Constitution | Officers

23 October 2005
Second Floor Conference Room, Sheraton Clayton Plaza
St. Louis, Missouri

Prepared by Johnny Goldfinger, APT Secretary-Treasurer
Revised 6 December 2005

Members present:

Pat Boling, Purdue Univeristy
Lisa Ellis, Texas A&M University
Amitai Etzioni, The George Washington University
Beverly Gaddy, University of Pittsburgh at Greenburg
Steven Gerencser, Indiana University South Bend
Simona Goi, Calvin College
Johnny Goldfinger, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis
Emily Hauptmann, Western Michigan University
Breena Holland, Lehigh University
Jeff Isaac, Indiana University Bloomington
Howard Lubert, James Madison University
Liz Markovits, St. Louis University
Dennis McEnnerney, The Colorado College
Andrew Murphy, Christ College, Valparaiso University
Cary Nederman, Texas A&M University
Andrew Rehfeld, Washington University in St. Louis
Dan Sabia, University of South Carolina
Melissa Schwartzberg, The George Washington University
Bill Simmons, Arizona State University West
Peter Stone, Stanford University
Darren Walhof, Grand Valley State University
Ed Wingenbach, University of Redlands

Annual Business Meeting of the Association for Political Theory

The annual business meeting of the Association for Political Theory was called to order by Dennis McEnnerney and Andrew Murphy at 8:05 a.m. Andrew Murphy, chair of the Governance Committee, outlined the agenda, which included the election of APT officers, an update on sites for future conferences, new business, and an open discussion and evaluation of the 2005 APT conference.

McEnnerney suggested that ballots for the election of officers be distributed immediately to give any attendees who had to leave early an opportunity to vote. It was also suggested that ballots be accepted until 8:30 a.m. to give any late comers a chance to vote. There were no objections from the floor, so the ballots were handed out to the attendees (please see the attached sample ballot). Andrew Murphy, who did not appear on the ballot, was assigned the task of counting the votes.

The candidates for the two co-director positions were Emily Hauptmann, Dennis McEnnerney, and Robert Martin. The candidates for secretary-treasurer were Johnny Goldfinger and Liz Markovits. The candidates for the three Governance Committee positions were Patrick Deneen, Simona Goi, Kevin Gray, Cary Nederman, William Riggs, Dan Sabia, Darren Walhof, and Ed Wingenbach.

While the votes were being tallied, McEnnerney provided an update on the efforts to find future conference sites. He announced that Indiana University-Bloomington is interested in hosting the APT conference next year. However, financial arrangements have to be settled before a commitment can be made. A consortium of Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore Colleges is exploring the possibility of hosting the conference in 2007. Notre Dame has already committed to hosting the conference in 2008. Finally, Texas A&M expressed an interest in bringing the conference to its campus. McEnnerney noted that, as it currently stands, the conference will be held in Indiana for two of the next three years. Consequently, to achieve greater geographical diversity, it might be better to have Texas A&M host the conference in 2008 and move the date for Notre Dame to 2009.

At the end of the presentation on future conference sites, the results of the election were announced. Emily Hauptmann and Dennis McEnnerney were elected as co-directors. Johnny Goldfinger was elected as secretary-treasurer. Simona Goi won the plurality of votes for the Governance Committee. However, there was a three way tie for the other two seats between Dan Sabia, Darren Walhof, and Ed Wingenbach. Dan Sabia offered to withdraw to break the tie. There were no objections, so Walhof and Wingenbach were declared the winners of the remaining two Governance Committee seats. The three, two, and one year terms on the committee were filled by Goi, Wingenbach, and Walhof respectively.

After the results were announced, the discussion turned to the issue of incorporating the APT. Wingenbach asked about progress in securing a non-profit status for the Association. McEnnerney responded that he is exploring the possibility of incorporating as a non-profit organization in Colorado. There is a group available to assist nonprofit organizations with incorporation. There is also an attorney at Colorado College who would be helpful. The estimated cost of incorporation will be approximately $3000.

McEnnerney said incorporation will be the first priority for the coming year. Incorporation will be particularly valuable because it will give the APT more financial independence. The APT will be able to open its own checking account after it incorporates. Currently, the organization has approximately $8000. This year it is expected to make a profit of around $1500 from the conference fees. Once the APT opens its own account, finances will be easier to manage. For the previous conferences, the host institution has signed the contracts with the hotels and taken the financial risks. In the future, the APT will be able to sign these contracts.

Simona Goi asked if some of APT’s money can be used to hire a student to help manage the organization’s website. McEnnerney responded that there is a very good web consultant at SUNY-Oneonta, which is the host institution for the APT website. However, the website needs to be moved. McEnnerney is currently talking with the Dean at Colorado College about hosting the website. He is not sure, however, about the status or cost of the technical support at Colorado College. If necessary, the APT may be able to find a host at another school.

Andrew Murphy suggested that the conversation turn to a more general discussion about the just concluded 2005 conference. Steven Gerencser asked if more could be said about the role APT could play in professional development. He mentioned the possibility of starting a syllabi collection, helping members identify potential letter writers for tenure files, and including professional development workshops at the conference. Emily Hauptmann noted that seven or eight people attended a meeting Friday afternoon to discuss how the APT could facilitate professional development. She will send out an e-mail summarizing the discussion. Gerencser also inquired about the ratio of conference attendance to APT membership. McEnnerney replied that there were approximately 120 conference attendees and 400 members of the APT.

Andrew Rehfeld noted that he likes the idea of a plenary or keynote session. However, having just one as opposed to two concurrent sessions would be better because it will bring all the conference attendees together. Rehfeld also raised the possibility of having a best conference paper award and a lifetime achievement award. Goi inquired about switching the plenary sessions to Friday afternoon and having the group dinner on Saturday. Rehfeld observed that conference attendees were usually around on Friday, but tended to cut out on Saturday evening. Cary Nederman asked if this behavior was a function of the conference location. Another participant suggested that the keynote session could be done in conjunction with lunch or dinner.

Liz Markovits asked if the term “conference” really gives those unfamiliar with the APT meeting the right impression since it functions as more of a workshop. The term “conference” may give people the wrong idea. Lisa Ellis inquired about how people could be encouraged to use the archive. Rehfeld suggested that paper presenters provide extended abstracts. McEnnerney responded that full page abstracts can be posted on the website.

Gerencser raised a question about the number of roundtables at the conference. Ed Wingenbach replied that there were two intended roundtables and two panels that turned into roundtables because of circumstances. Darren Walhof wondered if there needed to be fewer panels on Saturday morning. Wingenbach noted that, if there are fewer panels, then there will be fewer participants overall. Goi stated that the catering was impeccable, but coffee was needed after lunch. Rehfeld suggested that food and coffee could be used to draw people to early morning panels. Andrew Murphy suggested that breakfast could be served in the panel rooms to get people to attend: “Put bagels, cream cheese, and coffee in each panel room instead of in the lobby and that will help our early morning attendance problem!” Walhof observed that the central gathering space at the conference is a valuable part of the experience and future sites need to be conscious of its importance.

Gerencser inquired about the posting of papers on the APT website. McEnnerney responded that, other than the server crashing, it went great. Gerencser then asked about noncompliance by the paper presenters. McEnnerney said all but two presenters posted their papers in the archive. Wingenbach noted that 16 people originally on the program dropped out. Eight to ten of the withdrawals came in the last two weeks. McEnnerney added that all the people from Louisiana withdrew from the conference [following the hurricane]. A handful of others dropped out earlier and seemed to have reasonable excuses. The rest dropped out at the last minute. Wingenbach offered that the participation rate for the APT conference is better than most other conferences.

McEnnerney stated that the typical panel starts with four papers, but some people drop out. Consequently, there are panels with three or fewer papers. This year there was even a panel with only one paper. Ellis asked if this problem can be addressed by starting with five papers on each panel. Wingenbach said that he tried to deal with the problem by moving papers around to balance panel participation. Ellis suggested that the number of papers could be expanded because the quality was so high. Gerencser asked if five would be too many papers. Dan Sabia warned that five papers should not be assigned to each panel because, in some cases, there would be no withdrawals. Goi added that the two hour panels with four papers have been great and the number of papers should not be expanded.

McEnnerney noted that, this year there seemed to be better compliance with the 12 minute time limit by both paper presenters and discussants. Still, some people did not know how to give 12 minute papers. Murphy proposed that tips for paper presentation be included on the website. Markovits asked if there should be suggested lengths for papers. Murphy replied that it might not be advisable to specify lengths because people use conference papers for many different purposes.

Rehfeld raised the possibility of switching the format for panels. Discussants could begin by summarizing and critiquing the papers, followed by five minute responses from the authors. In addition, two senior scholars could serve as discussants for each panel. Goi asked if this or any other format should be required. Sabia expressed a concern that the quality of the comments might suffer if discussants were overburdened with responsibilities. Wingenbach raised the possibility of making multiple formats an option for panels. Rehfeld offered that, given his experience organizing panels for the MPSA, he would expect people to take the laziest option. The APT needs to consider switching formats to take a stand against the mindless tedium of many panels.

Cary Nederman asked how the new panel format might affect people who have not read the papers. Will it shut off participation? Walhof noted that putting the discussant first would be very helpful. McEnnerney suggested that there be a call for discussants who are willing to take on the added responsibility of presenting and critiquing the papers. An attendee observed that similar formats are used in other disciplines. Maybe the APT should try it out in a half-dozen panels? Bill Simmons expressed support for allowing panels choose their formats. Discussants can negotiate with the paper presenters about what format to use for their panels. Goi broached the possibility of having two deadlines, the first to send a five a page abstract and the second to send the full paper. This procedure would allow discussants an opportunity to get started earlier on the papers. Simmons added that the relevant paper proposals should be forwarded to the discussants.

Jeff Isaac stated that this year was his first time attending the APT conference and he thought it was much better than the APSA and the regional political science meetings. He added that, although it is valuable to talk about improvements, it should be kept in mind that the conference was still really good. As a cautionary note, maybe trying to improve the APT conference is not worth the effort.

Amitai Etzioni remarked that he was very impressed with the discussion and spirit of the group. He asked if the APT wanted more members. An announcement for the APT could be included in the Communitarian newsletter, which would increase membership. In response, McEnnerney raised the question of how big the APT should get. Should it get bigger or stay relatively small as it is? He expressed a preference for getting more philosophers involved. Goi asked how much has the APT grown? McEnnerney replied that the conference was still about the same size as the first conference at Calvin College. Last year there were 131 participants. This year there were 120. The size of the Association’s membership, however, has doubled.

Gerencser asked a question about who the APT is trying to serve. More specifically, what institutions is it trying to serve? He noted that his understanding is that the purpose of the APT is, in part, to support regional and state institutions. Lisa Ellis added that the mix of institutional affiliations is important. Walhof observed that the mix of affiliations at the conference is up to the Program Committee and is not necessarily an issue of membership.

Wingenbach stated that the conference does not need to expand to accommodate a greater demand for participation. As long as chairs and discussants need to be recruited there are opportunities for people to participate if they really want to do so. It is better for the spirit of the conference to stay small and grow very slowly. The conference needs to grow properly, not quickly. He agreed with Isaac that the conference should not be micromanaged. The primary concern should be maintaining its camaraderie and spirit. Markovits voiced her support for giving panelists format options. McEnnerney noted that it is not hard to send paper proposals to chairs and discussants so they will get the information well in advance.

McEnnerney observed that the current size of the conference works well for being hosted on college campuses. It cannot get any larger without moving to hotels. Having the conference at hotels will significantly increase the expenses for the APT and increase costs for the participants. McEnnerney expressed a concern for keeping the conference relatively inexpensive. If the conference grows, then so will the fees necessary to manage it. Currently, it is managed voluntarily. He is pleased with the current growth in membership and the increase in the number of paper proposals, although the latter means more work for the Program Committee.

Melissa Schwartzberg remarked that there may be a problem of hierarchy at panels if more senior faculty are added. She is worried about how senior scholars might affect the spirit of the conference. Also, as the conference grows, the Program Committee may feel more and more pressure from seniors to add them to panels. Peter Stone added that more concurrent panels will make it harder to maintain collegiality among the participants.

Wingenbach noted that, for now, the scheduled conference sites dictate that it remain at the current size. Etzioni asked why a college campus cannot accommodate a larger program, and he offered to host a conference at George Washington University if the Association ever needed a venue. Goi observed that Calvin College could not accommodate 200 to 300 participants. Isaac concurred about the difficulties of hosting a larger group of people on campus. Rehfeld added that the biggest factor is dinner accommodations. Etzioni agreed that dinner accommodations would be a problem, and noted that George Washington University could always offer the Association space for meetings, but it could not underwrite the meals and receptions the Association typically offers.

McEnnerney raised the issue of extending membership to undergraduates. At present, the APT does not admit undergraduates as full members, in part, because of access to the archive. When undergraduates apply for membership, he sends them a form letter that the Association is currently thinking about how to handle the situation. Ellis commented that this policy sounds good as it is. McEnnerney asked if the APT should consider sponsoring undergraduate panels or a separate undergraduate conference. An attendee queried who is going to do the work? Rehfeld suggested allowing undergraduate membership with faculty sponsorship. They can be allowed to read the archive, but not participate at the conferences. Goi stated that the APT should not go beyond how it now deals with undergraduates. Wingenbach noted that McEnnerney currently makes decisions about all membership applications. Murphy recommended that the Governance Committee come up with any necessary bylaws to handle the issue.

McEnnerney asked if there was any other business. There was no response from the floor, so the meeting adjourned at 9:36 a.m.