Constitution | Officers
BUSINESS MEETING -- 2003 DETAILED MINUTES
Sunday, 19 October 2003
Note: The following is a summary of topics discussed during the business meeting at the Inaugural Conference of the Association for Political Theory. We did not keep precise notes of the discussion, so the following summary may be a somewhat impressionistic reconstruction. At points, it may be more topical than chronological. If you attended the meeting and see any misstatements or omission, please send your suggested revisions to Dennis McEnnerney at apt@coloradocollege.edu.
(Note: This list may be incomplete.)
M. Fevzi Bilgin, University of Pittsburgh
Roger Berkowitz, Amherst College
Andrew Franz, Independent Scholar
Beverly Gaddy, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg
Simona Goi, Calvin College*
Johnny Goldfinger, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Edmund J. Harpham, University of Texas at Dallas
Emily Hauptmann, Western Michigan University*
Michael James, Bucknell University
Jeff Langan, University of Notre Dame
Randy LeBlanc, University of Texas at Tyler*
Rob Martin, Hamilton College
Amy McCready, Bucknell University
Dennis McEnnerney, State University of New York, Oneonta*
J. Henry Messinger, University of New Mexico
Andrew Murphy, Christ College, Valparaiso University*
John Nelson, University of Iowa
Steve On, University of California, Los Angeles
Peter Stone, Stanford University
Vlad Suchan, University of Maine at Fort Kent
David Thunder, University of Notre Dame
Darren Walhof, Grand Valley State University
Ed Wingenbach, University of Redlands*
Elizabeth Wingrove, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor*
*Indicates Program Committee members1. Assessment of conference - how did it go?
We began the meeting with a decision to forgo assessment of the conference in order to save time. The consensus seemed to be that the conference went very well, though subsequent discussion and the written comments from attendees made clear that there would be room for improvement in a number of areas at any future conferences.
2. Do we want to hold another conference? If yes, next year? When and where? Who would be willing to serve on the Program Committee?
The meeting turned directly to the question of holding another conference. We decided to hold a conference next year, and we agreed that October was a good time to hold a conference. We also agreed to forgo discussion of whether to hold an annual or biennial meeting until after a second conference, though the sense of the business meeting seemed to lean toward an annual conference.
We then turned to discussion of the format and schedule for a second conference. We considered the likelihood, given the success of the inaugural conference, that we might have a substantial increase in paper and panel proposals. Consequently, we thought that we might need to expand the size, alter the format of, and possibly lengthen the conference. We considered the format first, and concluded that we liked holding no more than four concurrent panels, as we did at this conference. So, we concurred that the only way to expand the size of the conference would be to add more sessions.
We considered alternative means of adding sessions: starting on Thursday; starting on Friday morning; adding more sessions on Friday or Saturday; or holding sessions on Sunday morning. We agreed quickly that we preferred limiting sessions to Friday and Saturday, so that the overall length of the conference was not extended greatly. Some mentioned that the present Friday-Saturday format made it relatively easy to attend all sessions, and that a longer conference might lead attendees to tire and skip sessions. Having agreed to keep the Friday-Saturday format, we moved onto considering whether to start on Friday morning. An earlier start would allow time during the conference for socializing outside of and in between sessions. However, starting earlier on Friday would have the disadvantage of requiring attendees to arrive Thursday night, thereby increasing the cost of the conference, or the likelihood of participants missing the initial sessions. We agreed that starting on Friday around noon would preferable.
Consequently, we charged a new program committee with designing a conference that either followed the format of this year’s conference (two sessions on Friday and three on Saturday – with a maximum of about 120 participants, assuming four papers per panel) or added a sixth session, probably on Saturday (leading to a maximum of 148 participants).
We discussed some problems with the current format of the sessions. Some suggested that we move to smaller panels – either to three papers on two-hour panels or to shorter, two-paper panels. Program Committee members pointed out pragmatic problems with such alternatives, attractive as they might be: namely, that, because 10-15% of the people who confirm their intention to participate drop out – many at the last minute – smaller panels are much more likely to be cancelled or require extensive reorganization. The four-paper, two-hour sessions do work reasonably well if participants limit their presentations. If one participant were to withdraw from a four-paper panel, the panel would generally not be affected negatively; and if two panelists were to drop out (which did happen in one case this year), the Program Committee has a good chance of being able to transfer a paper from a four-paper panel to the two-paper panel. By contrast, if the panels were to begin with only two papers, the organizational problems the Program Committee would face are greatly increased. So, we concluded that while smaller sessions have their attractions, the organizational problems they present make smaller sessions impractical.
We agreed that one of the best features of this year’s conference was the socializing that took place after and outside of the formal sessions, and that the common dinner and lunch were successful at getting people to mix and to meet one another. Some argued, however, that the coffee breaks were too short – saying either that conversation was cut off or that panels after coffee breaks were started late. There was common agreement that we should try to schedule longer coffee breaks in order to encourage more extended discussion and mingling between sessions, though we recognized that this could prove difficult, especially if a sixth session were to be added on Saturday.
The problem of late submission of papers to chairs and discussants was also discussed, with some saying that they thought too many papers were weak or incomplete. We discussed what might be done to encourage participants to do their best work and to submit it on time. One suggestion was trying to recruit more prominent discussants and chairs so as to increase the “embarrassment factor” for people who submit late or incomplete work. Some suggested highlighting norms on paper length and expected submission dates from the beginning, in the call for papers. Finally, we discussed the possibility of setting a late August deadline for the submission of papers, with possible removal from the program for failure to meet that deadline. We agreed to defer decisions about such possibilities to a new program committee. Program Committee members noted that recruiting good discussants was one of the most difficult and time-consuming tasks involved in developing the program.
There was also some discussion of alternate formats for presentation and organization of individual panels. Some thought that discussion at the panels could be increased if chairs were given the task of presenting the papers, followed by comments from a discussant. The panelists then would respond last. Some said they had seen this method used with success, while others said they had seen unsuccessful uses of this presentation method. It was also suggested that some paper-givers might object to such innovative formats and that this approach may require too much from chairs or discussants. We decided to leave consideration of alternative formats to a new program committee and, perhaps, to individual panel members.
We discussed some alternatives for recruiting and putting together panels. One possibility mentioned was the method used the eighteenth-century studies association, which puts out a call for specific panel topics first. The program committee then approves a list of topics, which it issues in a second call for papers, charging the person who presented the suggested topic with the task of choosing among paper proposals submitted in response to the second call, and then serving as chair of the panel. Individual paper proposals are sent to the respective panel chairs. Once they put together their panels, any proposals not taken go into a common pool of proposals, along with any other proposals received, and the program committee then puts together a number of additional panels. The advantage of this process is that the work of forming panels is dispersed. However, the disadvantage is that this procedure makes it possible for chairs to create panels made up of their friends and students only, possibly limiting the openness and mixing that have been goals of APT. A number of people mentioned that they liked the way people who did not know one another and may not have come into contact with one another ended up on panels together at this year’s APT conference. So, this suggestion was tabled, and left for further discussion on the part of the new program committee. A suggestion was made that perhaps some portion of the program might follow this mode of organization, or might adapt the presentation format discussed earlier.
Finally, along these lines, we discussed the usefulness of encouraging “common experiences” for attendees. In addition to common meals, some thought it would be useful to have plenary sessions, or some other kind of common experience, such as “Author-Meets-Critics” sessions. Some discussion ensued about how to organize plenary sessions. Problems concerning invited speakers were mentioned, including the possibility of privileging one approach to political theory over others, and the potential expenses involved in getting leading writers to appear. Some said that they liked the fact that the conference did not have plenary speakers because the result was a more egalitarian experience than is often the case at conferences.
Dennis McEnnerney mentioned that the Program Committee had initially planned one plenary roundtable on publishing in political theory for late Saturday. The advantage of this kind of session would be that it could interest most attendees without necessarily privileging any one approach, and didn’t necessarily require bringing “big names” or paying substantial honoraria. Unfortunately, he said that he had begun organizing the session too late, and potential participants, while expressing interest, found themselves unable to commit to the session. He said that he thought a session along these lines could be organized for the next conference.
Another possibility mentioned was holding sessions designed to bring graduate students into contact with faculty more, perhaps in the form of mentoring sessions on the profession. One possibility suggested was a session on how to give papers at professional meetings.
A plenary session or special common event at the opening of a conference was also discussed. This sort of event could encourage people to arrive for the start of the conference, and then provide a good starting point for informal discussions over the course of the conference, especially among people who don’t know each well.
Finally, a suggestion was given for room layout. Because audiences, while more substantial than at most conferences, were not huge, it was suggested that discussion could be enhanced if chairs were set out in a semi-circular arrangement, rather than in rows. Someone noted that, in fact, at most panels, people tended to sit in a kind of semicircle anyway, around the edges of the rooms.
All of these points were noted, and referred to the new program committee for consideration.
The meeting discussed specific issues concerning a second conference, including possible locations for conferences and the need to appoint a new program committee.
On locations, Dennis McEnnerney summarized his recent communications with Tim Fuller of The Colorado College. Tim Fuller has indicated strong tentative interest in hosting a second conference at Colorado College at the end of next October. Dennis explained that the college has a variety of facilities at which conference events could be staged, including several large Victorian houses set up for meetings and events, as well as some larger modern buildings on campus. Although none of these facilities is likely to match the splendor and convenience of Calvin’s Prince Conference Center, Colorado College is experienced at hosting conferences and does have good facilities for panels, common meals, and receptions. Dennis wasn’t sure whether there would be space for lodging conferees on campus, but he said that there are a number of hotels quite near the campus, including one large hotel set up for conferences and a number of smaller less expensive ones. He was certain that reasonable accommodations could be worked out, though the details could not be clarified until we decided how many people and panels we wanted to have. He said that after this meeting, he would communicate the decisions made at the business meeting to Tim Fuller, and then begin negotiations that are more serious, if possible.
Colorado College has several advantages, he noted. First, the location is in the West. A number of people mentioned that it would be good to move the conference among the various regions of the country. Some said that friends on the West Coast would be more likely to attend a conference in Colorado. At the same time, Dennis noted that the great distances in the West would make it almost impossible for many people from neighboring states to drive in for the day, as a number did from Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana at this conference. Second, the city of Colorado Springs is quite pretty, and the college is within walking distance of the old downtown, where there are many restaurants, bars, and shops. So, the conference location would not be isolated. Third, Colorado Springs has its own airport, with service from all the major airlines, and the Denver airport is only about a 70-90 minute drive away. So there should be plenty of ways for conferees to reach the area. In addition, Colorado is likely to be beautiful at the end of October. Finally, Colorado College operates on the block plan, which means that students take one course at a time for 3 ½ weeks, followed by a Thursday through Sunday break. If the conference were to be hosted by Colorado College, they would want to do it during the second block break, at the end of October 2004. As a result, many college facilities could be open for our use, since there are no classes in session and many students leave campus for the break.
If we were to go to Colorado College, the conference would likely be held on Thursday through Sunday, 29-31 October 2004.
The meeting authorized Dennis to pursue discussions with Tim Fuller. He was also charged with obtaining specific answers to two questions: exactly what kinds of facilities would available for the meetings, and what kinds of lodging choices would participants have?
We discussed other possible sites, both as back-ups, should negotiations with Colorado College fall through, and as potential third or even fourth conference locations. Jeff Langan of Notre Dame said that Notre Dame has excellent conference facilities and would likely be willing to host an APT conference. Emily Hauptmann also said that Peter Levine of National-Louis University, who could not attend the business meeting, had told her that National-Louis would also be interested in hosting an APT conference at their downtown Chicago campus. We agreed to pursue discussions with both, though more as back-ups and future possibilities. We decided that a conference in the West would be preferable to second conference in the Midwest. Also, it was suggested that a small city, like Colorado Springs, might be a better place to hold a second conference than a large city, like Chicago, would be. At this early stage in the Association’s development, we want to encourage people to spend as much time as possible meeting other participants, which would be facilitated by a smaller city without the diversions of large, diverse locales like Chicago.
The following people volunteered to serve on a new program committee:
Beverly Gaddy, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg
Simona Goi, Calvin College*
Johnny Goldfinger, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Michael James, Bucknell University
Randy LeBlanc, University of Texas at Tyler*
Elizabeth Markowits, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill*/**
Amy McCready, Bucknell University
Dennis McEnnerney, State University of New York, Oneonta*
Steve On, University of California, Los Angeles
Dan Sabia, University of South Carolina*/**
Greg Streich, Central Missouri State University**
Darren Walhof, Grand Valley State University
Ed Wingenbach, University of Redlands*
*Members of the current Program Committee
**Volunteers who could not attend the business meetingBy the time the volunteer list was sent around the room, several people had already left the meeting to catch planes or attend to other obligations, so we agreed to circulate information about the meeting to the general membership and to ask for additional volunteers. In addition, we also noted that some members of the current Program Committee could not attend the business meeting, so we wanted to give them a chance to volunteer to continue serving.
We also agreed to ask for any additional volunteer hosts for future conferences, since a number of interested people might not have been able to attend the business meeting.
3. Governance - Shall we appoint a committee to begin working on a more formal organization? If so, who wants to serve?
We briefly discussed the question of governance for APT. Emily Hauptmann and Dennis McEnnerney noted that APT has been run on a very informal basis up to now, with the two of them negotiating many matters amongst themselves, with participation and input from the Founding Committee and the Program Committee. A year or two ago, they had begun collecting constitutions and by-laws from similar organizations, and they started discussing with the Founding Committee how to begin developing a more formal and transparent organizational structure for the Association. However, it rapidly became clear that, since the future of APT was so open, it made more sense to postpone discussion about formal organization until the Association began to take a more definite shape. Informal operation, Emily noted, seemed to work very well, and probably could for a while more. But she and Dennis suggested that at some point APT needed, at the very least, to incorporate as a not-for-profit entity so that we could open a bank account. We were lucky this year that the Political Science Department at Calvin College agreed to act on our behalf in financial matters, but we cannot expect to rely on our host institutions in the future. Also, at some point, Emily and Dennis also will want to pass organizational responsibilities onto other members of the Association so that they can pursue other interests.
It was agreed that, for the moment, APT would continue to function informally, with Dennis and Emily negotiating Association business with program committee members (old and new). Meanwhile, a new Governance Committee would be formed to develop proposals for incorporation and for a more formal organization (including a constitution). The following agreed to begin forming and to serve on this committee:
Emily Hauptmann, Western Michigan University
Dennis McEnnerney, SUNY Oneonta
Andrew Murphy, Christ College, Valparaiso UniversityWe agreed that other members of APT would be encouraged to volunteer to serve on this committee, as well.
4. Relations with APSA and Foundations of Political Thought
There was brief discussion of the relationship between APT and the APSA, particularly the Foundations of Political Thought subsection. The development of APT was discussed at the Foundations business meeting this fall, and it was agreed there that Foundations should offer any support it could to APT. In particular, Foundations has time and space available to it to stage workshops before the opening day of the APSA convention. It would be easy then for APT so arrange to sponsor a meeting or workshop during that period. A similar arrangement exists for a feminist theory group associated with the Western Political Science Association, allowing their members to meet regularly at the start of the Western conference. So, if APT were interested, meetings arranged with Foundations might allow for people active in APT to be able to work together on various projects while attending the APSA convention. Such arrangements might be particularly advantageous to individuals who are active in APT and who would like to keep up relations with other APT members, but who cannot always attend APT conferences.
We discussed the APSA’s PROL (political research on line) project, and its potential usefulness to APT. The APSA is attempting to create a website on which all papers given at political science conferences worldwide are uploaded to a single, searchable database. This kind of database could make exchange of papers easier for conferees, while also making the papers available to people who could not attend the conference. Such databases can be especially useful to graduate students as a way to document their contributions to the discipline. Dennis McEnnerney explained that the Executive Director of the APSA, Michael Brintnall, had told him APT could gain access to PROL, but that it wasn’t clear to Dennis what sort of start-up fee might be involved. Dennis said he would check with Michael Brintnall about the specifics involved in having APT join the PROL database, and report back to the new program committee.
We also had some discussion of the possibility of constructing a simpler version of an on-line database for APT papers, as well as of the possibility of using a requirement to upload a paper by a certain date as one way to encourage timely submission of papers to discussants.
5. Suggestions for other APT activities and initiatives
There was some very brief discussion of the possibility of APT starting a journal, a proceeding of papers, or both. Time prevented much elaboration on these suggestions, but we agreed that the Association should explore such possibilities in the future.
-Dennis McEnnerney, 25 October 2003