternoon session)
4. Following lunch the Council returned to its discussion of the strategic planning report:
Robert Putnam began by saying that the immediate impetus for strategic planning was finances and declining membership. He added it was always wrong to look at raw membership data; rather we should consider market share. Of the total number of political scientists eligible for membership, how many are APSA members? He suggested that going to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data might help determining whether is the Association's market share is declining.
McGlen responded that the decline in membership was real; Rudder added that "political scientist" is not an employment category in the BLS data.
Rayside said that the accrediting program would consume enormous amounts of staff time; he also pointed out that the planning document doesn't list the under-represented groups and that it should be made clear that the category is inclusive of all under-represented groups including the disabled, and sexual minorities.
George Marcus observed that most of the resources of the Association are focused on meeting the needs of elite, research departments and that more attention has to be paid to teaching. He strongly urged that the Association use volunteers to develop resource web sites for each of the major introductory courses that would feature existing faculty web sites, syllabi, debates on content and orientation. These invaluable resources would help to serve a broaden scope of members and might attract new members. The Council voiced its strong interest in developing this teaching resource.
Keohane reported that the proposal for rostering (prepared by the Education and Professional Development Committee) did not receive the enthusiastic support of the SPC. [The Education and Professional Development Committee is refining its proposal and will resubmit it to the Council for consideration in April 2001.]
Putnam and Marcus pointed to the big tent approach of welcoming academic and non academic members. Marcus noted the unfortunate consequences of the internal conflict within the American Psychological Association between practitioners and academic psychologists.
Jervis stated that it was easy for the Association to say that it welcomed members from non-research institutions or non-academic political scientists; the harder question was whether it was willing to make changes that would make it more attractive to people in other categories.
Fraga argued that the starting point should be to increase the number of APSA members among the faculties on non-Ph.D. -granting departments. He suggested that the first task of a new Membership Committee should be to collect the necessary data on non-Ph.D. faculty to allow for better planning.
5. Report of the Committee on Publications
Keohane observed that several APSA committees were working on the question of the content and direction of APSA publications, and that there appeared to be a consensus within the Council that publishing integrative essays would be desirable. The Administrative Committee suggested that a plan should be developed that addresses (1) the need for a new journal; (2)whether a future journal should be a print or electronic journal; and (3) a business plan for publishing integrative essays. The Committee proposed that President Bob Jervis appoint committee to look into these and related matters and report to the Council in April 2001.
XXX asked why another publications committee was needed. Keohane responded that the current publications committee would be included but that extra technical expertise was needed to deal with electronic issues facing a new journal.
Guillermo O'Donnell asserted that the Association is behaving in a schizophrenic manner. We want to merge the Status committees and abolish individual ethics cases for cost and efficiency reasons and yet we also want to create a new committee on web publishing. He suggested that if the current Publications Committee does not have the expertise, appoint several new members who do to the existing committee.
Bob Putnam said that there was a consensus on publishing integrative essays, and suggested that 2003 be set as the target date for doing so, leaving for further consideration whether the essays would appear in the APSR or a new journal, and whether they would appear in a print or electronic format, Keohane suggested that the Committee's proposal would accept a friendly amendment along the lines stated by Putnam.
Gary King offered the following proposal: That the Council agrees that integrative essays will be published; that a new ad hoc committee will be charged with the responsibility for developing a plan to realize this goal by 2003; and that the ad hoc committee will present a plan at the Council's April 2001 meeting. The proposal was seconded.
Helen Milner questioned whether the Council was still deliberating whether the Association would be moving toward electronic publication of its research and other journals. Keohane responded that the commitment to a future electronic format had been made. Jervis added that the financial questions associated with electronic publishing remained to be worked out.
Bert Rockman added that the Publications Committee was in favor of coming out immediately with a new print journal, the Journal of Political Science Literature. George Marcus argued in favor of charging the Publications Committee with the task of producing the new print journal immediately.
Jim Stimson pointed Out that if $187,000 was the estimated cost of producing a new print journal, there is no slack in the APSA budget to cover the additional expenses, nor is there excess in the draw-down from the APSA endowment. The new journal would mean members would have to pay on average an additional $14 per member, or approximately $5 for student members and $30 for regular members.
Marcus questioned whether the Association was operating like most universities an allowing a prudent draw from its endowment, and that an additional draw of 2.5% would be enough to pay for the new journal. He said that perhaps the bylaws should be changed to accommodate a larger drawdown as is common in universities. Keohane responded that the Association was already drawing down the maximum allowable draw down of 4.5% on its $4 million endowment.
Rudder added that there are also other claims on future APSA budgets, the most immediate being funding PROceedings. She also observed that given the complexity of the issue, it was unrealistic to promise a final report by April 2001, but that the 2003 goal could be realized and a plan could be delivered to the Council by August 2001.
Sven Steinmo added that if the Association moves to two journals, then it should consider allowing its members to chose between subscribing to the APSR and the generalist journal. Further, he stated that members don't seem to like electronic publications and this must be considered in the discussions about a new journal. Additionally, will the additional journal take pressure off the APSR to broaden itself? That would not be a positive development, he argued; instead, competition among journals is one way to prevent that development.
Keohane summarized the issues the ad hoc committee would have to consider: (1) paper vs. Electronic format; (2) costs of the chosen format; (3) the role of the APSR in publishing integrative essays; (4) member subscription choice. Jervis stated his preference for an ad hoc committee to address these issues rather than the Publications Committee but that the new committee would include members of the Publications Committee.
Nancy McGlen suggested that the question of increased coverage of teaching and PS must be added to the discussion as well.
Gary King mentioned that commercial publication of journals would alleviate the financial pressures since they would pay start up costs.
Bill Galston echoed Bob Putnam's feelings of urgency for a new journal to be produced by January 2003.
Jervis called the question, and the following motion was passed unanimously:
"The APSA will publish expanded book reviews and more integrative essays no later than January 2003 in a form-electronic and/or print, in an existing or new publication--to be decided. An ad hoc Publications Implementation Committee, appointed by the President and approved by the Council will be established to recommend to the Council plans to carry out this resolution. The committee will report to the Council at its next meeting, April 21, 2001, and will have a completed plan in place for Council approval in time for its August 29, 2001 meeting."
By "integrative essays" the Council has in mind both essays that review the literature in an area and articles that are less specialized than our normal research and span larger parts of the discipline. The latter might also involve the application of political science to questions of public policy.
6. Treasurer's Report-Jim Stimson.
Stimson presented the auditor's report to the Council, and reported that the Association was in sound financial health. Revenues rose by 8% and expenses rose by only 4% making a draw from the Association's Trust and Development Endowment unnecessary.
Council Action: He asked the Council to approve the revised budget which it did unanimously.
Stimson presented a new proposal to offer a one-year free membership to first or second year graduate students in departments that are members of the Department Services Program. The free membership would help to establish the habit of APSA membership among students. The program's cost would be shared by the Association and the individual departments. The proposal was seconded by Sapiro. Stimson observed that the project was an experiment that could be stopped if it does not succeed in drawing in new members. The proposal was passed unanimously.
Stimson asked the Council to consider a second program that would provide PSNonline to all student members. He was not submitting a proposal as yet because details were yet to be worked out.
Keohane observed that there were three principles guiding current and future APSA programs and services: (1) everyone receiving a benefit has a responsibility to provide something in return; (2) members of the Association have a responsibility to support collective benefits, even if they do not receive an individual benefit; and (3) the Association should continue to innovate and expand services and programs to members.
Keohane said that there was no recommendation from the Administrative Committee on the PSNonline proposal at this time, but the Administrative Committee would report to the Council presently. George Marcus asked that the Council be given a detailed explanation of how the program is currently funded.
7. Presidential Appointments
Bob Jervis' appointments to the standing and awards committees were reviewed by the Council and approved.
8. Annual Meeting Committee Report
Rob Hauck reported that the Annual Meeting Committee had made six recommendations:
It proposed (1) remaining with the existing system for allocating panels, but established a cap of 736 panels as the maximum number of panels to be organized by the program committee; (2) continuing to give Comparative and IR panels--bonus panels to encourage participation; (3) remaining with the two- participation rule with an allowance for an extra appearance as chair at one of your two panels; (4) placing a cap of 50 rather than 75 on the count of roundtable attendance; (5) not providing A/V equipment beyond overhead projectors due to the disproportionate costs such equipment entails; and (6) asking Related groups to demonstrate that their subject matter is not represented in the regular program, to have at least 50 APSA members among their members, and to maintain a three-year average annual attendance at panels equal to 2/3 of the average annual attendance of panels at the entire meeting (currently 17 attendees). Failure to meet the attendance requirement would mean a one- year suspension from participa tion in the Annual Meeting. The guidelines were developed to allow for efficient allocation of limited meeting space and not to devalue participation by Related Groups.
Council Action: The Council asked that the Annual Meeting Committee reconsider the two participation rule give the Strategic Planning Committee's suggestion that we go to a one paper rule; and to reevaluate the reduction in the roundtable cap. All other guidelines were approved.
There was substantial discussion about the Related Groups proposal. David Rayside worried that the new rules devalued related group participation. The timing also was said to be a problem. He said that groups do not have much time to gather signatures due to rapid implementation, and suggested a trial period followed by a reevaluation of the policy. Gina Sapiro expressed concern that Related Groups might die but acknowledged the pressure on room space and wondered why some of these groups were not part of pertinent Organized Sections. Christine Sierra asked if APSA knew how many Related Groups would meet the standards. Rob Hauck answered that so far one related group has withdrawn. Christine then asked if the rules were therefore simply a "bothersome hurdle." Hauck, on behalf of the Annual meeting Committee, iterated that the intent of the rule is not to end Related Groups. The Council asked for a report on the effects of the rule in April.
Keeping poster presentations open longer was also discussed.
Council Action: The Administrative Committee's motion endorsing the Annual Meeting Committee recommendations with the exception of the roundtable cap and a needed exclusion for non-membership-based Related Groups such as the New York Times. Unanimously approved.
9. Agenda for APSA business meeting
The Council approved the Agenda for the annual APSA Business Meeting for 2000.
10. Eligibility for Dissertation Awards
The Endowments Committee proposed new eligibility guidelines for nominations for dissertation awards.
A. Nominations for dissertation awards are to be limited to members of the Association's Departmental Services Program; each member may nominate one candidate for each award.
B. Nominations can come from multiple units within an institution provide they too are DSP members.
C. International departments (upon satisfying the first two requirements) may submit nominations, but the work of the awards committees will be conducted in English.
Council Action: The Council approved the eligibility guidelines.
11. Council approval of new organized section
Council Action: The Council approved the formation of a new Organized Section on Comparative Democratization.
12. New Business:
A. Sven Steinmo raised the issue of the construction of the Council. He questioned whether a three- year term might not be better and whether the Council might not rotate its spring meeting among all the regional associations.
George Marcus observed that half of the Council is new each year which enables little continuity or familiarity with issues. Keohane responded that if terms were extended to three years, participation in Association governance would be cut by 50% unless the size of the Council were expanded,.
B. Atul Kohli suggested that steps be taken toward democratizing the Association's elections; representation should not be allowed to trump elections. Keohane observed that the American Economics Association has competitive elections for its two vice-presidencies but not for the office of president. Cynthia McClintock reported that the Latin American Studies Association relies on competitive elections. Keller added that the present system of slate-making can be effective provided that there is a credible commitment to the importance of diversity in the profession's leadership.
C. Guillermo O'Donnell questioned whether the timing of the Annual Meeting should be reconsidered.
D. Maurice Woodard's retirement from APSA following 25 years of service was warmly acknowledged by the Council.
E. Helen Milner and Ira Katznelson thanked the APSA staff and section chairs for their contributions to the success of the 2000 meeting.