Communications with AAA and among the Executive Board

Motions from Section Assembly on Anthroserve Revenues.

1. In May of 2006, the members of the Section Assembly, who are the section presidents, had an email discussion of the division of revenues from Anthrosource.  I think I started it with a "counterproposal" to what the AAA was proposing for 2007, which was a flat 50% off the top for the AAA, an even across-the-board charge for all sections by page, and an even across the board division of the revenues by page.

My counterproposal was:

Dear All:
  On behalf of Culture and Agriculture, I have a counterproposal. It is
that  instead of charging the same page and usage rate across all
journals the charges against the journals of the smaller sections be
proportionally less than the charges against the larger sections. The
reason is that in going to Anthrosource we have provoked a general
increase in dues across all sections, resulting in a substantial
disincentive for individuals to continue their memberships in multiple
sections. Culture and Agriculture has lost members (not a lot, but
steadily since Anthrosource came into existence). We have raised dues
slightly, but we think the main reason is not our dues, which are
nominal, but rather the total package of dues people are being charged,
which leads them to cut out less "core" or essential interests. It
appears that other small sections with journals have done the same.  The
proportional weighting could be based on the empirical membership trends
over the last three years.

We want to continue producing Culture and Agriculture (the journal) and
we also want it to be on Anthrosource, but unless revenues from
Anthrosource increase dramatically or costs decrease dramatically, this
does not appear to be financially viable.

There are two main reasons for this from the point of view of the AAA as
a whole. First, it assures that we will maintain the mix of journals,
and hence of the package we can offer to consumers.  Second, similarly,
it will assure the viability of the small sections themselves, and hence
the diversity of the meetings.
 

This was immediately supported by Gabriella Vargas-Cetina, representing the Society for Latin American Anthropology. Tom Weisner, of the Society for Psychological Anthropology then proposed some actual motions and with motions and amendments it quickly became the following three motions which were voted on and passed overwhelmingly by the Assembly:

>> *MOTION 1 (for recommendation to the EB). BE IT RESOLVED THAT the
>> portion of AnthroSource Digital Subscription revenues allocated to the
>> American Anthropological Association (AAA) be reduced from the
>> currently proposed 50% to 33%. The 67% of revenues remaining go to
>> the Section Publications using whatever revised formula is ultimately
>> adopted. This provision would continue in place for three years and
>> then be reviewed by the AS and the AAA.*
>
>> *MOTION 2 (for recommendation to the EB). _ The American
>> Anthropologist_ (_AA_) is slated to receive, under the 2006 revenue
>> allocation illustration, 58% more AS revenue than it received in
>> 2005. BE IT RESOLVED THAT, instead, the_ American Anthropologist_
>> share of revenue under whatever new revenue allocation formula is
>> ultimately adopted should be capped at 25% more than the proportional
>> share it currently receives under the existing formula. For example,
>> the AA received 11.4% of AS revenue in 2005. Under this
>> recommendation AA would not receive more than 14.25% of total AS
>> revenue in 2006, under whatever new formula is adopted. This
>> proportion would continue in place for three years and then be
>> reviewed by the AS and the AAA.*
>
>> *MOTION 3 (for recommendation to the EB). BE IT RESOLVED THAT instead
>> of the absolute number of downloads of an article as a measure of
>> "value," the measure should be the ratio of downloads relative to
>> numbers of articles available to download for that journal. And be it
>> further resolved that the formula used in allocating the AnthroSource
>> Digital Subscription Revenues, including this ratio, would continue in
>> place for three years and then be reviewed by the AS and the AAA.*

At this point, according to AAA bylaws, the Section Assembly can only make recommendations to the Board. They cannot bind the board. So these have the status of recommendations for the Board to consider in 2007.  

It seems to me that the speed with which the resolutions developed and the near unanimity with which they passed indicates two things important to C&A. First, we are not alone in the problems we face, and second that we are not alone in the sense of what might help resolve them.

I also think it tells us something about the structure of the AAA in general, which we also know from the mess surrounding the San Francisco meetings in 2004, namely that  the Board as presently constituted does not have a wide enough base in the membership to be responsive to members attitudes and priorities.  At the same time, the Business meetings are entirely ineffective because on the one hand the agenda is dominated by mom-and-apple-pie moral resolutions and because even if it were not, there is no way 3,000 or more people (if they would come) can decide anything important in a couple of hours.   We need to restructure the Association to have a deliberative body smaller than the full Association, but still representative. The Section Assembly, at the moment, is the nearest thing we have to this.  I have not seen the results of the current reorganization effort; this has been under consideration.  M Leaf

2. Click here to see a pdf file that demonstrates the current Anthrosource Digital Revenue Allocation. This is only a demonstration to show how the model will work; it is not an actual revenue projection.

3. OCTOBER, 2006: MOTION FROM TOM WEISNER

The following resolution concerning Anthrosource revenues and their potential impact on the smaller sections has been placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Section Assembly, to be held Wednesday evening during the AAA meetings.   I have circulated this to the board for feedback, and will vote for it on behalf of C & A unless instructed otherwise.

Draft  Resolution for consideration by the Section Assembly (SA), October  2006.

Proposed by Tom Weisner, President, Society for Psychological  Anthropology

1. No Section publication currently included in  AnthroSource (AS) shall lose their entitlement to participate in AS (e.g. to  have their publication, both current and past issues, offered as part of the  AS package) due to AS-related revenue losses, unless and until that Section  elects to opt out of AS.

2. No Section or interest group with an AAA  publication where net costs for publications (print and/or AS charges) for  2007 are greater than for 2006, will be placed in serious financial jeopardy,  or have to suspend publication, as a result of AS-related net cost increases.   This applies to circumstances where that increase in net costs is due  exclusively or very substantially to AS.   If net costs place a  Section in such jeopardy, the AAA, not the Section or group, will absorb the  rise in net costs over and above the net costs for that Section in 2006 in  such a way that the Section will not have to cease publication. Sections  affected will be expected to repay AAA assistance in subsequent years on a  reasonable repayment basis.

3. Some Sections are adversely affected by  the transition to AS, and this resolution is intended to address AS-related  issues for such Sections.  Some Sections have other concerns distinct  from the introduction of AS in 2004. Although we are concerned that these  other issues also receive AAA attention, this resolution is specifically  focused on AS-related shortfalls only.

4. A committee of SA and  Executive Board (EB) representatives shall establish the specific mechanisms  for implementing this plan on a Section-by-Section basis. The implementation  details are recognized to be complex and this resolution does not pretend to  resolve them. In some cases, AS is clearly the sole or predominant reason for  declines in cash balances from 2006 - 2007 projected, in other cases the  situation is mixed, and in still others AS is not the predominant reason.   But the implementation shall follow in spirit and as closely as  reasonable in detail, the intent of the resolution.  

Discussion and  comments on this resolution,  for SA discussion and  review

When I participated in the SA meeting last year in DC, I  looked out and I saw the heart and soul of the AAA in that room.  The AAA  is about intellectual projects that matter to our members and to the social  sciences of which we are a part.  The Section members and journals they  publish and meetings they hold are the core of the AAA today and going forward  in my view.  So are the annual AAA meetings and the  AA.  But if I were asked to rank AAA missions,  supporting the Sections in aggregate is the more central mission.  The  AAA should have as its core mission to support the Sections and insure that  their intellectual projects, publications, and conversations thrive.  We  should start with insuring that AS does not bankrupt Sections and their  publications, or put them in serious financial jeopardy.

The purpose of this resolution is to  place a floor under Sections, such that AS charges will not cause them to have  to cease their publications, either print or through AS.  The resolution  states that the AAA absorb increased net costs (2007 projected vs. 2006) for  Sections in serious jeopardy, until Sections can recover and hopefully benefit  from increases in AS revenues.

This resolution means that the AAA may  have to absorb the costs of rolling out AS for some Sections to some extent,  until sufficient AS revenue makes it possible for Sections affected to break  even, become profitable, and repay the AAA.  The AAA will have to decide  whether to take funds from their Endowment, from current dues, or add new dues  charges to accomplish this for affected Sections. These details are left open  for a joint committee to resolve, since it is not possible to specify them as  yet.  But the principle and goals of the resolution are clear, we hope.   In effect, the resolution makes the AAA the bank of resort for seriously  affected Sections during the AS transition.

The resolution is focused  on AS-related shortfalls only. In some cases, AS is clearly the sole or  predominant reason for declines in cash balances, in other cases the situation  is mixed, and in still others AS is not the predominant reason. Although these  other Section problems also are concerns, this resolution is not intended to  address them.  This is why the focus is on net changes from 2006 - 2007  that are solely or predominantly due to AS shortfalls, such as large changes  in print subscriptions revenues due to AS.

There is a Governance  Commission currently proposing changes  in  EB  composition,  and other committees now working on these issues.   Some of these  proposals would provide increased Section representation on the EB.  This  is all still up in the air, so this resolution references the current AAA  governance structure, which is the structure which can take action  now.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Tom  Weisner, UCLA
tweisner@ucla.edu