Table 1.
Summary of Responses of Members of REP Executive Council
On the Name Change Issue & Related Matters
|
Responses from the Executive Council |
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? |
Q2. If YES, are you prepared for the co-chairs to
take the following recommendation at the annual business meeting? |
Q3. If NO, what course of action do you recommend? |
Q4. Our by-laws currently have no provision for
|
|
1 |
Yes |
No |
...that the Exec. Council offer 3 or possibly 4 choices to the membership, and maybe have the vote organized as cumulative voting. Those 3 (or 4) choices would be: a) keep same name; b) Race, Ethnicity and Tribal Sovereignty; c) 1 or 2 more suggestions that emerge from discussion on race-pol in August. I would nominate (I have already nominated!) Race, Ethnicity, and Indigeneity (or Indigenous Peoples, or Tribes) |
Yes |
|
2 |
no. |
I recommend the name be change to include Tribal Sovereignty. |
See… response to Q2. |
I think this must be done on a case by case basis. In this case yes. My concern with all of this is that we had a number of American Indians present last year, there is no guarantee we will have those kind of numbers again this year which limits our voice and vote. Even thought we thought we had successfully voted to change the name last year. |
|
3 |
YES |
No. I like the name as it is now. |
I recommend no changes. |
YES |
|
4 |
Technically, no, because the by-laws are vague. But, vote YES on the improper application of the by-laws and rules regarding deliberation on changes to by-laws. |
NO |
The Executive Council takes no position on whether a name change should occur, and what that name change should be. |
YES |
|
5 |
The action taken last year MAY be in violation of our by-laws, and that ambiguity alone is, to my thinking, sufficient for us to take seriously. |
After much struggle with this question, I am not prepared to agree to the recommendation to change REP specifically to "Race, Ethnicity, and Tribal Sovereignty" for the reason that [name left out] articulated so nicely to you in [the] e-mail of July 27th. I fully accept the concern, or grievance, that the name "Race, Ethnicity, and Politics" does not adequately recognize the validity and centrality of questions of tribal sovereignty. But I am less convinced that we should therefore amend the name to _only_ or _very specifically_ recognize these questions. Rather, the issue should give us pause to reconsider our name in the most broad and general terms: first, what is the universe of issues, topics, phenomena, etc. that is and should be covered under the rubric of "REP?" Then, which words most parsimoniously capture this universe? On the first question, I am in full agreement that the universe must include questions of tribal sovereignty. Yet so too must questions of sovereignty that "arise from transnational, Diasporic, and global contexts and frameworks" (as [name left out] puts it) be covered within our "REP" rubric. Which to me leaves "Race, Ethnicity, and Tribal Sovereignty" as an incomplete designation for who we are and what work we do. |
No response |
Yes. For better or worse (probably worse), e-mail has become our new lingua franca, so we might as well fully embrace it. |
|
6 |
What was proposed at the business meeting was a change of name for the section, which I suppose is technically a change in the bylaws under #1. So since there was no petition with 25% of the members and it wasn’t submitted 30 days in advance then all that transpired was in violation of the existing bylaws at the time.
|
….on #2, since I am a stickler for following transparent policies
I would have to say no, we can’t vote on a name change at this time.
|
One of two things, some member of REP or the council can send in
a petition for the name change but would have to get 25% of the members of
REP, I don’t know how many people that would be but my guess its something
around 100. Or two, someone could petition to change the amendment process
from what it is to something else.
|
On #4. yes we should amend the bylaws and provide for an email ballot, but to do that we need to follow [response provided to Q1]…. |
|
7 |
I do not think so, but think there is enough ambiguity remaining that we should proceed with caution. |
No. I thought that what was agreed to during the conference call was the idea of opening up the question to the membership before the meeting (with a deadline, as discussed below) in order to decide what the council was going to take to the membership in terms of a recommendation. Given [name left blank] and [name left blank] comments (among others) I don't at the moment feel comfortable recommending one name in particular. I do, however, strongly believe that the name issue must be addressed and resolved. |
I would recommend explaining to the membership that there is ambiguity re: the appropriateness of last year's action and that the importance of the issue deserves further discussion. I would email everyone in REP and ask that they comment/make suggestions re: the name change issue by August 22 (as listed below). Ideally a consensus will arise from that discussion, and that will be the name we propose to the membership at the business meeting. Everyone should know that any decision we make there must be ratified by a vote of the membership. |
Yes, completely in favor |
|
8 |
Not entirely certain. I thought there was a rule in our by-laws on the need for a quorum at the meeting (particularly the need for quorum if changes to the bylaws were going to be proposed or voted on). This could be a function of the APSA by-laws applying to all organized groups. Regardless, given the importance of the question we are dealing with and the potential impact to the section, I don't think the membership was fully informed and sufficiently present to make the decision taken at last year's meeting a functional one. |
No, I am not prepared to make this recommendation in large part because I am uncomfortable with this particular selection - for many of the reasons that others have already articulated. I do believe it is important to mark the section in such a way that designates it as a space for work on and by indigenous scholars; however, the inclusion of "tribal sovereignty" seems to miss the mark in this regard. |
I would prefer to re-introduce the topic at our next business meeting by submitting the "motion to reconsider" (with the caveat that information pertaining to this agenda item be circulated to the membership prior to the meeting). At the meeting I think we need to have a fuller discussion about two things: 1. should a name change occur? (This wasn't one of the questions to the board [Council] and I don't know if you "voted" on this in the conference call but it seems like the most basic point of departure. I would recommend another round of emails to the board [Council] asking this question before you put out a message to the broader membership. My gut is that there is a broad support for a name change that includes reference to indigenous scholarship but that there is not currently consensus on this issue.) 2. If "yes," what are the proposed options? Compile the list from the meeting and then circulate these for an e-vote among the membership after APSA. |
Absolutely. |
|
9 |
Yes, I do believe the action taken at last year’s business meeting was a violation of our by-laws. |
Yes, I am prepared for the co-chairs to make the recommendation to [the general membership that ] the name of our organized section be changed from REP to Race, Ethnicity and Tribal Sovereignty. |
NA |
Abstention, until further recommendation and clarification concerning email ballots. I would prefer electronic through a website similar to what APSA utilizes. |
|
Nine of the ten members of the Executive Council responded by the requested date of Saturday, 6 August |
||||
C:\life @ PSU\my work\APSA-REP STUFF\Summary of Responses of Executive Council - Name Change Issue.doc