CONSENT AGENDA

APSA Executive Director Steven Smith introduces the consent agenda for Council approval. The consent agenda includes the proposed editorial board changes for PS. Warren moves to approve the consent agenda; Schneider seconds and the motion is approved with 23 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 abstentions.

APSR EDITORIAL TEAM DISCUSSION:

S. Smith introduces discussion of the revised proposal for the new APSR editorial team for Council discussion and approval. He shares that the team has been trying to recruit additional editors to fill in topical gaps in the team and has not yet been successful but will continue its search. Warren adds that this also responds to Council’s request for more demographic diversity within the editorial team.

Kang raises the question of what notes and suggestions would be shared with the new team, and what the handover process will look like. Warren shares that the team remains open to feedback, so this will be an evolutionary learning process and the comments from Council can be conveyed back to the team. Gurstelle adds that the transition is something all editors are committed to.

Moustafa adds that in addition to demographic diversity, there are concerns regarding methodological diversity which are not truly addressed by the proposal. Among the comparativists there is also a lack of some region-specific expertise. He notes that with an especially large team there should be a higher expectation that it will mirror the diversity within political science, so this omission is concerning. Eileen Hunt notes agreement with the concern for methodological diversity and while she supports this team, she would like to see that addressed in the future.

Adida responds that it is an open question of what the association preference is, to have the editorial team address these gaps or to rely on the composition of the editorial board. The bigger the editorial team the harder coordination is. S. Smith adds that previous editorial teams, APSA has also provided feedback for both the team itself and the editorial board.

Goren expresses concern about the track-record of lack of representation of non-white and female authors and notes that the decision-making process by the new team will make a significant difference in terms of representation. Druckman notes that while he supports the proposal, he agrees with the concerns shared by Goren, and adds his own concern about the policy regarding replications. Given the available resources, incentives, and lack of clarity in the policy, the proposed policy regarding replications could create unnecessary and taxing controversies.

Jenco notes that from her previous experience, the problem was not the rejection of authors but the low number of submissions. While she shares the concern about methodological representation, she supports the proposal.

Warren adds that in terms of procedure, the comments will be collected and conveyed to the team. Adida shares that it is an ongoing process so sharing this feedback will be welcome. Gurstelle will receive feedback and comments to then be shared with the editorial team.

Nielson adds that it doesn’t make sense to revise the proposal once again, and if a majority are in favor of the proposal, then Council should move ahead with the approval, and the editorial team can continue to respond to feedback moving forward. He seconds Tamir’s concern about representation of research on the global south, but believes the editorial team includes comparativists in a broad sense, many of whom would be open to working on said regions. He shares the concern Druckman presented, that more clarity on their goals would be beneficial. However, he suggests that Council move to a vote and move forward with the proposal.

Goodman notes that she appreciates the responses to previous feedback but mentions that even in terms of logistics for processing submissions the balance of representation on the team seems off, so they will need a plan for how to deal with that. She also notes that it would be helpful to clarify what role the qualitative data repository will play in the decision-making and publication process, because it adds a financial cost for people to submit qualitative work.

Goodhart adds his concern with the wide array of innovations rolling out simultaneously. It might be better to roll out one at a time. He notes that he doesn’t think we should reject the proposal, but we might urge some caution with the wide variety of experiments the proposal is suggesting all at once.

Lee notes that while this is a strong proposal the discussion might be better with multiple proposals and suggests that after Council votes on this team, the association should have a discussion on how to encourage more proposals for future searches.

Nielson moves to approve the proposed APSR Editorial Team for a term beginning in June 2024 and running through May 2028, Lee seconds and the motion passes with 18 ayes, 4 nays, 3 abstentions.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

Warren introduces the APSA President’s report, to inform Council of current efforts and developments. He notes that the Commission on Annual Meeting Planning is staffed and running, and they will be communicating to the full membership shortly. The Meetings and Conferences Policy Committee is taking on siting policy, including the question of sitting in majority-minority cities as well as carbon footprint of meetings. The Organized Section committee is writing guidelines for the roles and powers of section chairs for the annual meeting. Planning for the 2024 meeting is underway, with the theme of “Democracy: Retrenchment, Renovation, and Reimagination,” led by co-chairs Danielle Allen and Michael Neblo. The Presidential Task Force on Democratic Innovations is also in the process of being organized. This Task Force will focus on democratic innovations and reforms of existing institutions.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

S. Smith introduces the APSA Executive Director’s report to provide updates on APSA programs. He discusses publications, including the role of open access and the editorial transition for Perspectives; trends in membership, which has been broadly stable since COVID; and the inaugural Virtual Research Meeting, which will be held in February 2024. Goodhart asks about strategy for this meeting and broader virtual content. Vande Bunte speaks about the research groups and breaking news plenaries that will be incorporated. S. Smith then shares an overview of the current Diversity and Inclusion Programs, as well as plans for the upcoming activities in teaching and learning and professional development. S.Smith also notes that the NSF grant funding the APSA Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants was renewed this past year for another three-year cycle.

FY2024 BUDGET

S. Smith introduces the proposed 2024 APSA budget for Council discussion and approval. He provides background on A/V contracts with hotels and the request to use union labor in all properties with meeting rooms, even the non-unionized properties. S. Smith outlines possible options, including using non-union labor in non-unionized spaces, limiting APSA staff raises, and increasing membership and registration fees. Lee suggests that the proposed increase in registration fees be made more progressive. Prakash shares his support for a 3% increase in staff’s compensation. Mitchell says it’s important to think of many aspects of planning together, like carbon footprint, costs, union labor and others and that sharing more information might be positive for participants.

Goren moves to approve the proposed APSA budget with the inclusion of a 3% raise for staff and a progressive fee increase for AM registration rates for non-reduced rate types; Prakash seconds, and the motion is approved with 19 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention.

CREATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SEARCH COMMITTEE

S. Smith introduces discussion of the creation of a search committee to select the next APSA Executive Director for Council discussion and approval. He notes that Council voted in April 2023 to extend the current Executive Director’s term until September 2024. Warren explains the role of Council in the process. Panagopoulos moves to approve the creation of the committee; Goren seconds, and the motion is approved unanimously.

Warren adjourns the meeting.

February 2024

February 29, 2024, APSA Council Meeting

PRESENT:

Mark Warren, University of British Columbia, President

Lisa Martin, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Past-President

Taeku Lee, Harvard University, President-Elect

James Druckman, Northwestern University, Vice President

Cameron Thies, Michigan State University, Vice President

Sarah Goodman, University of California, Irvine, Treasurer

Council members: Alice Kang, University of Nebraska-Lincoln;

APSA Staff: Steven Rathgeb Smith, Meghan McConaughey,

Kim Mealy, Ashley Vande Bunte, Alejandra Sampson

UPDATE REGARDING APSA DEI PROGRAMS

Executive Director, Steve Smith, informs Council on a recent update and potential legal repercussions to APSA’s DEI Program.

STRATEGIC PLAN

APSA Executive Director Steve Smith, introduces the proposed APSA Strategic Plan for 2024 to 2027 for Council discussion. Schneider suggests that the plan should include addressing climate change as a main objective and Nielson, Goodhart, and Mitchell express their agreement. Mitchell proposes that post conference surveys include climate change questions, and that Council consider the climate impact of in-person meetings and conferences as well as mitigation initiatives.

Goodhart suggests that the issue of financial sustainability be discussed in more detail in the plan, and requests that the topic be more clearly included in the strategic plan as well as proactive steps to address it. He also raises the question of how APSA defines the value proposition of membership. Druckman proposes that fundraising and partnerships with other associations also be considered.

Nielson raises the concerns about the consequences Open Access policies might have on APSA’s journals and publication revenue, and Warren and Schneider provide examples about the effect Open Access has had on other publications.

Aseem Prakash provides suggestions for the APSA member surveys to better understand the value proposition of membership for our current members. Givens suggests that hosting panels with elected officials to promote topics of local interest and discuss new developments and policies also be considered.

S. Smith concludes that all of the suggestions discussed will be considered and updates to the Strategic Plan will be presented and discussed during the upcoming Spring Council meeting.

Warren adjourns the meeting.

May 2024

February 29, 2024, APSA Council Meeting

PRESENT:

Mark Warren, University of British Columbia, President

Lisa Martin, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Past-President

Taeku Lee, Harvard University, President-Elect

James Druckman, Northwestern University, Vice President

Cameron Thies, Michigan State University, Vice President

Sarah Goodman, University of California, Irvine, Treasurer

Council members: Alice Kang, University of Nebraska-Lincoln;

Other Attendees: Paul J. Murphy, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg LLP; Ruth Eisenberg, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg LLP; Paula D. McClain, Duke University

CONSENT AGENDA

Warren introduces the consent agenda for Council approval. The consent agenda includes the proposal for the APSR editorial board. Goren makes note of the lack of diversity regarding institutions and Jenco questions if the workload was taken into consideration for the profile of selected parties. Gurstelle notes that the search committee was notified of an update on how the editorial board was expected to work, and that he will share the feedback from Goren and Jenco.

Warren moves to approve the consent agenda; McHugh seconds and the motion is approved with 19 for and 4 abstentions.

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

Warren provides the APSA President’s Report to update Council on current programming and efforts. He shares with Council that the 2024 program for the annual meeting is now available and proceeds to highlight the exceptional efforts by the chairs and APSA staff. He then notes the work that is being done to secure funds to continue the Institute for Civically Engaged Research. Additionally, he informed Council that the first meeting of the President’s Task Force on Democratic Innovations will be held at the Kennedy School in early June, and its work will focus on how democratic innovations can strengthen institutions, legislations, constitutional processes, and deficits within those spaces. He concludes with a note regarding the meetings agenda, which strives to address several issues that arose from the 2023 annual meeting events.

Hunt asks who to contact if there are changes to be requested by the program, and Kessler shares that she can be reached directly or the email address on our website can be used.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

APSA Executive Director Steven Rathgeb Smith provides updates on various facets of APSA’s operations. He highlights the association’s membership growth, with expectations of reaching close to 11,000 members following the Annual Meeting, emphasizing the important effort of promoting section memberships to encourage overall APSA membership. S. Smith also discusses the program for the Annual Meeting, including 1,400 panels, theme panels, mini conferences, and breaking news panels, and also shares the calendar for future meetings. S. Smith announces the upcoming launch of a signaling initiative for job seekers, initially as a pilot, which has already garnered positive feedback from members and other associations. He also details updates on the DDRIG program, focusing on efforts for outcome assessments of both grant applicants and grantees.

Diversity and inclusion programs are discussed in depth, with S. Smith sharing a comprehensive list of current initiatives. Additionally, he informs Council about the ICER pledge drive, aimed at replacing funds previously provided by the Ivywood Foundation, with parallel efforts underway to partner with the Heinz Endowment Foundation to support the program. The goal of the pledge drive, scheduled for launch over the summer, is to raise between $250,000 and $350,000 over three years. With regards to the Teaching and Learning department, S. Smith outlines numerous planned activities, including conferences, symposiums, webinars, and professional development workshops. Updates for the publications department include a new partnership with De Gruyter, revamped formats and editorial processes for book reviews, and collaboration with MPSA to circulate conference papers through APSA preprint.

Concluding his report, S. Smith announced that both APSA buildings are fully leased, with the mortgage set to be paid off by July 1.

TREASURER’S REPORT

Treasurer Sara Goodman introduces the treasurers’ report to update the Council on the Association’s financial position. She notes that the timeline for the audit has changed slightly and is now scheduled to happen in June-July. Goodman notes that endowments are producing good returns, and a growth in our positions is evident when compared to the end of year report.

COMMISSION ON ANNUAL MEETING PLANNING

APSA Council is joined by Paul J. Murphy and Ruth Eisenberg, from Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg LLP to discuss the issue of attorney-client privilege and potential attorney discussion with the Commission on Annual Meeting Planning. This discussion occurred in confidence to protect attorney-client privilege.

Following discussion, motion to waive attorney-client privilege with regards to the questions submitted by the Commission on Annual Meeting Planning is presented by Warren, seconded by Lee, and passes with 15 for, 2 against, and 7 abstentions.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SEARCH COMMITTEE

Council enters into an executive session to discuss the recommendations of the Executive Director Search Committee. Coming out of executive session, Warren moves to accept the recommendation of the Executive Director Search Committee. The motion is seconded and passes.

COUNCIL CONFIDENTIALITY POLICY

Warren introduces discussion of the proposed Council Confidentiality Policy for Council discussion. He notes that there is currently no formal confidentiality policy, which proved to be a challenge in the past. This draft has been prepared and approved by legal counsel and would be signed by newly elected council members on a yearly basis.

McConaughey notes that in their role as the APSA board, Council members have legal and fiduciary responsibilities, which have not always been made clear in the past. This document codifies those responsibilities as well as possible repercussions in cases of a breach. The document has been reviewed by our lawyers and it covers Council meetings, Policy and Executive Committee meetings, Council materials, and other circumstances that Council members may encounter.

Warren notes that the presumption is that Council sessions are transparent and minutes are published, so in order to become confidential said information should be signaled as such during meetings. Martin clarifies which meetings and committee activities this policy would cover.

Goodhart raises concern about how broad the policy seems, particularly its reference to financial and strategic information, and suggests that this measure might be an overcorrection and could hamper sharing information with members of the association. McConaughey notes that anything that is public information is not confidential information, so to the extent that the strategic plan or treasurer’s report is available on the website then that information would not be considered confidential. However, she notes that she welcomes the request to review and finesse the language. She also reinforces Warren’s note that when confidential information is discussed, leadership would indicate it as such.

Jenco asked about how documents are shared and stored and if that would represent a breach of the confidentiality agreement; McConaughey responds that Council members are asked to exercise caution in handling confidential information and prevent sharing it accidentally, but there are no specific requirements for that.

Jenco also asked about minutes for the meetings, and McConaughey shares that there was a turnover on the program associate position and therefore minute keeping is not up to date, but minutes will be shared for Council approval at the fall Council meeting.

Hunt shares that based on her experience there was not enough guidance on how to handle such situations in the past and suggests improving the onboarding process to ensure Council members understand their responsibilities.

McWilliams seconds Goodheart’s statement that the policy might be an overcorrection, and worries that such a broad confidentiality agreement might prevent Council members from speaking to either press or members in the future, she mentions that all the bullet points might be interpreted very broadly and could make Council poor representatives.

Lee states that very important issues have been raised and should be addressed before the policy is approved. In addition, he shares the concern regarding potential sanctions and due process in imposing them and asks if there will be any recourse in case the sanctions are arbitrarily or wrongfully determined.

McConaughey mentions there will be an updated version of the proposed policy to take into account the feedback shared, and she welcomes language suggestions to improve the document. In regard to sanctions, she mentions that the by-laws contain a specific process for removal of Council members, and that the policy should not suggest that removal is the only sanction available.

DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION PROGRAM UPDATES

S. Smith shares updates with Council on the letter received regarding the eligibility criteria for APSA’s DEI Programs, and that a response was issued and received by the other party, but there had been no further follow-up. An overview of the language used for the DEI programs is shared by Mealy.

Warren asks if APSA personnel have reviewed the language used by programs and Organized Sections to look up if they are in compliance with current rulings. Mealy and S. Smith note that such a review has not taken place, but they will work on producing guidance to sections and their award programs.

Lee suggests that the association reach out to other associations to inquire about possible notices they have received and what actions they have taken. S. Smith responds that it could be beneficial to reach out to other organizations and he will reconvene with Mealy on how to move forward in that regard.

2024-2027 STRATEGIC PLAN REVISION

Warren introduces the revised 2024-2027 APSA Strategic Plan, which incorporated previous Council feedback, for discussion and approval. S. Smith adds that it is a living document that can be adapted moving forward. McConaughey noted that main goals were adjusted based on the previous Council discussion, and that the minutes will reflect all notes provided by Council.

Goodhart asks for clarification about the scope and audience of the Congressional Fellowship Program, and McConaughey provides additional information about the CFP endowment, partner organizations and training fees, and political science fellows. Goodhart and Warren continue with discussion of advocacy for the discipline and its role in the strategic plan.

Moustafa introduces discussion of the APSA records and archive, suggesting that APSA prioritize updating and extending the collection held at George Washington University. S. Smith explains the arrangements and large number of documents that have been stored for the period 1996-2011, but agrees that when those documents are reviewed and organized the official archival information should be added to the GWU archives. McConaughey notes that this would require an endowment to be used for this purpose, but it is an important goal to include in future projects and could be a point for fundraising.

Goren emphasizes the importance of supporting members in research and attending conferences when they lack institutional funds. McConaughey agrees, and also notes the need to balance member support with APSA’s financial health.

Goren moves to approve the strategic plan; the motion is seconded by Lee and approved unanimously.

NATIONALISM AND POLITICS ORGANIZED SECTION PROPOSAL

Warren introduces the proposal for a new Nationalism and Politics Organized Section, along with the Organized Section Committee recommendation against approving the new section. Warren notes that in the past Organized Sections have generally been approved without significant discussion, and S. Smith mentions it is the first time since he’s been Executive Director that the Organized Section committee has recommended denying a proposal. Harrigan notes that there has been an ongoing conversation with the committee about how to define the need for new Organized Sections, and the concern that new sections will pull panels from pre-existing sections. The committee has recently approved some changes to the process and for approving a new Organized Section, including a 30-day window for current chairs to review the proposal and provide feedback.

Significant discussion follows on the value of Organized Sections and concerns about the quickly increasing number of Organized Sections. Warren notes that Organized Sections allow the association to stay current with areas of interest in the discipline. Jenco shares some of the discussions from the Membership Policy Committee, which considered that new sections should be added with caution since it may result in fragmentation. The discussion added that nationalism may not be specific enough as a topic and is addressed by other sections. She also notes that while it is true that Organized Sections are relevant to staying up to date with current discipline issues, that might require a review of Organized Sections as a whole, rather than continuing to add sections without retiring them. Organized Section. Warren agrees that there in some sense is a zero-sum relationship between Organized Sections, and so the number of panels assigned to sections depends on their success.

Azari mentions that she is sympathetic to the issues raised in the committee report but that the document stating the list of people that signed the petition, and the number of subfield areas represented in that list, show some potential for a section that draws together people from subfields in a new way.

Goodman and McHugh note that the committee put significant work into reviewing the proposal and given that, along with some concerns about the proposal itself, are comfortable deferring to the recommendation from the Organized Section Committee.

Additional discussion follows regarding concerns about fragmentation and allowing new sections to be a source of division across topics and subfields, with others noting that new sections provide an opportunity for dynamism, and it is not clear that existing sections should have more legitimacy than new or proposed sections. Goodhart notes a concern that this specific proposal is being caught up in a shift in thinking about the overall role of Organized Sections rather than being considered on its own merits. Harrigan notes that additional options could include revising and putting forward a new proposal for the Organized Section, or starting with a Related Group, with the possibility of submitting a new Organized Section proposal in the future.

Goodhart suggests tabling the discussion and asking the committee to better articulate their criteria for evaluating Organized Sections and the overall role of Organized Sections. Jenco expresses concern about the specificity of this scope of work for the committee, and whether the request is for more information about this proposal or for the committee to take on a review of the Organized Sections within APSA and their role. Lee suggests that an ad-hoc group could take on the task of reviewing the Organized Sections policies, the role of Organized Sections.

Goodhart moves to table the committee’s recommendation until a committee or task force can complete a review of overall Organized Section context, policies and procedures. The motion is seconded by Goren and passes with 11 for, 10 against, and 2 abstentions.

SAGE CQ PRESS AWARD PROPOSAL AND GRAPH RELATED GROUP PROPOSAL

Without objection, Warren asks to table the Sage CQ Press award proposal and the GRAPH Related Group proposal for the Fall meeting due to time constraints.

ORGANIZED SECTION ANNUAL MEETING POLICY UPDATES

Warren introduces the proposed updates to the Organized Section Annual Meeting policy for Council discussion and approval. Warren summarizes that the goal of the proposed policy is to centralize decision-making regarding canceling panels at the APSA Annual Meeting to APSA staff organizing the meetings.

Harrigan shared an overview of the situation that arose during the 2023 annual meeting, where panel chairs and section chairs were in some cases canceling panels without consultation. The proposal allows for panel and program chairs to submit a recommendation for a panel to be canceled under extenuating circumstances and said recommendations would then be reviewed by the APSA meetings department. Organized Section chairs, vice chairs, and executive committee members can still make decisions regarding business meetings and receptions, but not the cancellation of panels.

McCartney raises the question of who would have the ability to change the modality of panels and there is general consensus that changes in panel modality should be covered by the policy as well. Martin asks that the program chair definition is clarified, given that Organized Section Annual Meeting chairs are often referred to as program chairs. Harrigan agrees that a clarification is needed and notes that in this policy program chair does refer to the annual meeting chair, and division chair refers to the sections chair.

Warren reminds Council that the proposal would approve that APSA staff centralize the decision-making process regarding panels and annual meeting conferences, based on the recommendations received by the division chairs, section chairs etc. He proposes Council moves forward with the approval of the proposal with the two friendly amendments to include changes in modality under the policy and to clarify the language around program chairs.

Martin so moves. The motion is seconded by McCartney and carries with 20 for and 2 against.

Warren adjourns the meeting. ■