S-USIH Meeting Minutes 11.17.2011
S-USIH Business Meeting. 11/17/11
2011 Annual Conference, CUNY, NY
Introduction to business meeting
Call to order
Suspend Robert’s Rules
Thanks to Ray Haberski for grubby work
Thanks to all of those in attendance for listening to the meeting
All actions will be done after the meeting by email
Thanks to the constitution committee for the constitution and bylaws
Paul Murphy and James Levy did most of the work. They submitted the constitution and bylaws to the group
Mike O’Connor revised the constitution that was ultimately approved
Budget approval in August
Difficult to do this without money—most was projected on the conference because those participating would join
$6000 project for the year
We will probably not have that much money to use
Budgeted for postage, bank account, incorporation, publications, website
$2000 for next year’s conference
CUNY had been generous in its relationship with us
Advertisement in a professional journal to announce the society’s birth
Affiliation with other historical societies
Requirements with most of these societies does not allow us to do this yet—years of existence prevent S-USIH from doing this.
Report from the treasurer
November 13: $2016.97 up to $3800
People have paid their dues who are participating in the conference
We have not spent much from the budget
Better enforcement before conference
We anticipate few people joining between now and May
Like to have 25-50 members who are not linked to the conference join
Most expenses were over-estimated
Revised the current budget
On track to meet all demands and maintain $1000 in the bank
Outstanding money held by CUNY
CUNY collected $3200 beyond what we spent on the conference
Sponsored reception this year
$4878 expenses on the conference
135 participants—150 registered
$9000 CUNY has taken in for the conference
$3500 above expenses to go to the society
make the conference self-sufficient
Put $3000 into a conference budget that would roll over from year to year
Mike will present formal proposals later
Budget initiatives already approved
Hope to have reserve of $1000
James asked about clarification of why these changes are proposed
Need to post minutes of the ExCom on this subject in addition to the constitution, bylaws, and proposed amendments.
The amendments are the only thing
Two members to publications committee (one elected, another appointed by chair)
Tim and Ben members currently
Now looking for a third publications committee member
Interested applicants should send Ben an email
Choose third member by middle December
Won Cliopatria award
Codify procedures for the blog
Rules for what the blog represents
Newsletter comes out quarterly
Distributed by pdf, a hard copy for the conference
Principle function of newsletter to pass along news and items related to the members of the society
Late February next issue
Next big decision is the journal
E or physical?
More comprehensive and regular book reviewing
Create a stable of reviewers
No journal then on the blog
Journal, then they reviews go into the journal
Participation ThatCampAHA discussing the publications and electronic media
Appointed Allison Perlman to the committee
At CUNY again in 2012
Success of conference is dependent on being in NYC
Financial consideration: CUNY will continue to be generous to the society and not charge for rooms
$4-6000 for rooms if we move somewhere else
Dates: earlier in October
Questions from floor
Lucy Knight: publications committee, is it the right size?
Constitution stipulates a maximum of 3 people
Ben: a committee but not an editorial board. So an editorial board should be much bigger
Ad hoc committee set up by president and approved by excom
James Levy, Paul Murphy, and Lauren Kientz-Anderson
Meaningfully commit to two founding principles: inclusiveness and outreach
James Levy took the floor
Outreach to new members
Expanding the traditional group in intellectual historians
More scholars of color and more women
Took their charge to expand the group in these two ways
Diversify in these ways
Focus on broader ranges of scholars
Secondary teachers, independent scholars
Outline a few strategies
Report submitted and will be included in the minutes
Branding—website, info sheet, business cards
Nomenclature: what do people understand about intellectual history?
Let the excom take up this last issue
Survey the members about the idea of diversity
Marilyn Fisher: liaison to other societies?
Lucy Knight: pointing out new group around biographers—connect with them
Petition regarding gender and women in intellectual history
Proposed a study group on these topics
Produce a white paper for the members of the society
Question: Lucy Knight
What is the next step?
Andrew: proposal submitted to excom for excom to act on
Are there other study groups?
Andrew: the excom can take up proposals and petition but are not under a charge by the constitution and bylaws to act
James: how do we get ideas acted upon by the excom?
Tim: there is way to get the excom to act
Mike: anyone can raise anything at anytime for consideration
Lucy Knight: what input does the membership have? What are the right ways for the membership to have input? With the stipulation that the society needs to make decisions in an effective way. Every member should recruit one member of color and women to the society. Membership is a resource.
Graduate Student ad hoc committee
Appointed David Weinfield and Julian Nemeath
Julian’s report read by Andrew and included in the minutes
David Weinfield took the floor
Slightly different than Julian’s proposal
Database of all students study intellectual history
Year in program, title of project, field, advisor
Goals: sense of what people are interested in—help for the conference and putting people in touch with each other; help define US intellectual history is
Question from floor: include MA students as well? Maria Federova
Question from floor: collaborating with the membership committee and offer that they join
Question from floor: reception for graduate students at conference
Question from floor: rates for different kinds of members, including graduate students
Andrew: the sliding scale of the fees is something we will address
Ben and Mike: society should have a book prize; draw attention to the society and to the field; provide some accolades for the winner
Don’t want to give the award to book getting attention from other awards
Give the award to best book by the membership
Might encourage membership because people would like to be considered for the award
Also give awards to other forms—later
$250 for the award
Merle Curti award is $1000
President support and excom approval
January 15 there should be a report from an ad hoc committee to develop and submit the proposal
Ben: dissertation and an article prize
When should we award the prize? Conference or not at the conference
Advantage at the conf: members here, NYT here
Advantage not at the conf: publicity at another time of the year such as at the AHA or OAH like other groups do
If we are affiliated with the AHA, for example, we could do announce the award
Need to consider the dates of how this process is scheduled
Host a roundtable session on their books—announce at AHA and roundtable at the annual conference
Require to attend the conference?
It is a choice.
Tim comment: a laborious activity
Winner previous year’s prize is on the committee
Ethan comment: dissertation prize has more benefits than a book prize? Do we need such a prize to get people in US intellectual history into the profession
Mike’s suggestion: exchange with Pauline Maier
Should we not try to treat our keynotes with something greater than what we do?
Increase the budget for this by $250
Cover the expense of begin in NYC
To present ourselves honestly and respectfully
Avoid having keynote speakers spending their own money
Address to committee from floor
Paul: endorse the proposal put forth by Lillian and to encourage more such study groups
Ben: white paper on publications committee that can put forth the findings of the study group
James: urge coordination through the ad hoc committees; process and procedures regarding proposals
What is the process by which we deal with changes to bylaws and constitution?
Why not discuss these changes here?
Membership input and voting are two different things. Membership should discuss the changes before the vote happens.
Increase input in the changes in a way that is systematic.
Proposed change: post changes to by-laws and constitution two weeks before any meeting.
Major issue is branding—making appeals to historians in other fields
What do we do to transcend the category of intellectual history?
Defining US intellectual history as something broader that what it is considered to be now.
Andrew: the vagueness of our founding principles might allow for broader interpretation.
James: to define ourselves through diversity on the web page.
Chronological problems US intellectual history
Andrew: attempting chronological diversity
David Sehat: would like to hear ideas about how to do this given the structural issues involved in the orgs that already attract pre-Civil War scholars
Tim: minutes of the meeting should be as expansive as possible—not just terms
Andrew: excom must review and approve revised budget
Adjournment at 10.43