S-USIH Minutes 6.27.2012

S-USIH Executive Committee Meeting – June 27, 2012

Lacy Notes

 New officers

President:  Paul Murphy

Treasurer:  Lisa Szefel

Secretary:  Ray Haberski

2013 Conference Chair:  Allison Perlman

Publications Chair:  Tim Lacy


1.  Officer’s reports (Officers’ goals for the year, issues and concerns)

2.  2012 Conference Update (Allison)

3.  Book Award committee (Paul)

4.  Journal (Tim)

5.  Membership (Paul)


I. Officer’s Reports

(a) Paul:

— 5 officers needed for quorum – Ray missing, so no quorum

— Budget, conversation with Lisa; would like to collaborate and willing to defer to Treasurer’s expertise

— Looseness of relationship w/CUNY, becoming unreliable; USIH, now SUSIH, has benefited immensely from CUNY’s generosity (prompted by people like Martin Burke and Matthew Cotter) including free midtown Manhattan venue for three years, which should be kept in mind in our dealings with CUNY

— Committees—authorize ad hoc committee

– Grad students, Julian, reauthorize?

– Membership: Levy, Murphy, Lauren – slow, but steady

— Book award – standing committee needs to be created

– Chair?  Suggestions welcomed

– Limitation of award to members of society – best choice?

– How to announce and solicit books? H-Net

— Future – Membership

– Is increasing size of membership our actual top priority? Should it bet creating a community of scholars and pursuing the principles outlined in our Constitution?

– What about activities beyond conference and blog – white papers and reports issued, reflections on profession?

– Newsletter: Model of something we want to do? Same as, or different from S-USIH Notes.

– old Intellectual History Newsletter (predecessor of MIH, which grew out of Wingspread Conference):  Can we get rights to digitize and post back copies on our site?

(b) Lisa

– Get budget, inform

– System of invoices – create

– Non-profit status is pending—may take a few more months to go through

– Each committee needs to have a discussion on funds.

– We’re incorporated in the State of Indiana. Need plan for ideas of surplus.

– Paul asked: Are we liable for tax now?  Think okay

(c) Ray

– Deferred?

d) Allison

– NYU possibility

– 2013 , free rooms at UC-Irvine

– 2012 Conference

– 37 panel proposals, but only 27 spots.  Excellent panels,

– Within next few weeks, rejections and acceptances

– Business meeting, 9 am Thursday morning, Nov. 1

– Went over general 2012 schedule

– going forward, should we return to accepting single-paper


– 2013 Conference

– Future – Individual proposals or panels or both?

– Expand to Saturday – Is growing the conference a


– Compensation to senior scholars for travel?

– Primary cost is our room reservation

(e) Tim — Pub Com goals for year:

  1. State of Committee: Lora to be Book Review Editor, Ben to be Blog Editor (fyi: He is working on a set of Blog rules and regulations).
  2. Get out 3 S-USIH Notes:  ExCom agreed that PubCom should use to experiment, try different formats, etc.
  3. Add Bloggers
  4. Migrate to WordPress – goal and plan, in coordination with website effort.
  5. Continue expanding book review section.
  6. Assist in any way possible on the creation of journal.
  7. Questions?

Action Items for PubCom:

1. Come up with tentative expenditure list, a budget, for committee for coming year.

2. Come up with a proposal-feasability study for the journal. Can we articulate how our journal would be distinct from MIH? Would it be peer-reviewed?  What’s the goal?  Would it published traditional scholarship or intellectual history “takes” on contemporary subjects, for example?  Come up with by May 2013.  Big questions: Identity, feasibility, scholarly trends, resources, open-source movement, print—needed?

— discussion:  USIH has succeeded because nimble; the blog can

publish material quickly whereas peer-review journals are slow;

moreover, the trends are away from expensive print journals

(which many libraries no longer can purchase) to on-line and open-

source publication.  What is the argument for choosing print over


Other Issues:

  1. Book award – Is membership requirement necessary? Paul’s concerns:  it potentially limits the award to a small pool, thus diminishing it; it seems designed to build membership by forcing nominees to join (“pay or play”); if this is the convention for association book awards, this is fine.  Consensus:  Keep the award as is.

– recommendation:  award committee should designate other “top ten” books from the submissions each year, in addition to award winner (aking to Choice Outstanding titles)

– Paul to look toward soliciting an award committee chair

  1. Ad hoc committees? Continue – Yes, tentatively
  2. Schedule for upcoming ExCom meetings? Wed. of last week of July.


Adjourned – 1:25 pm