Constitution | Officers

Sunday, 31 October 2004, 8:30 – 10:15 a.m.
Le Baron Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Note: The following is a summary of the discussions held at the APT Business Meeting after the 2004 conference at Colorado College. For a pdf copy of the Business Meeting Agenda and the Constitution draft that was distributed before the meeting, click here.

In attendance:

Corey Abel, Metro State College Denver
Elsa Dias, Pikes Peak Community College
Beverly A. Gaddy, University of Pittsburgh at Greenburg
Steven Gerenscer, Indiana University South Bend
Simona Goi, Calvin College
Johnny Goldfinger, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis
Edward J. Harpham, University of Texas at Dallas
Michael Rabinder James, Bucknell University
Jeffrey Alan Johnson, Cameron University
Victoria A. Kamsler, Princeton University & Institute for Advanced Study
Bettina Koch, University of Oldenberg
Kirstie M. McClure, University of California, Los Angeles
Amy R. McCready, Bucknell University
Dennis McEnnerney, Colorado College (co-chair)
Patrick F. McKinley, Morningside College
Jeffrey Minson, Griffith University
Andrew R. Murphy, Christ College, Valparaiso University (co-chair)
Peter A. Petrakis, Southeastern Louisiana University
Andrew Rehfeld, Washington University in St. Louis
Dan Sabia, University of South Carolina
Andrew J. Seligsohn, Hartwick College
William Paul Simmons, Arizona State University West
Gregory Streich, Central Missouri State University
Peter Stone, Stanford University
Darren Walhof, Grand Valley State University
Ed Wingenbach, University of Redlands

Discussion:

1. After the meeting was called to order by Andrew Murphy and Dennis McEnnerney, Andrew presented for discussion a draft constitution for the Association for Political Theory. The following summarizes the ensuring discussion.
   
   
   • Andrew Rehfeld moved that the draft constitution be adopted, and Simona Goi seconded his motion. Discussion of the draft began.
     
     
   • The provision in section 2 of Article I stating that the “Association shall … promote the study of political theory and political philosophy in North America” was questioned. Participants from universities outside of North America asked whether this provision would exclude them.

   Dennis McEnnerney noted that, at the founding of the Association, one of APT’s central aims had been to create opportunities for scholarly interaction in North America, though not exclusively by North Americans. He noted that the Conference for the Study of Political Thought was an international organization, which tended to provide venues for relatively distinguished scholars from major research universities from across the world to present their work. In most cases, CSPT conference presentations appear to be by invitation only. APT, in contrast, was designed to be open to scholars at all ranks, from all types of institutions, and at all stages of an academic career. Consequently, the purpose of the “in North America” provision was to tie the Association to the creation of scholarly opportunities for interaction by all sorts of scholars at locations in North America. Scholars from outside of North America have always been welcomed as members and participants, and this provision would not change that welcoming stance.

   After some discussion among the meeting attendees, Kirstie McClure moved that the clause be kept in Article I, but that Article II, on membership, be amended to state that membership would be open to scholars “from all disciplines and all countries.” Kirstie’s amendment was adopted.
   
   

• Andrew Murphy then explained the provisions of Article III, concerning officers and committees.

  Andy noted that section two in the draft erroneously stated that the Governance Committee shall consist of “four officers and three at-large members.” This line and the follow ones should have said “the three directly-elected officers and three at-large members, as well as the Program Committee representative [see below III.5]. Terms of all elected members shall typically be staggered. The terms of all members (except the Program Committee representative) shall be three years…” The reason for this change was a decision to add a representative to the Governance Committee elected by the previous year’s Program Committee for a one-year term. This provision, which was added to section 5, has two purposes: 1) to link the two main committees formally; and 2) to give the Governance Committee an uneven number of members, thereby minimizing the possibility of tie votes.

  Once this issue was clarified, discussion turned to the nominations procedures outlined in section 4. Andy suggested removing specific dates for announcing elections (April in the draft), and substituting “five months prior to the next scheduled business meeting.” Andy thought that the substitute provision should be added in case the conference ended up being held at some point other than the early fall. Similarly, Andy proposed changing the date at which nominations would be proposed to the membership from May to four months prior to the business meeting.

  Discussion then ensued concerning the nomination procedure outlined in the draft. The draft called for the Governance Committee to nominate at least one candidate for each opening. Questions arose as to whether the Governance Committee should nominate a single slate, or whether the Committee should work to ensure competitive elections. It was moved that the nominations procedure be altered to state the Governance Committee “shall have the responsibility of nominating at least two candidates” for each open position. This motion was accepted by the attendees.
  
  

• The next topic discussed was the provision in section 5 stating that the Program Committee would elect one of its members to the Governance Committee for a one-year term. Section 5 states that no continuing Program Committee member could be elected to the Governance Committee for more than three consecutive terms. A question was raised as to whether someone elected in this manner would be eligible to be elected as an at-large member of the Governance Committee for a three-year term, after serving as a Program Committee representative. It was decided that service as a Program Committee member would not limit the terms one could serve as a Governance Committee member.
  
  
• Section 9, concerning the Program Committee, was discussed next. The draft limited service on the Program Committee to no more than two consecutive terms. Some argued that the limitation should be eliminated, since it is not always easy to find volunteers to serve on program committees. Others argued that it was important to circulate people through the Committee so as to keep the Association open to diverse approaches and groups. The decision was made to eliminate the entire provision, though it was noted that the Executive Co-Directors, who will appoint Program Committee members, should attempt to circulate new members through the Committee when possible.
  
  
• Finally, discussion turned to Article IV, concerning amendments. Andy Murphy noted that the April 1st date included in section 1 needed to be changed to “five months prior to the next scheduled business meeting,” the May 1st date in Section 2 needed to be changed to “four months prior,” so as to be consistent with the changes made in section 4 of Article III.

  Discussion then arose concerning the process for amendments by petition. The draft originally required that the Governance Committee consider a petition for an amendment if signed by 25 or more members. Given the rapidly changing size of the membership, it was suggested that the required number of signatures be changed to “10% or more of the general membership.” This proposed change was accepted.

  In addition, the ability of the Governance Committee to refuse to present amendments by petition to the general membership for a vote was questioned. It was noted that such powers could leave minorities within the membership suspicious and hostile to Governance Committee. Since openness has been a central aim of the Association, it was proposed that all amendments by petition supported by 10% or more of the general membership be forwarded to the general membership and scheduled for a vote at the next business meeting, with the proviso that the Governance Committee be charged with the task of giving its recommendation to the general membership concerning any proposed amendments. In this manner, it was hoped that openness to the membership and governance experience would be balanced. This proposal was also accepted.
  
  

• At this point, Andrew Rehfeld moved to ratify the constitution as amended during the meeting. After a second was heard, the meeting voted unanimously to ratify the constitution, and Andrew Murphy and Dennis McEnnerney were instructed to work with the present Governance Committee to complete the revision and publication of the constitution as ratified at the business meeting.
  
  
2. After ratifying the new constitution, the meeting turned to a discussion of future conference sites. Dennis McEnnerney reported that there were several possibilities for 2005, including Tampa Florida; Charlottesville, Virginia; St. Louis, Missouri; Boston, Massachusetts; and South Bend, Indiana. In addition, some of these sites were possibilities for future years, as were Pomona and Redlands, California.
   
   
   • Part of the resulting discussion focused on the criteria by which the Association ought to settle on conference sites. It was agreed that mid-October through early November was a good time to hold a conference.

     Andrew Murphy suggested that it would be good to establish a general principle of rotation through regions, so that members in all parts of country could expect to have a conference come to their area once every so many years.

     Simona Goi reported that Joshua Dienstag offered the University of Virginia as a potential site for conference. However, she related that he was concerned about the possibility of having to hold the conference in early November, because October remains high tourist season in Charlottesville, so hotel room rates would likely be high in October and it is possible rooms would not be available at all.

     At this point, some attendees remarked that it would be a good principle, if possible, to hold conferences in cities with major airports. Andrew Rehfeld noted that St. Louis would be a possibility and that one attraction of the city would be its good air connections. Michael James also argued that the Association should aim for cities with major airports since members coming from schools located in small towns often have to make multiple connections to get to other smaller towns.

     Johnny Goldfinger suggested, in contrast, that there were some advantages to having conventions in smaller towns or cities without great tourist appeal, since such locations encourage attendees to focus on the conference.
     
     

   • Dennis McEnnerney noted that it is a good idea to keep in mind the availability of good air connections, moderate hotel rates, and attractive but not too attractive locales, while also trying to circulate the conference around the country. However, he said that a lot depends upon the availability of host institutions and faculty. The Association was lucky to have Calvin and Colorado willing to host a conference no or a limited track record, since there was some degree of risk involved in committing to a conference, signing agreements with hotels, and the like. Where we go in the future will have to be, he said, negotiated with the Governance and Program Committees, based on trade-offs among a variety of factors such those just noted.
     
     
3. The next item on the agenda was seeking volunteers or nominations for the Program Committee. Dennis noted that he had co-chaired the Committee for two years and that, while willing to serve on the Committee next year, he preferred not to be its chair. Ed Wingenbach, who co-chaired this year’s Committee, volunteered to serve as chair for the 2005 conference. Greg Streich, also on the current Committee, agreed to serve another year. Seven other attendees volunteered to serve on the Committee. Ed and Dennis agreed to work from the list to begin forming a committee, which would be announced shortly after the conference. Amy McCready suggested that when the Committee is formed that the chairs think about ways to organize the work of the Committee more efficiently.
   
   
4. At this point, the meeting turned to evaluation of the conference, particularly the pre-circulation and archiving requirements. Dennis reported that the written comments received almost universally supported both the pre-circulation and archiving requirements. Meeting attendees agreed strongly that both requirements worked well and should be continued. More specific discussion followed on these topics:
   
   
   • Should attendees be allowed to post papers calling on readers “not to cite without permission of the author”? Ted Harpham argued that such caveats should not be allowed. In his view, authors should stand by their work, even if they later revise their ideas. Ted argued that such a requirement would force individuals to take responsibility for preparing the best work possible. Others argued against this position, saying that it is good to be able to explore ideas and present works in progress without having to see one’s tentative ideas cited and criticized elsewhere. In the end, it was agreed that members should continue to be allowed add such caveats to their papers, if they wish.
     
     
   • Should papers be archived on the APT site? It was agreed that archiving the papers was a good idea, since they would be available to members who did not attend the conference, and that it was a good idea to archive them on the APT website, rather than working with the APSA’s Political Research On-Line project (PROL), was a good idea. Accessing the papers was relatively easy, and Dennis was generally able to get the papers up on the site in a timely manner. Since the site was functioning well, it was agreed to leave the papers on the site. In moving the papers to the PROL site, as suggested by the APSA, APT would lose control over access to the papers. As it stands, the paper archive is only available to members, rather than to a large world audience, and it was agreed that this situation was preferable.
     
     
   • Should participants be able to remove their papers from the website? Because a few attendees were nervous about having their unpublished works available on the website, it was agreed that attendees would be given the option of removing their papers and substituting abstracts one month after the conference. Dennis agreed to alert all attendees of this option.
     
     
   • A number of other topics were briefly discussed, including the length of papers and the size of the conference. It was agreed that holding the next conference to approximately the same size as this one (just over 120 participants) was a good idea.
     
     
5. Dennis McEnnerney then mentioned that some members have wondered whether APT might consider founding a journal or publishing a proceedings. It was agreed that such actions were worth thinking about in the future but that, for the present, they would be premature.

Based on notes by Dennis McEnnerney, with editing from attending members of the Governance Committee.

First posted: 1 March 2005. Reformatted: 26 May 2009.