“Revisiting the REP/RES Name
Change: Procedural Problems and Resolution”
Joe McCormick and Paula Mohan, co-chairs
Race, Ethnicity and Sovereignty
June 2006
Introduction
At the 2005 business meeting a vote was taken to change the name of our section,
Race, Ethnicity and Politics, to Race, Ethnicity and Sovereignty. Our by-laws
and consultation with the executive director of the American Political Science
Association (APSA) suggest that further action, i.e., an all member vote
of the Section, is now necessary. While the vote to change the name was passed
by a majority of section members present at our business meeting, we have
since discovered that our section’s actions were not in compliance with our
by-laws. More specifically, changing the name of our section will require
an amendment to our by-laws which can not be done merely by a majority vote
at the business meeting, but must include an “all member” section vote in
order for it to be official.
Herein we propose taking action to correct our procedural errors and finalize
the name change in a way that follows APSA policies and which is in accordance
with the by-laws of our section. This paper summarizes the background issues
and proposes an appropriate course of action to make the section name change
official before the 2006 business meeting.
Background of proposed name change:
At the 2005 APSA annual meeting, the Race, Ethnicity and Politics section
sponsored a theme panel “Roundtable on Race, Ethnicity and Political Science:
The REP Section – A Ten Year Retrospective” – (hereafter the “retro-panel”)
- to discuss the decade-long history of the REP section and its evolution
and status. Many of the founding members of the Section sat on the panel
and the presentations sparked many interesting conversations among Section
members in the audience and later in other meetings.
One suggestion, made by David Wilkins, one of the participants on the retro
panel, was to consider revisiting the idea of the name of the Race, Ethnicity
and Politics section ten years after its founding. He felt that since
indigenous scholars and those that do work on indigenous issues are one of
the constituency groups that our section seeks to represent, that members
should consider finding a way to more explicitly incorporate the acknowledgement
of the sovereign status of indigenous peoples in the title of the section
rather than have it subsumed under “race”, “ethnicity”, or “politics.”
He made the point that none of these terms accurately represents the struggle
for nationhood of indigenous peoples in the contemporary geo-political context
of the United States, and further, that subsuming indigenous people within
the categories of “race” and “ethnicity” often contributes to further misrepresentations
of their political status. While the term “politics” is more accurate, it
seems too abstract and broad of a term to describe the political situation
of sovereign nations seeking greater self-determination within institutional
frameworks imposed upon them by colonial powers, i.e., the federal government
of the United States.
Action at the Business Meeting
The REP Business Meeting was held the day after the “retro panel.” During
the “new business” portion of the business meeting, a motion was offered
to rename the REP section, “Race, Ethnicity, and Sovereignty.” The
discussion that followed focused on the rationale for such a name change:
given its long standing concern with focusing on the political struggles
of marginalized and historically excluded peoples in the United States, REP
is a logical place for those interested in the political struggles of indigenous
people. Some discussion ensued as to whether the term “sovereignty”
should be preceded by the adjective “tribal” so as to be more specific and
so as not confuse the issue under discussion with other geo-political struggles
that have been linked with the larger “sovereignty” issue, e.g., the Basques
in Spain; the Republic of New Afrika in the United States; the Ladakhis in
Kashmir; the East Timorese in Indonesia et cetera.
No effort was made to amend the proposed motion to include the adjective
“tribal” However, it appears that the intent of those who supported the adoption
of the term “sovereignty” as a part of the extant name, “Race, Ethnicity
and Politics,” actually had the term “tribal sovereignty” in mind.
After the question on this motion was called, the motion to change the name
of the Section from “Race, Ethnicity, and Politics” to “Race, Ethnicity and
Sovereignty” was adopted, 18 in favor, one opposed, and four abstentions.
Unfinished Business: The Procedural Issue
In late May 2006, as we began plans for the 2006 business meeting, it occurred
to us from our e-mail traffic from other section members, that the new section
name was not widely known and in looking more closely at the bylaws, it seemed
clear that we may not have followed the appropriate procedures. This was
verified by Michael Brintnall.
Where Are We? What Needs to Be Done?
A minimum of three pertinent questions emerge from the above: (a) there is
first the issue of the legitimacy of last year’s action. Was the action taken
at last year’s business meeting which resulted in a vote supported by the
majority of those present binding, even though said action was tantamount
to an amendment of our by-laws? If yes, then last year’s action must
be correct by parliamentary means. If no, there remains another question:
(b) was the name that was adopted last year one that reflects the concerns
of those who advocated it? Our attempts to bring some clarity to this state-of-affairs
has essentially led us into a deeper thicket generating this question, (c)
upon the revisitation of this issue, shall we consider maintaining the name
REP or shall we also consider other names for the section?
In late July of this year, REP officers met via conference call to discuss
this issue. The consensus of opinion was that prior to the business meeting,
the membership should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this issue
by way of its views on this issue. This was followed by a polling of the
members of the Executive Council. A set of questions related to this issue
was developed by the co-chairs and sent to the members of the Executive Council
for their further input.
Their views are summarized in the page that follows. We would like to present
the members of the Section with the same opportunity to respond to a slightly
modified version of these four questions (see: Name Change Straw Poll, attachment
# ), with one exception. Q2 (revised) offers you a wider range of responses
than what was presented to the members of the Executive Council. This decision
was informed as a result of the findings from questions administered to the
Executive Council members.
We encourage your input on this somewhat complex issue.
Summary of Responses of Members of REP Executive Council
On the Name Change Issue & Related Matters
(Based on e-mail responses from 9 of the 10 members of the Executive Council)
All responses returned to Joe McCormick by August 5th 2006
Findings:
Q1. For reasons that the co-chairs have explained in a variety of e-mails,
do you think that the action taken at last years business meeting to change
the name of the section was in violation of our by-laws?
Majority View: No clear majority on this question emerges. Four gave an unequivocal
“yes,” one gave a “no,” and four gave what could be interpreted as a “maybe”
or “other.”
NOTE: There is a great deal of ambiguity here that may reflect a lack of
clarity about how amendments to the REP by-laws are proposed and ultimately
ratified by the general membership.
Q2. If YES, are you prepared for the co-chairs to take the following
recommendation at the annual business meeting? The Executive Council recommends
that the name of our organized section be changed from REP to Race, Ethnicity
and Tribal Sovereignty.
Majority View: Six reject such a recommendation.
NOTE: Based on the conference call however, the consensus view was that “Race,
Ethnicity, and Tribal Sovereignty” be included among three or four options
that members of the section could submit – via the RACE-POL listserve – for
consideration. These options would then be presented at the business meeting.
Q3. If NO, what course of action do you recommend?
Majority View: No consensus position emerges. Responses of the members
of the Executive Council varied.
Q4. Our by-laws currently have no provision for the use of an e-mail ballot.
In the future if proposals to amend our by-laws are endorsed, for purposes
of ratification of such proposals by our membership, do you support the use
of an e-mail ballot in lieu of a conventional mail ballot?
Majority View: Seven say YES, two are somewhat ambivalent.