MEMBERS PRESENT

President: Kathleen Thelen; Past President: David Lake; President-Elect: Rogers Smith; Vice President: Evelyne Huber; Vice President: Gary Segura; Vice President: Pippa Norris; and Treasurer: Thomas Pepinsky

Council Members: Matt Barreto, Joseph Carens, Mark Crescenzi, Omar Encarnación, Lisa Garcia-Bedolla, Kristian Gleditsch, Lilly J. Goren, Juliet Hooker, Amaney Jamal, Matthew Kocher, Brett Ashley Leeds, James Mahoney, Byron D’Andra Orey, Erin Richards, Bo Rothstein, Colleen Shogan, Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, Laura Sjoberg, Cameron Thies, Caroline Tolbert, Renée Van Vechten, Carol Weissert and Christina Wolbrecht

Guests: Robert Lieberman, Melani Cammett

APSA Staff: Steven Rathgeb Smith, Betsy Super, Janna Dietz, Dan Gibson, Kimberley Mealy, Larry Burner, Megan Davis, Amanda Grigg, Jon Gurstelle, Meghan McConaughey, Teka Miller, and Tanya Schwarz

Not in Attendance: Simon Jackman

CONSENT AGENDA

Thelen introduces the 2019 record dates for council vote. Thelen moves to approve the 2019 record dates; the motion is seconded and passes unanimously.

Thelen introduces the editorial board updates to the JPSE, Perspectives, and PS editorial boards for council approval. Richards adds that she appreciates the community college voice on the JPSE editorial board and encourages PS to follow suit. Thelen moves to approve the changes to the JPSE, Perspectives, and PS editorial boards. The motion is seconded and passes unanimously.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

Thelen reports on recent association activities and accomplishments to update the council on the state of the association. Thelen discusses highlights from her presidency, including: improvements in transparency and outreach to membership; the Special Projects Fund; updates to the sexual harassment policy; efforts to address lack of diversity in publications; and additional diversity and inclusion programing, including efforts from her presidential task force.

TREASURER’S REPORT

Treasurer Thomas Pepinsky introduces the treasurer’s report to update the council on the association’s financial position. Pepinsky reports that APSA continues to be in sound financial shape. As of July 31, 2018 the total fair market value of all APSA investments was $38.79 million, with the most significant investment groups being the Trust and Development trust portfolio which totaled $17.48 million and the Congressional Fellowship Program trust portfolio which totaled $18.39 million. APSA is projected to be in line with budget. At nine months ending in June 30, 2018, APSA projected revenue is $7.80 million for operations, and $8.17 million operations costs, which includes the carryover special projects budget from the prior year, resulting in a projected operating net loss of $287,000 before investment income. The projection includes budgeted draws and fund transfers of $822,200 and the projected 2018 Annual Meeting net profits of $579,000.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

APSA Executive Director Steven Rathgeb Smith introduces updates on association programming and operations to provide information to the council. S. Smith introduces new additions to APSA staff and discusses new and ongoing programming. He brings attention to new developments in this year’s APSA Annual Meeting, including record-breaking attendance and submissions and new programming and events, including the TLC at APSA event. S. Smith discusses upcoming APSA endeavors, including revisiting the strategic plan, working to update and support Organized Section journals, introducing a pre-print publications program, and moving forward with the APSR editor search.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT RESOURCES UPDATE

Kimberly Mealy provides an update to the APSA council on the sexual harassment resources that APSA offers. She explains that she has been working with Garcia-Bedolla to assess the sexual harassment resources that the association provides and looking for areas that need to be expanded or refined. In particular, they worked to identify a platform that would allow the Association to more effectively receive and track complaints or grievances. Mealy indicates that they have identified EthicsPoint as an appropriate platform to receive and review complaints. EthicsPoint is a secure system that includes options for confidential reporting as well as third-party adjudicators. Mealy adds that in addition to these upcoming resources, there are ombuds onsite at the annual meeting again this year and there are several panels and events that address the issue of sexual harassment. APSA President-Elect Rogers Smith asks about the third party investigator mechanism of EthicsPoint and Mealy and Garcia-Bedolla explain that APSA can tailor this feature to its needs. Thelen stresses the importance of making it clear that APSA policy covers APSA events and issues, and that it has no jurisdiction elsewhere. APSA Past-President David Lake, Garcia-Bedolla, and Jamal discuss the issue of the privacy of the information shared in EthicsPoint. Segura and Goren consider the potential of information sharing and use of similar platforms across associations. Thelen and R. Smith relay that the issues of sanctions and how to partner with other associations will be referred to the Ethics Committee and a council policy committee. Van Vechten adds that the Ethics Committee should also consider how to handle complaints that are not related to APSA. Thelen introduces a motion to indicate council support for moving forward with the EthicsPoint system as well as referring the outstanding questions to the relevant council policy committee. Garcia-Bedolla, S. Smith, and Lake discuss how to handle any potential reports before the EthicsPoint system is in place. Lake references the bylaws and notes that any recommended sanctions will come before the council.

SMITH TASK FORCE UPDATE

R. Smith introduces discussion of the purpose of and proposals from his presidential task force, for discussion and endorsement by the council. R. Smith provides background, explaining that the task force is focused on forming new partnerships in teaching, civic engagement, and research. Chair of the Smith Task Force, Robert Lieberman, notes that this task force will not just create a report but plans to actively develop new partnerships in the areas of teaching, research, and civic engagement. Lieberman explains the current task force proposals for council endorsement: a pilot peer-to-peer network of local political scientists at different types of institutions; a summer training institute for young graduate students and faculty members on how to do civically engaged research; and a civic engagement work award in political science. Richards, Pepinsky, and Lieberman discuss how the peer-to-peer teaching proposal engages community college faculty. Sjoberg, Weissert, Norris, and Orey make suggestions on location, engagement, and precedent for the peer-to-peer project to consider. Lieberman summarizes the suggestions, including how to best engage R1 faculty and determining the criteria for the location of the peer-to-peer proposal. R. Smith notes that these are proposed initiatives that the Task Force plans to expand on, but currently the Task Force is hoping for council approval to move forward with the peer-to-peer partnership, civic engagement award, and civic engagement summer institute. Thelen moves to provide approval for the Smith Task Force to move forward with the peer-to-peer teaching proposal, civic engagement summer training institute, and civic engagement award, considering the council feedback. The motion is seconded and passes with a vote of 25 in favor, and 1 abstention. Segura explains that his abstention is based on the proposed location of the peer-to-peer teaching proposal, because state employees of California could not travel to observe the program due to a state law that prohibits reimbursement for travel to Texas and several other states.

INVESTMENT COMMITTEE UPDATE

S. Smith updates the council on the work of the Investment Committee. The committee is performing a review of investment advisory services, and issued a request for proposals. The committee sent solicitations to six firms and got five proposals back. The firms will be interviewed in the fall and the investment committee will make recommendations going forward. The committee will also investigate socially responsible investment.

APSA AWARDS POLICIES

Thelen introduces discussion of the awards process and policy for council input. Thelen notes that the current policy is that award committees are appointed by the council and, once appointed, the awards committees have full autonomy. She notes that after council discussion the matter will be referred to an appropriate policy committee, which will then bring a proposal back to the council. S. Smith adds that this discussion was initiated by the current controversy over the recipient of the 2018 Hubert H. Humphrey Award and noted that the criteria for that award is that it be given to a political scientist with a distinguished career in public service. S. Smith and R. Smith discuss the controversy surrounding the Hubert H. Humphrey Award being given to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, explaining that the objections stem from her involvement in the Iraq war. Members who object are calling for a review process for future awards and for the council to rescind the 2019 award. Sinclair-Chapman voices concern about undermining the autonomy of awards committees. Segura suggests that a council vote on all honorific awards over the summer could prevent issues like this. He also notes that while there is no provision for rescinding an award that goes against the consensus view of the discipline, the council could and should make a statement saying that it does not agree with the award committee’s decision. Hooker, Sjoberg and others express agreement with Segura’s concerns. Encarnación, Richards, and others voice support for Sinclair-Chapman’s concerns and also express concerns about rescinding an award to an African-American woman. Tolbert and others brings up procedural changes that could be made to the award committees and nominations process that could alleviate concerns about career awards. Lake notes that this discussion should address both the specific issue of how to deal with the award to Secretary Rice and how to move forward and address the motions that will be put forward at the Annual Business Meeting. R. Smith proposes that the issue should be referred to the Public Engagement Policy Committee to consider any changes to the public service awards policies and bring a proposal to the council. Thelen and Lake express agreement. Sinclair-Chapman, as the chair of Public Engagement Policy Committee, suggests that an ad-hoc committee may be better suited to address the issue. Hooker, Thelen, and R. Smith discuss how this matter will be addressed at the All-Member Business Meeting. Crescenzi and Segura indicate that they will propose resolutions related to the award to Secretary Rice during new business. R. Smith confirms that the policy issues will be referred to an appropriate committee.

PROTEST POLICY

Thelen introduces the draft protest policy for council discussion. She explains that this will be referred to the appropriate policy committee before a revised draft is brought back to the council. Thelen also notes that there was robust discussion of this draft policy at the executive committee meeting and there were concerns about the proposed language. However, there were also concerns that while APSA should be a place for robust disagreement and discussion, and peaceful protest is welcomed, the reality is that situations can become heated and APSA staff are on the front lines of any potential conflict. Lake notes that there are themes in the policy that caused him discomfort, including the general idea of policing behavior that is meant to be transgressive, as protest is, and the prior notification clause, as protest often arises spontaneously. However, the issues become more complicated and understandable when one recognizes the staff position in managing this conduct. S. Smith adds that this policy was drafted partially at the request of the Ethics Committee, which received complaints regarding protests at the 2017 Annual Meeting without having any formal policy to refer to in adjudicating those complaints. Goren and Hooker express concern about language conflating protest and bullying and suggest that the focus should be on best protecting marginalized or vulnerable members. Carens and Gleditsch express agreement with concerns about the safety and role of the staff but question whether a protest policy would alleviate that issue. Jamal and Kocher suggest that these issues could be better addressed by broad guidelines of conduct and engagement and recommend staying away from an explicit protest policy. Super tells the council that many hotels and convention centers would prefer to not allow protest at all, so having an explicit policy could help facilitate rather than restrict protest. Wolbrecht notes that the experience of harassment is subjective and complicated, and in the case of the 2017 protests staff were actively being asked to intervene and judge that complicated issue. Crescenzi indicates that he agrees with the reasoning behind the draft policy but suggests that it needs to move away from the language of approval and instead be centered around the facilitation or coordination of protest. Lake proposes that this issue be referred to the Membership Policy Committee to review the code of conduct and professional policy, with an eye to protests at the annual meeting. Pepinsky notes that as this review proceeds it is important to have direct input from APSA staff, as council do not fully understand the issues that staff face or what they are being asked to do. R. Smith agrees that that issue should be referred to the appropriate policy committee or committees. He also offers the idea of training staff as free speech facilitators, as this is a solution that has worked at his home institution and proposes that this option also be explored.

SANCTIONING POLICIES OF SECTIONS

Thelen introduces the proposed policy to oversee Organized Sections sanctioning of section members for council discussion. S. Smith provides background on the draft policy, noting that a section contacted APSA leadership in the spring because section members had requested that another section member be removed from the panels they had been placed on due to allegations that this section member had harassed and bullied others during previous annual meetings. The section investigated these claims and recommended the individual’s removal from section panels, as well as other sanctions against this member. This incident raised questions about the appropriate role of sections in sanctioning members and what authority sections have in this area. In this case, it was determined that sections control their own annual meeting programming and can remove individuals, but other sanctions are reserved for the council.

The draft policy under consideration was sent to the Organized Section Committee, which provided comments. The goal is to send the proposed policy to a policy committee, which would then work with the Organized Section Committee to revise the proposal and bring it back to the council. There is some discussion of the specificity of the draft language, including clarifying who the section refers to (whether that is the section president, section officers, or the larger section membership) and clarifying what it would mean for the decision to be made by consensus (who has to consent, does that need to be unanimous, etc.). Thelen closes discussion and notes that this will be referred to the Membership Policy Committee, who will send updates to the Organized Sections Committee. The revised policy will then be referred back to the council.

SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND

Thelen and Grigg provide updates on the Special Projects Fund, which was launched as a member outreach program, using the APSA 2017 budget surplus. Grigg informs the council that there were 58 applications, which were reviewed by a selection committee. The committee chose 10 recipients focused on broad impact, serving underrepresented groups, and need for APSA support. Grigg notes that APSA staff are also following up with and trying to support some of the unfunded projects. Thelen explains that she would like to institutionalize the Special Projects Fund at some level going forward, possibly not every year but regularly depending on budget and staff time. Thelen moves to endorse, in principle, institutionalization of the Special Projects Fund for future years. The motion is seconded and passes unanimously.

APSR SEARCH COMMITTEE

Melani Cammett, chair of the APSR search committee provides updates on the APSR editor search for the APSA council. Cammett gives background on the editor search and call for submissions that has been issued. Cammett emphasizes that the committee is trying to make the search a more open and transparent process and to elicit submissions from a broad and diverse pool of submissions. These efforts include making clear that the committee is open to new and innovative publishing models. Cammett notes that there has not yet been significant interest but the committee is reaching out to people informally and working to answer any questions. R. Smith expresses concern about lack of interest in the editorship. Pepinsky, S. Smith, and Thelen review constraints that deter proposals, including institutional resources and workload. Sinclair-Chapman, Wolbrecht, and Goren discuss ways APSA can promote interest in different models and disseminate information on what constitutes a viable proposal. Mahoney and Weissert support the idea of a two stage process, where interested institutions can submit letters of interest, which can then be developed into a full proposal. Tolbert, Leeds, Sinclair-Chapman, and Super express concern over the fairness of changing the search process after the Request for Proposals has already been issued. Tolbert suggests that an intermediate opportunity to submit a letter of intent could be inserted before the full proposal deadline, so potential teams could receive feedback without changing the process that has already been announced. Thelen outlines the consensus that APSA will entertain letters of intent and pre-proposals prior to the official proposal deadline, as well as clarifying aspects of the Request for Proposals.

RELATED GROUP DISCUSSION

Jamal introduces the Meetings and Conferences Committee memo on proposed changes to the policy on Related Groups for APSA discussion. She explains that APSA is affiliated with 77 related groups that receive up to 15% of panel allocations, which currently have little ongoing oversight by the council. Jamal notes that the committee recommends instituting some form of oversight of Related Groups, specifically that: Related Groups must maintain 50 members, Related Groups must be subject to renewal or oversight by the council, and Related Groups should follow the same annual meeting submission rules as Organized Sections do. Kocher echoes Jamal and notes that it is important for Related Groups to have roots in APSA membership. S. Smith adds that implementation of the policy is being ironed out and feedback from Related Groups will be solicited before the recommended policy changes are finalized. Carens and Norris emphasize the importance of Related Groups having input on the proposed policy changes. The Meetings and Conferences Committee agrees that input will be solicited from the Related Groups and the matter will be brought back to the council.

REVISION TO MEMBER DUES PROPOSAL

S. Smith introduces the Membership Dues Proposal for council discussion and vote. S. Smith explains that the renegotiated contract with Cambridge University Press introduced an additional fee for print journals, which has not yet been incorporated into membership dues pricing. The proposal under consideration would help account for this change, allowing each member to receive one print journal included in membership dues, but for each additional print journal members would be required to pay $8 per year. Miller adds that all members will continue to receive access to all APSA journals online for no additional cost, and notes that currently only about 30% of APSA members opt into all print journals. Thies asks why the proposal exempts the first print journal, rather than charging members for each print journal. S. Smith replies that there is concern this will be seen as a dues increase. Richards, Hooker, and Sjoberg raise concern that the cost will be prohibitive and/or unfair to groups such as community college faculty, unemployed, and targeted international members.

Sjoberg moves to amend the proposal to exempt Targeted International Members from paying for print journals. The motion is seconded and passes with 24 in favor, 1 against, and 1 abstention.

Encarnación, Tolbert, and Miller note that other organizations have gone completely digital and charge for all print journals. Goren moves to amend the proposal to include fees for all journals rather than exempting the first journal. Goren accepts a friendly amendment to allow members to write to APSA headquarters requesting a hardship exemption to receive print journals without a fee. The motion is seconded and passes with 19 voting in favor, and 7 against. Tolbert moves to proceed to a vote on the original proposal as amended. The proposal passes with 18 in favor, 6 against, and 2 abstaining.

RBSI WORKING GROUP REPORT

Mealy introduces a preliminary working draft of the RBSI Working Group report and notes that the RBSI Working Group is committed to continuing its work planning the future of the RBSI program, providing recommendations on the future format and funding strategies of the program, and providing leadership and oversight in the use of the endowment fund. Mealy outlines the report, emphasizing the working group’s recommendation to adopt a hybrid model combining the current model with a consortium model. Thelen expresses support for the program and the report. Van Vechten notes her support for the program and suggests that some expectation of regional or institutional diversity be included in plans for the consortium portion of the proposed hybrid model. R. Smith and Lake note their support for the new hybrid model, and encourage looking at existing programs for ideas. Mealy and Sinclair-Chapman discuss the benefit of cohort building within the Bunche Institute. Mealy notes that the committee is also looking at how to sustain funding for the current RBSI program, as well as how to encourage and include the wealth of alumni involvement when considering the future of the program.

COMMITTEE UPDATES AND REPORTS

Committee chairs provide updates on the work and plans of their committees. Sinclair-Chapman, chair of the Public Engagement Policy Committee explains that her committee is working with APSA staff to collect data on how departments use public engagement in tenure and promotion, and to draft a statement of principles on assessing and understanding quality in public engagement and public scholarship. Sinclair-Chapman explains that according to the data, the discipline actively dissuades scholars from public engagement and generally views public engagement as service. Sinclair-Chapman reports that the committee will have a draft report in the spring.

Wolbrecht, chair of the Publications Policy Committee, provides updates on the committee’s activities. She notes that the journal data collecting initiative started in December, and will have a one year report in the spring. The committee is also addressing the APSR editor search and is discussing editorship challenges more generally. Finally, Wolbrecht reports that the committee has spent some time considering an open access journal and will return to that once the APSR editor search is over.

Encarnación, chair of the Membership and Professional Development Policy Committee, provides updates on the committee’s activities. He notes that his committee has drafted a membership value proposition statement for APSA, which will be used for marketing purposes, has proposed beginning a series of webinars, and discussed the agenda for the coming year, which will include automatic or multi-year membership renewals.

Van Vechten, chair of the Teaching and Learning Policy committee, takes the opportunity to propose reconsidering the Membership Dues Proposal which was approved earlier in the meeting. R. Smith suggests that this proposal be reintroduced later in the meeting. Van Vechten adds that the committee has been working on the TLC at APSA conference, which will be held during on during the annual meeting, and invites council members to attend. She also notes that the committee has been reviewing proposals by the Smith Task Force that involve teaching issues.

Jamal, chair of the Conference and Meetings Policy Committee, provides updates on the committee’s activities. She explains that, in addition to the policy on Related Groups, her committee has been looking into the issue of “manels.” The committee has found that in 2017 there were approximately 7% of panels at the APSA Annual Meeting that had only male participants. The committee is recommending that the importance of diversity and avoiding all-male panels be emphasized to panel proposers and division chairs, but does not recommend any further action at this time. The committee reports that it will continue to monitor the extent to which all-male panels are an issue.

Hooker, chair of the Rules and Elections Committee, reported that the 2018 council election went smoothly and were certified by the committee, but the committee wanted to pass on some of the comments that were received from members regarding the election. The committee did not recommend any particular action but wanted to note that the main concerns that appeared in the comments were the lack of competitive elections and the level of institutional diversity in the slate.

VOTE ON NEW SECTION

Thelen introduces the proposal for a new Middle East and North Africa Politics (MENA Politics) Organized Section for a council vote. Sjoberg moves to approve the new section. The motion is seconded and passes unanimously.

VOTE ON BUDGET

Thelen introduces the 2019 Fiscal Year Budget for a council vote. Mahoney moves to approve the budget. The motion is seconded and passes unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

Thelen opens the meeting to new business.

Segura moves that council issue the following statement on the 2018 Humphrey Award: “The APSA council regrets the selection of Secretary Rice for the Hubert Humphrey Award. While her accomplishments are certainly remarkable, her association with activities widely deemed in violation of the Geneva Convention and, in some instances, condemned in the international community by governments and transnational organizations alike, are not in keeping with the values of our association.” The council discusses issues of human rights and the appropriateness of the award as well as concerns about interfering with the decision of the award committee. The motion is seconded and fails with six in favor, 16 opposed, and six abstaining.

Crescenzi moves that council approve a resolution stating: “The council hereby voices its support for the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan and ratified in 1994 by the United States Senate.” The motion is seconded and passes with 26 in favor and two opposed.

Van Vechten suggests that the council reconsider the earlier vote to approve the amended membership dues proposal, but notes that a council member who voted for the proposal would need to formally move to reconsider. Orey makes a motion to reconsider the earlier vote passing the membership dues proposal. Goren and Weissert express support for the amended and approved revision to the membership dues proposal. Richards, Van Vechten, Huber, and Sinclair-Chapman express concern that the amendment to the membership dues proposal leaves the council without sufficient information regarding the effects of policy as approved. The motion to reconsider approval of the membership dues proposal is seconded. The measure fails with 13 in favor, 13 opposed, and two abstaining. Due to the lack of a clear sense of the will of the council, Lake again proposes reconsideration of the approval of the membership dues proposal. The motion is seconded and passes with 18 in favor, five opposed, and one abstaining. Lake proposes that the proposal be referred to the Membership Policy Committee for reconsideration by the council at the March meeting. The motion is seconded and passes with 20 in favor and four against.