Minutes RSS COUNCIL MID-YEAR MEETING Westminster, CO and … · 2020. 5. 4. · Jasmine Whiteside...

Approved: RSS Council 5/4/2020

1

Minutes RSS COUNCIL MID-YEAR MEETING

Westminster, CO and Zoom February 8, 2020

Council Members in Attendance: Kai Schafft (President), Dreamal Worthen (President-Elect), Keiko Tanaka (Past-President), John Green (Vice-President), Cynthia Struthers (Executive Director & Treasurer), Deborah Tootle (Secretary), Gretchen Thompson (Awards and Endowment Committee), Ian Carillo (Diversity Committee), Scott Sanders (Program Committee), Becky Schewe (Publications Committee), Alisha Coleman-Jensen (Council Representative Non Academic), Emily Wornell (Council Representative Non Land Grant), Jasmine Whiteside (Student Representative), Tony Winson (Membership Committee). Council Members Not in Attendance: Matthew Sanderson (Awards and Endowment Committee), Michelle Worosz (Development Committee), Brian Thiede (Development Committee), Laura McKinney (Diversity Committee), Elizabeth Seale (Ethics Committee), Julie Keller (Ethics Committee), Jessica Ulrich-Shad (Nominations Committee), Stephanie Texiera-Poit (Publications Committee, Nominations Committee), James Patterson (Student Representative), Loka Ashwood (Council Representative Land Grant)

Kai Schafft opened the meeting at 10:07 EST

Order of the Meeting:

• Consent Agenda

• Committee Reports

• Discussion Items

• Action Items

Consent Agenda:

• President’s Welcome

• Approve Minutes from October 2019 Meeting Motion to approve by Keiko Tanaka; seconded by Becky Schewe. Motion passed

Graduate Student Report UPDATE (1/28/20) Jasmine Whiteside and James H. Patterson III


2

The main tasks that the Graduate Students have been working on are the following:

1. Professional Development Sessions at Annual Meeting We are currently planning three professional development sessions for this year’s annual meeting in Westminster, Colorado. Because of their popularity in 2019 (based on survey responses and in-person attendance), we would like to keep the Professional Development Sessions implemented in 2019. I have listed the sessions and would like help with gaining speakers to participate in the sessions. If you all could name a few people that would be great (graduate students and professors are welcome). Jasmine also talked about the possibility of panel session on nontraditional students.

a. Successfully Publishing in Academic Journals

• Speaker needed (likely someone who has finished graduate school) They would like Lazlo Kulcsar or someone from Rural Sociology to speak again. Since Lazlo is stepping down as the editor, the new editor might be willing to join. Kai suggested that he and others could help organize this. Becky Schewe suggested that the Publications Committee would also help. John Green mentioned he would be willing to assist as Editor of the Journal of Rural Social Sciences (with the Southern Rural Sociological Association).

b. Navigating the Academic Job Market Alicia Coleman-Jensen volunteered to help with this.

• Supply – What it is like on the Job Market i. Looking for recent graduates

ii. Looking for recent graduates

• Demand – What Search Committees are Looking For i. Looking for professors/Someone who has served on hiring committees

ii. Looking for professors/Someone who has served on hiring committees


3

“Real-World Jobs” or Other Ways to Flourish with a PhD iii. Looking for Student/Professor/Human iv. Looking for Student/Professor/Human v. Looking for Student/Professor/Human

vi. Looking for Student/Professor/Human

2. Graduate Student Social Events at Annual Meeting a. Annual Speed-Networking Graduate Event

• We would like to keep the Graduate Student Speed Networking Event as it was last year.

3. Possible Changes (suggestions) a. Presidential Graduate Student Reception

• We would like to change the typical location of the Presidential Graduate Student Reception

• We would like to suggest having it in a conference room again (it doesn’t need to be a large room). We feel that having it in a more open space may be more inclusive especially for first time comers to Rural Sociology.

• We would also like to limit faculty to the first hour b. Diversity Reception Ian Carillo discussed replacing the Diversity Reception with a

Welcome Breakfast, which could be more intimate and inclusive. Cynthia Struthers said this is possible and they just need to hammer out the details. Kai Schafft talked about the inclusion of graduate students in the Society.

• Would it be possible to reframe this event?

• Instead of a few small tables, could the event be more roundtable style where the attendees introduce themselves, discuss their research and learn more about RSS itself?

• It would be a great opportunity to promote scholarships, paper awards and ask questions about possible future RSS conference sites

• The “Awards Luncheon” is more of a reception than the Diversity Reception, so I believe renaming this event as an Information Session about Diversity and Inclusion at RSS or changing the event into something more “awards” based is needed.

Executive Committee Reports: President’s Report Kai Schafft

RSS President’s Report Mid-Year Council Meeting Saturday, February 8, 2020

1. 2020 Plenary Speakers Confirmed:


4

We have two plenary speakers confirmed for the RSS 2020 Annual Meeting. Both were selected on the basis of their ability to speak to the 2020 meeting theme (Rurality and Crises of Democracy), their long and distinguished histories of work and scholarship relevant to the Rural Sociological Society, and the representation of scholarship and practice. Shirley Sherrod: Shirley Sherrod is the former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the State of Georgia who was briefly cast into the national spotlight in 2010 after a Breitbart news story selectively edited and miscast remarks Sherrod had made at a NAACP event. This initially led to a forced resignation and then an apology from the then Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack and an out of court settlement with Breitbart News. More germane to the annual meeting, Ms. Sherrod is the co-founder of New Communities Land Trust, a grassroots organization that has worked for a half century to empower African American families in Southwest Georgia and advocate for social justice. Currently the land trust works to help rural black landowners profit from farming and serves as a model for addressing the nation's affordable housing shortage. Ms. Sherrod has over the course of her lifetime devoted herself to civil rights, rural development, social justice and agricultural renewal. I am thrilled to have her join us at this year’s meeting. Ruy Teixeira: Ruy Teixeira is a senior fellow at American Progress. He is also co-director of the States of Change: Demographics and Democracy project, a collaboration that brings together the Center for American Progress, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Public Religion Research Institute, and demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution. The goals of the project are to document and analyze the challenges to democracy posed by the rapid demographic evolution of the United States from the 1970s to the year 2060 and to promote a wide-ranging and bipartisan discussion of America’s demographic future and what it portends for political parties and the policy challenges they—and the country—face.

2. RSS Rural Policy Brief Series After a series of phone calls and discussions with an ad hoc committee comprised of Brian Thiede and Emily Wornell (chair & chair-elect, Development Committee), Becky Schewe and Loka Ashwood (chair & chair-elect, Publications & Communications Committee), and Shoshanah Inwood and Xue Zhang (chair & chair-elect, Rural Policy RIG), coupled with discussions with The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/us), and the Daily Yonder (https://www.dailyyonder.com/), we have sent out announcements encouraging members to make us aware of research and/or policy briefs published within the last 2-3 years, and encouraging members to consider pitching research brief ideas to The Conversation and/or The Daily Yonder. Through the RSS main office, we now have a web page on the RSS site that functions as an archive and repository for these materials (see: https://www.ruralsociology.org/research-and-policy-briefs). We now have over 20 briefs, including a brief published last month by Zac Newman and Lisa Pruitt as a joint release by the UC Davis Center for Poverty Research and the RSS. I will continue


5

to press this issue, encouraging rural sociologists to extend the visibility of their work beyond the confines of academia. Kai reported that a number of RSS members have contributed and are reporting they are getting their work published beyond traditional academic sources.


6

3. Land Acknowledgements A land acknowledgement, most simply, is a formal statement that recognizes and respects Indigenous Peoples as traditional stewards of a particular piece of land upon which an institution was built and currently occupies and operates in, as well as the relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their connections to the places they have historically and continue to inhabit and/or from which they have been dispossessed. Land acknowledgements are a standard practice in places like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They can appear in written form (in the context of a conference, in the conference program for example), and also can be verbally presented, again in the instance of a conference or professional meeting typically at the very beginning of that meeting. This can be done by those organizing and running the meeting, or ideally by an elder representing a local tribal group. Land acknowledgements serve several purposes. They are first and foremost a signaling of respect to Indigenous peoples and Indigenous histories of place. They are also a recognition of the legacies of colonialism and dispossession that otherwise is left ignored and erased. In this respect, land acknowledgements have an important educative function. They also (I have found) have the effect of helping to emplace all of us and remind us that the places in which we meet are not interchangeably anonymous, but have particular histories, legacies, and significance. This too is consistent with the significance that rural sociology, as a discipline, grants to deeper understandings of place and space. The few land acknowledgements I have experienced (in Canada) notably provided a particular kind of grounding and focus that I have not experienced in other professional meeting contexts. Last, as a Society as we work to examine our own practices, and legacies of inclusions and exclusions, I believe that we would strongly benefit from instituting land acknowledgements at our annual meetings. It is consistent with our ongoing and continued efforts towards inclusion and it’s consistent with the platform I ran on for RSS president. To that end I intend to begin our 2020 meeting with a land acknowledgement, and also include the acknowledgement in our conference program. My hope is that this will set a precedent for our annual meetings to come. I am convinced that this is the right and appropriate thing to do and that it will only make us stronger as a Society. I will have a meeting at the Native American Cultural Center at Colorado State on Monday, Feb. 10 to talk with them about land acknowledgements, and how the RSS can organize this not only for the 2020 meetings, but in meetings to come.

4. Efforts Towards a More Inclusive Society As a Society I think that we have historically not paid sufficient attention to Indigenous issues, or indeed to (rural) race and ethnicity more broadly as issues of social and scholarly concern. Similarly, we have recently increasingly confronted this within our own Society as we acknowledge our own lack of diversity and our insufficient efforts to build a more welcoming and inclusive society. This, clearly, is a work in progress.


7

Thankfully, I cautiously believe we are beginning to see some signs of change. At last year’s meetings we had a number of frank and sometimes difficult exchanges about this exact topic. These were not easy conversations, but though difficult, they were critically important, and we need to keep having them. As a Society, how can we more broadly engage in work that results in significant contributions to understandings of social and spatial inequality if we are not serious about opening new spaces for critical self-assessment and shining a light on inequalities and exclusions within the RSS itself? At the same time, we benefitted from some extremely valuable programming, including extraordinary plenary speakers, and a field trip and deeply illuminating panel discussions exploring Richmond’s legacies of racial inclusions and exclusions, among other things. I hope this year at the Annual Meeting, and moving forward, we can follow this example. I have also been working with Ian Carrillo (Diversity Committee Chair) and katrina quisumbing king on the editing of a special issue of Rural Sociology on “rural race and ethnicity.” We received a large number of excellent proposals and have accepted eight with which to move forward. We are currently expecting submissions within the next month and will be putting these manuscripts through the usual double-blinded review as any other submission to Rural Sociology. Kai reported that efforts are moving forward in organizing anti-oppression training, My old friend and colleague Ken Robinson, along with Keiko Tanaka, Angie Carter and Mark Harvey, is co-editing a forthcoming Rural Studies Series volume on Race and Racism in Rural America. I am very happy about this effort and its inclusion in the Rural Studies Series, and I have been in conversation with Ken about organizing a panel or session with chapter contributors. Some discussion followed these announcements on 1) how to have panels without compromising double-blind process relating to the special issue or the book project and 2) how to promote the RSS to diverse audiences. Cindy Struthers suggested sending out call for papers for sessions relating to race and racism. Emily Wornell suggested we also keep this as a topic for next year, after these volumes are published. I see all these developments as very hopeful, and I want to strongly encourage all of you to actively assist in these ongoing efforts to build a vigorous, diverse, and welcoming Society as we critically engage through our scholarship and practice some of the most pressing issues affecting rural people and places, and indeed the world more broadly.

President Elect’s Report – none


8

Past-President’s Report/Executive Committee Recommendations Rural Sociological Society Midyear Council Meeting (February 8, 2020) Keiko Tanaka

RSS Policies & Procedures (P&P) At this point, nothing to report. Cindy Struthers (Executive Director) and I are in the process of incorporating all the revisions approved by the last Council into the P&P document. By the Council meeting in August, I will be able to present any inconsistencies within the document or further revisions that require discussion.

Fiscal Oversight The RSS Treasurer/Executive Director will present the budget proposal for the upcoming annual meeting. The Executive Council would like to hear from the Council how much deficit in the annual meeting budget we as the Society should allow and whether or not the Council should set a limit. Keiko asked we consider whether this should be set or whether we determine year by year.

Search for the Next Executive Director/Treasurer of the RSS I apologize for the delay in initiating the process to search our next Executive Director/Treasurer and the next home for the RSS Business Office. Once the Call for Letters of Interest is approved, we will begin our search!

Timeline

• February: Call for letters of interest

• April 24: Due date for proposals

• End of May/Early June: Selection and decision

Call for Letters of Interest

Call for Applications RSS Executive Director/Treasurer

DRAFT 2

Rural Sociological Society Seeks New Executive Director/Treasurer and Business Office Location Cynthia Struthers’s term as Executive Director/Treasurer ends on August 31, 2021. RSS is looking for a new Executive Director/Treasurer and a new location for the RSS Business Office, which will start on July 1, 2021. The new person will begin shadowing Cynthia Struthers in January 2021. The incoming and outgoing Executive Directors/Treasurer will work together to plan and manage the Society’s 2021 Annual Meeting. The RSS Executive Committee is soliciting applications for the Executive Director/Treasurer position with innovative proposals to effectively and efficiently operate the RSS Business Office. The Executive Director/Treasurer is responsible for managing the RSS Business Office. The


9

primary responsibilities of the position include the routine operation, fiscal management, and external relations of the Society. Currently, the budget for the Business Office, including salaries of the Executive Director/Treasurer and support staff, is approximately $75,000. The past three Executive Directors operated the RSS Business Office with different models. If you are interested in this position and opportunity, please submit to the RSS Executive Committee a letter of intent to submit a proposal. We will begin reviewing letters, starting February 24, 2020. Upon receipt of these letters, individuals will be contacted for more detailed information regarding their proposals. The proposals are due on April 24, 2000, at which time the Executive Committee will begin evaluating proposals. The decision will be made by early June 2020. Please send Letters to: Keiko Tanaka, RSS Past President ([email protected]) For more information on the position and the current arrangements of the RSS Business Office, please contact Cynthia B. Struthers, Executive Director/Treasurer ([email protected]). According to Cindy Struthers, the Executive Committee will review letters of interest and make a recommendation to Council but the decision lies with the Executive Committee. Cindy thinks we need to ask for Letters of Interest by end or mid-March. We can ask for proposals for end of April. Cindy will work with Keiko to determine actual time line for this process.

Executive Director Report Treasurer’s MidYear Report February 4, 2020 Cynthia Struthers 2019 Income and Expenditures Report

• Our investments continue to do exceedingly well. The letters sent to lifetime members increased giving to the student travel and diversity travel accounts. Several donations have been made to the Busch Graduate Student Research Account.

2019-2020 MidYear Budget and Revenue Report

• We have received payment from Wiley since December 31, and I have requested $25,000.00 to cover Endowment Awards for the year. Five thousand dollars will also be deposited for travel awards as well.

Membership and RIG Numbers

• These are based on members who had renewed their 2020-2021 memberships prior to January 1, 2020. Keiko Tanaka questioned whether we should restrict abstract submission to those who are members (as many other organizations do). John Green suggested we look at average deficit and then think about with how much we are comfortable. These issues will take time to address.

2020 Annual Meeting Budget

mailto:[email protected]



10

• Deficit Budget RSS policies suggest if we go over budget, we should take the funds out of Operating Budget. However, our Operating Budget is tight. Cindy asked how comfortable Council is with a deficit budget. If we don’t operate on a deficit budget, we can increase income or we can reduce costs of Annual Meeting. Some discussion of how we can attract undergraduates (create an undergraduate paper session?) to the meeting to bring in revenue followed, as well as discussion on whether we revisit registration fees. Keiko Tanaka explained that the Executive Council has been discussing registration fees – this might be something the Membership Committee could address? Cindy asked whether we should cut some of the food and beverage services we provide. At this year’s Annual Meeting site, there are a number of restaurants where participants can get breakfast. Cindy asked if Membership could look at all of the options and Tony Winson agreed to take these issues back to Membership Committee. Other points: getting from airport to Westminster Hotel is difficult so we will be using funds to transport people between airport and hotel; in lieu of Department Night we will provide a shuttle to Downtown Denver.

• We have not yet sent plea to member departments. I did send out sponsorship requests to corporations in the Denver area. We have not received any funding from these requests. Gretchen moved to approve the annual budget; Keiko seconded. Motion passed.

2022 Locations for Annual Meeting

• Looking at Austin, TX; Kansas City, MO; and Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN. Response has not been good. Asking for too many rooms and too low a budget. Claudia suggested looking at Overland Park, MO as alternative to Kansas City. I asked her to look at St. Louis as well. She asked if we would like to consider Oklahoma City, OK; Indianapolis, IN; Albuquerque, NM; or Orlando, FL. I told her I would ask. Cindy asked for other suggestions (in the Midwest in particular). Tony Winson suggested Canada; Emily suggested Indianapolis. John suggested our USDA partners in Kansas City may be able to help, especially in the future.


11

RSS 2019-2020 MidYear Mtg. Westminster, CO and Zoom 2019 Income and Expenditures July 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019

ASSETS (CASH) General Annual Meeting Total

Cash - Checking (OPs) 39,304.78 11,198.36 $50,503.14

Cash – Savings Account 18,977.37 13,536.00 32,513.37

Cash - Savings (OPs – Diversity Travel)* 6,564.45 6,564.45

Cash - Savings (RIGs)* 23,746.67 23,746.67

Total Cash Assets 88,593.27 24,734.36 113,327.63

LIABILITIES

Total Liabilities 60,531.63 60,531.63

ASSETS (INVESTMENTS)

Unrestricted:

RSS Endowment (EDJ) 461,034.50 461,034.50

PAX World - Endowment 182,665.34 182,665.34

Ariel Fund - Lifetime 109,388.37 109,388.37

Total Unrestricted Investments 753,088.21 753,088.21

Cash 88,593.27 24,734.36 113,327.63

ASSETS Total Unrestricted 841,681.48 24,734.36 866,415.84

Temporarily Restricted:

Brown Advisory Funds - Buttel 45,702.75 45,702.75

Amer. Wash. Mutual - Busch 27,355.89 27,355.89

Total Temporarily Restricted 73,058.64 73,058.64

TOTAL NET ASSETS 914,740.12 24,734.36 939,474.48

TOTAL LIABILTIES 60,531.63 60,531.63

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $854,208.49 24,734.36 $878,942.85

Real balance for Diversity Travel = $1,058.25 Real balance for Student Travel = $1,461.25 Real balance for RIGs = $23,120.73


12

Investments over Time


13

2018-2019 Budget Revenue Report (on 5 pages)


14


15


16


17


18

Membership and RIG Numbers RSS 2019-2020 MidYear Mtg. Westminster, CO and Zoom Membership Report As of December 31, 2019, and Current Membership by Category Category As of 12/31/2019 Feb. 4 – Active Feb. 4 - Graced

Emerita/Emeritus 7 9 7 Lifetime 95 95 Professional 77 114 150 Student 43 58 126

Total 222 276 283

RIG Balances and Current Membership as of 12/31/19 RIG Name Current Balance No. of Members

Rural Education, Youth and Rural Vitality 358.11 14 Community, Health, and Family 1,871.56 22 Natural Resources 1,332.53 51 Population 731.61 26 Rural Studies 2,008.69 28 Rural Poverty 2,299.28 27 Rural Policy 2,051.78 19 Rural Race and Ethnicity 1,157.80 15 Gender and Sexualities 957.25 18 Applied and Extension 1,657.18 16 SAFRIG 4,647.44 61 Teaching and Curriculum 1,210.03 13 The Elders 862.47 8 International Dev. and Studies 1,975.00 18

Balance 23,120.73


19

2020 Proposed Annual Meeting Budget


20


21

Kai suggested we break for 45 minutes and moved to adjourn morning meeting at 12:15 EST


22

Kai opened the afternoon meeting at 1:04 EST

Council Members in Attendance: Kai Schafft (President), Dreamal Worthen (President-Elect), Keiko Tanaka (Past-President), John Green (Vice-President), Cynthia Struthers (Executive Director & Treasurer), Deborah Tootle (Secretary), Gretchen Thompson (Awards and Endowment Committee), Ian Carillo (Diversity Committee), Scott Sanders (Program Committee), Becky Schewe (Publications Committee), Alisha Coleman-Jensen (Council Representative Non Academic), Emily Wornell (Council Representative Non Land Grant), Jasmine Whiteside (Student Representative). Council Members Not in Attendance: Matthew Sanderson (Awards and Endowment Committee), Michelle Worosz (Development Committee), Brian Thiede (Development Committee), Laura McKinney (Diversity Committee), Elizabeth Seale (Ethics Committee), Julie Keller (Ethics Committee), Jessica Ulrich-Shad (Nominations Committee), Stephanie Texiera-Poit (Publications Committee, Nominations Committee), James Patterson (Student Representative), Loka Ashwood (Council Representative Land Grant), Tony Winson (Membership Committee).

Vice President Vice-President John Green’s Report for RSS Council Meeting, February 8, 2020 Since the time of our last regular Council meeting in October 2019, as Vice President I have been working with the RSS Executive Council and both the Business Office and the Research Interest Groups. As accounted for in various reports and discussions, we have considered issues including conference speakers, special sessions, field trips, childcare options, budgets, and policy briefs. For the sake space, here I focus primarily on RIG proposals for special session and field trip funds. Through the Business Office, we revised and disseminated the call for proposals for special RIG sessions and field trips. In January, we received six requests for funding (four panels and two field trips) totaling $7,164.01. Following an Executive Council meeting and additional research and calculations from the Business Office, the recommendation is that we allocate a reduced amount that meets our $5,000 budget line for these endeavors. (Cindy Struthers was able to revise the RIGs’ proposed budgets to better account for anticipated charges and costs. Additionally, there are conversations taking place with an author of one of the proposals to find ways to reduce costs.) During the Council meeting, we will present the recommended funding for the proposals. Kai Schafft and Ian Carillo discussed some of the adjustments suggested. The RIGs are working to reduce their requests. Some of panel members’ costs can be covered with Diversity Travel and Presidential funds if necessary. Cindy Struthers asked if Diversity Travel be used for registration and travel and Ian said that it was possible. Cindy also mentioned that others (e.g., Elders and Gender RIGs) might have to reduce their costs – maybe by not providing lunches? Keiko Tanaka noticed that some RIGs were carrying over significant balances and had some questions on if/how RIGs were using their funding; she suggested that some RIGs may


23

have to put more of their own funds into the Annual Meeting. If RIGs put more funding into the Annual Meeting, it might reduce Annual Meeting costs. Cindy will check balances again. John Green proposes to ask them to use more of their own funds. Becky Schewe moved to approve RIGs funding; Gretchen Thompson seconded. Motion passed. Again, with the assistance of the Business Office, we distributed reminders about the call for abstracts for the International Rural Sociological Association, and I collaborated with RSS President Kai Schafft to help promote and distribute his call for the “Rural America in 2020: Research and Policy Briefs by RSS Members” web page.


24

Committee Reports: Awards and Endowment RSS Awards and Endowments Committee Report Jan 31, 2020 Gretchen Thompson The committee agreed during the RSS council meeting to hold the call for thesis, dissertation,

early career and Lawrence Busch endowments earlier to allow for funds distribution in time to

support research activities during summer of 2020. The awards and endowments committee

held the call for applications and awarded thesis, dissertation, early career and Lawrence Busch

endowments fall 2019. The committee adopted the rubric put forth for the Lawrence Busch

Award, and adapted this rubric for remaining awards. The co-chair led the review and decision

process with designated committee members. There were eight dissertation awards applicants,

one master’s thesis applicant, seven early career applicants, and nine Busch award applicants.

Applicants were vetted with the ethics committee chair, and after finding no potential conflicts

with all awardees, applicants were notified during December 2019. Funds are being distributed

by the RSS Business Office.

The committee released the call for awards in December 2019, including Distinguished Service

to Rural Life, Distinguished Rural Sociologist, Excellence in Research, Excellence in Instruction,

Excellence in Extension and Public Outreach, Certificate of Appreciation, The Fred Buttel

Outstanding Scholarly Achievement Award 2020 (Book), and The Olaf Larson Graduate Student.

Submission due date is Feb 28, 2020. The Executive Director ensured that the ethics statement

was included in the announcement. The committee will convene in March 2020 to review all

applicants and make decisions on awardees. Applicants are currently few, three applications as

of Feb 1st, and the committee requests that Council members and their colleagues disseminate

the call widely and encourage folks to apply. The chair is working with last year's chair to

ensure that all live carry-over applications are included in this year's pool. Gretchen suggested

we may need to think about an extension of the deadline.

Other areas of business include an initiative within the committee to address processes that

may reproduce inequality among applicants, namely the recurrent pattern that women often

get funded for smaller amounts because they routinely ask for fewer funds. Email

communications with the President, current co-chair, previous chair and committee members

have proposed potentially requiring applicants to apply only for the full award amount. The

committee with convene and put forth a proposal for the council’s consideration during the

2020 summer meeting. Some of the Council suggested there may be some equity issues

because women don’t always ask for the full amount, but if we require them to ask for the

entire amount, fewer awards can be made. The Awards Committee may need to do some

research to determine if this is systematic issue or not and whether we need to pursue


25

alternatives. Cindy pointed out that university policies may have an influence on the amounts

of the awards because they either don’t want to work with small amounts or overages. RSS will

have to discuss how to address overages and whether those funds come back to RSS. Keiko

Tanaka asked whether we could require recipients to budget for attending RSS to present

research.

Gretchen also suggested that we may need more clarification in P&P about applicants and how

they are vetted by Ethics Committee. Kai Schafft mentioned that we have been waiting months

for legal counsel on the wording of our ethics policies and procedures.

The Awards Committee will come back with recommendations and then Council may need to

vote on these recommendations, depending on what the ByLaws specify.

-- Gretchen Thompson, PhD [email protected]

Development Mid-Year Report Submitted by Brian Thiede February 2, 2020 Report given by Emily Wornell.

• The main action item identified during the prior council meeting was to explore options for improving the social media presence of RSS. A sub-committee has started conducting background research on other organizations’ social media engagement, which is summarized in the table below. We plan to complete this research and develop proposals for RSS social media by the annual meeting. We would welcome any feedback and further guidance as we complete this task.

• Development committee leadership has also engaged with the ongoing effort to develop a policy brief series in the runup to the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

• In general, our committee has been underutilized to date. We would welcome further guidance and tasks for the coming months. Ian Carillo addressed underutilization and suggested the Development Committee would reach out to HBCUs and try to identify more avenues to engage them. John Green mentioned another issue regarding regional representation on Council (e.g., Southern Rural Sociological Association). John will work with Development to re-engage the issue.



26

Population

Association of

America

Regional Studies

Association

Society for Applied

Anthropology

Society for Social

Studies of Science ASA Population

Section

What platforms are

they using?

Twitter, Facebook,

LinkedIn

Facebook, Twitter,

Linkedin, Flickr,

Youtube, and WeChat

(for the China Division).

Facebook and Twitter Facebook and Twitter Twitter

What type of content

do they post?

Announcements

regarding awards,

annual meeting

deadlines, relevant

publications

Information on new

content from their five

journals, grants, RSA

conferences (e.g.

deadlines), season

greetings, re-posts

from people posting

about publishing in

RSA journals, new blog

posts in the RSA

webpage.

On Facebook:

Information about the

annual conference (e.g.

deadlines, travel funds),

awards, current issue

of their journal, articles

in other journals

potentially relevant to

their members, new

issues of the SfAA

News bulletin, study

abroad courses,

current

Information on updates

about new 4S blog

posts, conferences

related to 4S topics,

reports from past

conferences, annual

conference deadlines,

fellowship applications

in 4S topics, blog

posts that can be of

interest to 4S scholars.

Additionally, on twitter

they repost tweets from

academics connected

to 4S studies

(everything from

publications to

thoughts on whether

splitting books makes

you a "book

murderer").

Announcements

regarding annual

meeting, publications

How often do they

post?

Daily/frequently. Highly

engaged.

Daily on Facebook and

Twitter, weekly on

Linkedin, about every

two months on

Youtube. It's unclear

how often they post on

flickr and WeChat.

About twice per week

on Facebook. On

twitter they posted

about twice per week

until April 2019 (no

posts after that).

On average, about

once a week.

Sometimes they post

daily, and sometimes

monthly.

Highly variable

Who is responsible

for posting?

PAA staff Alex Holmes,

Communications and

Membership Manager,

is responsible for the

posts across the

various social media

forums associated with

the RSA (with the

exception of the

Regional Studies

journal which has ha

dedicated social media

editor). This includes

various Twitter,

Facebook and LinkedIn

accounts.

A Staff person. This is

a part time staff who

also does SfAA's

publications copy

editing and handles

their social media. She

sets up scheduled

posts that populate

automatically.

Unknown. A graduate student

member of the section.

Do they have formal

social media policy?

Unknown They do not have a

social media policy per

se, although Alex

Holmes has written

guidelines for territorial

representatives who

wish to set up local

social media groups.

They also have an

outline guide for intern

and guest posters.

No Unknown. No


27

Diversity Mid-Year Report January 30, 2020 Ian Carillo reported. Ian presented two options for the diversity data we collect (see below). Cindy Struthers mentioned that because this will affect meeting registration, we need to resolve it soon. Council raised questions about how these data would be used, especially in terms of protecting identity of individuals. Other questions were raised about how we would we be using the data, how this data would help us increase diversity in RSS and who would have access to these data. After some discussion, Ian suggested that Option #2 is too detailed. Cindy mentioned that RSS used to collect more detailed information that has not been used. She suggested we use the shorter questionnaire. Data would have to be collected through Member Clicks. Ian suggested cleaning up Option #1 and submitting it to Cindy for Annual Meeting registration. The Diversity Committee was given one task: to develop a strategic plan to increase diversity, using membership data to evaluate progress. This task and others taken on by the committee are elaborated below. 1 – Diversity data

• The Diversity Committee has designed two potential questionnaires to collect diversity data as part of membership and registration. One questionnaire uses simplified options for ethnic and racial classification, whereas the other incorporates a wider set of sub-classifications. RSS Council can choose one of these two options.

Option #1 Preamble: The diversity committee is requesting the following information in order to gain a better understanding of our membership and conference participants in an effort to make our society more culturally competent and diverse. This information will not be publicly available and/or linked back to any individual members. Answering these questions is optional, but very much encouraged: Ethnicity

I am Hispanic / Latino/a.--A person having origins of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

I am not Hispanic / Latino/a I prefer not to disclose

Race


28

American Indian or Alaskan Native--A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian--A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam

Black or African American--A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander--A person having origins in any of the peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

White/Caucasian--A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa.

I prefer not to disclose Option #2 Preamble: The diversity committee is requesting the following information in order to gain a better understanding of our membership and conference participants in an effort to make our society more culturally competent and diverse. This information will not be publicly available and/or linked back to any individual members. Answering these questions is optional, but very much encouraged: Are you Hispanic or Latino?

YES, I am Hispanic or Latino

Mexican/Mexican American/Chicano A person of Mexican culture or origin regardless of race.

Latin American/Latino A person of Latin American (e.g. Central American, South American, Cuban, Puerto Rican) culture or origin regardless of race.

Other Spanish/Spanish American A person of Spanish culture or origin, not included in any of the Hispanic categories listed above.

Other (please write in): ______________________________

NO, I am not Hispanic or Latino

Decline to state In addition, select one or more of the following racial and ethnic categories that best describe you, if applicable.


29

AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community attachment.

ASIAN

Chinese/Chinese American A person having origins in any of the original peoples of China.

Filipino/Pilipino A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Philippine Islands.

Japanese/Japanese American A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Japan.

Korean/Korean American A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Korea.

Pakistani/East Indian A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Indian subcontinent (e.g., India and Pakistan).

Vietnamese/Vietnamese American A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Vietnam.

Other Asian (please write in): _____________________________ A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East or South East Asia (including Cambodia, Malaysia and Thailand).

BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

African-American

Afro-Caribbean

Afro-Latino

Other Black or African American (please write in): __________________________

NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa or other Pacific Island.

WHITE

European A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe.

Middle Eastern A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Middle East.

North African A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North Africa.


30

White (not specified) A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa

Other White (please write in): ___________________________

Decline to state OTHER

Other (please write in): ___________________________ 2 – Gender

What is your gender?

Male

Female

Other

Prefer not to answer

3 – Gender pronouns

• The Diversity Committee also worked with the Executive Committee in 2019 to provide the option of pronouns on badges as part of conference registration and we ask to continue to do so in 2020. The question in registration appears as follows:

Preamble: RSS is encouraging participants to include their pronoun on name badges for our annual meeting. Although participation is not required, doing so helps recognize the diversity of our membership and guests, promotes inclusion, and helps avert misunderstandings, and is strongly encouraged.

What is your pronoun? (To be included on name badges)

He/Him/His

She/Her/Hers

They/Theirs

Other

Prefer not to have pronoun on name badge

4 – Badge stickers for first-time attendees

• We voted to give attendees the option of indicating during registration whether they are a first-time conference attendee. While we are finalizing logistics, we anticipate


31

putting a simple colored sticker on the badge that would signal their status as a first-time attendee.

• The following questionnaire would appear on the conference registration form:

Is this your first time attending the RSS conference?

□ No □ Yes

5 – Auction/Raffle

• We voted to replace the auction with a raffle this year. Given the difficulties with transporting physical items for auction to/from the conference location, we felt that a raffle might be a more effective format. We are working with Aimee Vieira to organize the logistics.

6 – Diversity Committee Welcome Breakfast

• The Diversity Committee voted to host a 'Welcome Breakfast' the first full day of the conference. While the event would be oriented toward scholars from diverse groups and first-time attendees, all RSS members are welcome to attend. The aim of this event would be for this group of individuals to get to know each other on the first day of the conference in order to promote an atmosphere of inclusion, create a sense of collegiality, and foster informal socializing. It would also provide an opportunity for RIG chairs (e.g. Rural Race and Ethnicity, Gender and Sexualities) to encourage new members to get involved in RIG activities and other RSS groups. Cindy Struthers had questions about opening the breakfast up to all members because she needs to know where to have it and/or what it might cost. She suggested we target who the Diversity Committee wants at the Breakfast. We could ask potential participants (e.g., first time attendees, diversity award winners and perhaps other groups) to register. Cindy will work with Ian on arrangements.

• We decided that rather than having a mini-conference or a diversity reception, the Welcome Breakfast would be our flagship event for the conference.

7 – Diversity Travel Scholarship

• The Diversity Committee plans to devote funds to help waive the registration fees of Underrepresented Minority (URM) students and faculty, the exact number TBD (application deadline: Feb. 17). Ian said the Diversity Committee will help with some of the RIG guest panelists.

8 – Disability accommodations

• The Diversity Committee discussed the availability of disability accommodations and worked with RSS business office to identify needs for disability accommodations. We propose the following pre-event questionnaire to be asked during registration:


32

Do you require accommodation(s) in order to successfully participate in this event? Which of the following will you need?

□ None - I do not need any modifications to participate

□ Materials Provided In: o Standard Print o Large Print o Braille o Audio on CD o Text-only o Electronic Files (formats may include PDF, Word, Text, and Excel)

□ Communication Formats/Aids:

o American Sign Language (ASL) Interpreting o Other type of interpreting (please specify, e.g., Contact Signing, Tactile

Interpreting): _______________________________________ o CART (Communication Access Realtime Translation) o Transcript o Assistive Listening Device

□ I use the following assistive mobility

device:________________________________________________________

□ I will be accompanied by a service animal: o Yes o No

□ I will be accompanied by a personal assistant:

o Yes o No

Ethics Committee Rural Sociological Society 2020 Mid AY Report Updated January 31, 2020


33

No one from Ethics Committee was in attendance. Kai Schafft mentioned that we are in a holding pattern until we get legal counsel for Policy and Procedures. The document below is primarily for information only. This should be on the agenda for Council meeting at Annual Meetings. The Executive Committee will update Council when we hear back from legal counsel. Cindy Struthers reported that we do need to address how award winners will be vetted to protect confidentiality. Cindy wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of the documentation on p. 37 of the agenda (Harassment Policy), Chairs: Sunday Ogunjimi (3rd year) Elizabeth Seale (2nd year) Julie Keller (1st year) Members: Grace Wildermuth (Grad student Rep, 2nd year) Megan Griffin (Grad Student Rep, 1st year) Leland Glenna (appointed) AY 2019-2020 Reports of Potential Ethics Violations from Members: 1 thus far One report was submitted to the committee on 8/18/2019. It was closed on 8/22/2019 under Initial Chair Review due to not meeting the five-year time limit. Meetings: The Ethics Committee (EC) met once as a full committee since the 2019 RSS meetings by web conference. Issues Discussed:

1. Exit surveys from 2019 Plenary 2. Proposed Changes to Policy 3. Required affirmation of ethics statement for membership or register for RSS. 4. Include the process for filing a complaint in the RSS bulletin and in the program. 5. Plans for 2020 Annual Meeting of the RSS

Actions:

1. Policy recommendations submitted to Council for review (attached). 2. Planning for 2020 Ethics Session – plan to bring an outside professional in for anti-

oppression training. 3. Submitted statement for conference registration (attached). 4. Reviewed list of nominations for society positions. 5. Analyzed exit poll data from 2019 RSS plenary.


34

Appendix A Examples of Language about Harassment ASA: Harassment Sociologists do not engage in harassment of any person, including colleagues, students, supervisees, employees, staff, or research participants. Harassment consists of a single intense and severe act or multiple persistent acts, any of which are demeaning, abusive, offensive, or create a hostile professional or workplace environment. Harassment may include unnecessary, exaggerated, or unwarranted scrutiny or attack, whether verbal or non-verbal. Sexual harassment may include unwanted sexual solicitation, physical advance, or verbal or non-verbal conduct that is sexual in nature. Acts of harassment can be based on age, race, socioeconomic status and socioeconomic origins, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, health conditions, political affiliation, marital status, domestic status, parental status, or any other applicable basis proscribed by law.

APA: 3.02 Sexual Harassment Psychologists do not engage in sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is sexual solicitation, physical advances, or verbal or nonverbal conduct that is sexual in nature, that occurs in connection with the psychologist's activities or roles as a psychologist, and that either (1) is unwelcome, is offensive, or creates a hostile workplace or educational environment, and the psychologist knows or is told this or (2) is sufficiently severe or intense to be abusive to a reasonable person in the context. Sexual harassment can consist of a single intense or severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts. 3.03 Other Harassment Psychologists do not knowingly engage in behavior that is harassing or demeaning to persons with whom they interact in their work based on factors such as those persons' age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status. RSS current: Harassment: RSS members do not engage in harassment of any person, including students, supervisees, employees, research participants, or other RSS members. Harassment consists of a single intense and severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts which are demeaning, abusive, offensive, or create a hostile professional or workplace environment. Sexual harassment may include sexual solicitation, physical advance, or verbal or non-verbal conduct that is sexual in nature. Racial harassment may include unnecessary, exaggerated, or unwarranted attention or attack, whether verbal or non-verbal, because of a person’s race or ethnicity. RSS members are encouraged to report instances of harassment they observe in their workplace to the proper authorities.


35

Proposed Changes to the Ethics Committee Policies and Procedures August 20, 2019 Updated 09/04/2019 1. Graduate Students on Complaints Investigations Description and Justification: This change is designed to protect graduate student members of the committee. Retaliation is a real concern with both the investigation and initiation of complaints. Members of RSS who are in positions of power and prestige but who abuse their position may further retaliate against complainants. By restricting the investigative arm of the committee to members more established in their careers, the fear of retaliation is less of a concern. However, the input and unique perspective of graduate students are invaluable to the functioning of the Ethics Committee. We thereby propose a form of investigative subcommittee that pursues complaints, and consists of the Past Chair, the Current Chair, and the Chair-Elect, in addition to the Presidential appointee at-large member. This may be accomplished by simply making every member but these four nonvoting members. This also allows a graduate student to participate on a complaints investigation should there be reason for doing so. Any listing of committee members should reflect these different roles so as to further protect against retaliation. Relevant Sections III.1.a. The committee shall have five committee members. All committee members should be active members of the

RSS while serving on this committee.

III.1.d. One graduate student member will be appointed each year by the President to serve a 1-year term.

IV.3.b. If the complaint is complete and is covered by the Code, the Chair of RSS Ethics Committee shall consult with the other members of the Committee to evaluate whether there is cause for action. A majority vote of the committee is required to initiate a formal case. If the committee finds that a cause for action does not exist, the complaint shall be dismissed at this stage.

III.3 Quorum and Voting A quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the annual RSS Ethics Committee shall consist of a majority of the members then in office. All decisions shall be by majority vote of the members present at a meeting.

PROPOSED CHANGE III.1.a. The committee shall have [five] committee members. All committee members should be active

members of the RSS while serving on this committee.

III.1.d. One graduate student member will be appointed each year by the President to serve a [1]-year

term.

III.1.e Graduate student members are non-voting members of the committee. Graduate student

members may participate in investigations, but they have no voting power in committee. Graduate

student members may also recuse themselves from investigations. These stipulations are in place

for the protection of vulnerable members of the society from possible retaliation.

IV.3.b. If the complaint is complete and is covered by the Code, the Chair of RSS Ethics Committee shall consult with the other members of the Committee to evaluate whether there is cause for action. A majority vote of the voting members of the committee is required to initiate a formal case. If the committee finds that a cause for action does not exist, the complaint shall be dismissed at this stage. III.3 Quorum and Voting


36

A quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the annual RSS Ethics Committee shall consist of a majority of the voting members then in office. All decisions shall be by majority vote of voting members present at a meeting.

2. Alternate procedures that allow confidential reporting Fear of retaliation prevents the filing of complaints. Anonymous reports would allow individuals who have been harassed or who witnessed violations of the Code a voice. It would also provide the committee critical feedback on the frequency, degree, and type of violations that occur. Other possibilities include providing victims of harassment a link to other victims of the same violator, who could then take legal or other action together. We propose that anonymous or completely confidential reports can be made to the Ethics Committee. Such anonymous or confidential reports will not be formally investigated unless enough are made about the same occurrence or incident and are severe enough to warrant further investigation, as judged by the Committee. The Ethics Committee may then initiate a complaint on its own behalf. Testimony can remain confidential if desired. However, the potentially inhibited ability of the subject of the complaint to defend him or herself in cases when the witnesses remain confidential must be taken into account in the recommendations made by the committee. Relevant Sections IV.2.b. A complaint may be initiated by RSS Ethics Committee on its own behalf. IV.2.d. A complaint shall include the name and address of the complainant; the name and address of the complainee; the provisions of the RSS Code of Ethics alleged to have been violated; a statement that other legal or institutional proceedings involving the alleged conduct have not been initiated, or, if initiated, the status of such proceedings; a full statement of conduct alleged to have violated the Code of Ethics, including the sources of all information on which the allegations are based; copies of any documents supporting the allegations; and, if necessary, a request that the 18-‐month time limit be waived. Anonymous complaints shall not be accepted. Confidentiality shall be protected as described in Part V.5 below. IV.4.b The response materials shall be submitted to the Chair of the RSS Ethics Committee. The Chair may, at his/her discretion, request additional information from the complainant, complainee, and/or any other appropriate source, provided, however, that the Committee shall not rely on such additional information unless it has been shared with both the complainee and the complainant and each party has been afforded an opportunity to respond. PROPOSED CHANGES IV.2.d. A complaint shall include the name and address of the complainant; the name and address of the complainee; the provisions of the RSS Code of Ethics alleged to have been violated; a statement that other legal or institutional proceedings involving the alleged conduct have not been initiated, or, if initiated, the status of such proceedings; a full statement of conduct alleged to have violated the Code of Ethics, including the sources of all information on which the allegations are based; copies of any documents supporting the allegations; [and, if necessary, a request that the 18-‐month time limit be waived.] [STRIKE: Anonymous


37

complaints shall not be accepted.] Confidentiality shall be protected as described in Part VII.5 below. Add Section VI. Reports of Violations VI.1.a A report shall be distinct from a complaint. A report does not automatically initiate the process of investigation as described for complaints in Section IV. A report may be anonymous. Alternately, a report may be confidential, in which case the report shall be shared strictly within committee. VI.1.b The Chair-elect maintains records of reports made within their first year through their tenure as committee member. At the end of a Chair’s membership on the committee, the outgoing Chair shall develop summary figures based on the records from their first year on the committee, delete saved versions of the reports, and forward the aggregated data to the RSS Executive Director. VI.1.c The acting Chair of the Committee shall respond to each report to confirm within 60 days of receipt. At this time, the Chair shall provide information to submitters about the process of and distinction between complaints and reports. VI.2.a The Ethics Committee may decide to act upon reports in the event of repeated or severe violations. Such a motion may be brought before the committee by any member of the committee, and forwarded by a majority vote of voting members. VI.2.b In such case, the Ethics Committee may contact initiators of confidential reports to seek permission to use their report as testimony. At this time, it shall be determined whether the initiator of the report wishes to remain confidential. If they wish to remain confidential, their report shall not be directly shared outside committee and shall not be directly relied upon as evidence. The report shall only be referenced in a brief accounting of relevant reports. This accounting, as a document, shall be considered evidence. VI.2.c In all other respects, when initiating a case on its own behalf, the committee shall follow the procedures outlined in this document for investigating and resolving complaints. VI.3 The committee may decide to take other action outside of investigation or sanctioning on the basis of a report or complaint. This may include providing information about legal options, counseling, or other forms of assistance. --Change Section on Confidentiality to Section VII and update all references to this section.


38

3. Time Limit (18mos/5yrs) Description and Justification We wish to extend the statute of limitations for pursuing a complaint. The problem with the current time limits is that they do not allow for protection from retaliation. Because reports include providing the subject of the complaint with their accuser’s identity, those who have been subjected to harassment or such incidences are often vulnerable to retaliation and hesitant to come forward. Just as someone who has been victimized starts to become immune from retaliation in their career, the five-year time limit comes into play. We propose no time limit be imposed upon the committee decision-making. While investigation of complaints of events that occurred in the past can be more difficult to investigate, we believe the committee should be able to make that determination on a case-by-case basis. Section Referenced: IV.2.e. A complaint may not be accepted or initiated if it is received more than 18 months after the alleged conduct occurred or was discovered. A complaint received after the 18-month time limit set forth in this paragraph shall not be accepted unless the Chair of the RSS Ethics Committee determines that there is good cause for the complaint not to have been filed within the 18-month time limit. No complaint shall be considered if it is received more than five years after the alleged conduct occurred or was discovered. PROPOSED CHANGE Strike IV.2.e. IV.2.d. A complaint shall include the name and address of the complainant; the name and address of the complainee; the provisions of the RSS Code of Ethics alleged to have been violated; a statement that other legal or institutional proceedings involving the alleged conduct have not been initiated, or, if initiated, the status of such proceedings; a full statement of conduct alleged to have violated the Code of Ethics, including the sources of all information on which the allegations are based; and copies of any documents supporting the allegations. [Anonymous complaints shall not be accepted.] Confidentiality shall be protected as described in Part V.5 below. IV.3.b. If the complaint is complete and is covered by the Code, the Chair of RSS Ethics Committee shall consult with the other members of the Committee to evaluate whether there is cause for action. A majority vote of the committee is required to initiate a formal case. If the committee finds that a cause for action does not exist, the complaint shall be dismissed at this stage. If the committee finds that they are unable to investigate the case due to logistical hindrances, the complaint shall be dismissed at this stage.


39

4. Chair of Ethics Committee must be tenured or equivalent Description and Justification: Retaliation is a real concern with both the investigation and initiation of complaints. Members of RSS who are in positions of power and prestige but who abuse their position may further retaliate against complainants. By restricting the investigative arm of the committee to members more established in their careers, the fear of retaliation is less of a concern. We thereby propose that requirements for being nominated as Chair include position as tenured or a close occupational approximation. We recommend that Nominations Committee include this restriction in their policy, and that the possibility of retaliation be made clear to individuals being nominated or appointed for membership on the committee prior to acceptance. It is recommended in particular that such individuals be encouraged to inquire with their university or employer as to the availability of legal protection and representation—again, prior to acceptance.

Relevant Sections

III.1.b. Three of these members will be elected by a vote of active RSS members. One new

committee member shall be elected annually, and will serve as chair-elect in their first year;

he/she will serve a 3-year term, becoming chair in year 2 and past-chair in year 3.

PROPOSED CHANGE III.1.b. Three of these members will be elected by a vote of active RSS members. One new

committee member shall be elected annually, and will serve as chair-elect in their first year;

he/she will serve a 3-year term, becoming chair in year 2 and past-chair in year 3. These

committee members shall have established some degree of career security, such as tenure,

in order to offset the risks entailed in investigating complaints.


40

5. Nominations and Awards Process Description and Justification: Individuals who violate the ethical code—particularly in egregious or repeated ways—should neither hold positions of leadership nor be recognized by the society. We recommend that the process for both nominations and awards involve review by Council. In addition, there should be an option to retract an award should the committee discover egregious or repeated offenses by an awardee. There is precedent for this with other organizations. In addition, it would be the highest form of public censure that RSS can do. The evidence and seriousness of a violation must of course be taken into account in the application of any sanction. Relevant Sections V.1 Purpose of sanctions: The purpose of sanctions for violations of the RSS code of ethics is to: 1) penalize the violator for his/her misconduct, 2) provide feedback to educate and rehabilitate individuals who violate the code of ethics, and 3) to create an environment of accountability in which RSS members are ensured of the expectation of ethical behavior and that violators shall be held accountable for misconduct. V.2 Types of sanctions: PROPOSED CHANGE V.2.f Award Retraction In cases in which the violation causes the most serious personal and/or professional harm, previously-awarded RSS recognitions may be retracted. In such cases, the retraction shall be made public to RSS membership. 6. Graduate Student Terms

Description and Justification:

The ethics committee would like to propose a change to the terms of graduate students so that

graduate students serve for 2 years, with a new student joining the committee each year. The

committee feels that this will allow graduate students to participate in the committee more fully

and establish continuity from year to year.

Relevant Sections

III.1.a. The committee shall have five committee members. All committee members should be

active members of the RSS while serving on this committee.

III.1.d. One graduate student member will be appointed each year by the President to serve a 1-

year term.

PROPOSED CHANGE

III.1.a. The committee shall have six committee members. All committee members should be

active members of the RSS while serving on this committee.

III.1.d One graduate student member will be appointed each year by the President to serve a 2-year term.


41

Anti-Harassment Policy RSS is committed to providing a safe and welcoming conference environment for all participants, free from harassment based on age, race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, religion, language, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, disability, health conditions, socioeconomic status, marital status, domestic status, or parental status (hereafter, simply harassment). "Participant" in this policy refers to anyone present at RSS meetings, including staff, contractors, vendors, exhibitors, venue staff, RSS members, and all other attendees. Expected Behavior All participants at RSS meetings are expected to abide by this Anti-Harassment Policy in all meeting venues including ancillary events as well as official and unofficial social gatherings.

• Follow the norms of professional respect that are necessary to promote the conditions for free academic interchange.

• If you witness potential harm to a conference participant, be proactive in helping to mitigate or avoid that harm.

• Alert conference security personnel or law enforcement if you see a situation in which someone might be in imminent physical danger.

Unacceptable Behavior Harassment of any participant is unethical behavior under the Rural Sociological Society Code of Ethics. Harassment consists of a single intense and severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts which are demeaning, abusive, offensive, or create a hostile professional or workplace environment. Sexual harassment may include sexual solicitation, physical advance, or verbal or non-verbal conduct that is sexual in nature. Attendees are encouraged to immediately report instances of harassment during the RSS meeting to the Ethics Committee. Committee members and contact information can be found online at: https://www.ruralsociology.org/rss-ethics. Violations of this policy may lead to removal from the Annual Meeting. To read the RSS Code of Ethics in its entirety, visit https://www.ruralsociology.org/rss-ethics.

By checking this box, I attest that I have read this policy and agree to follow it.

Summary of Findings from 2019 Ethics Plenary Exit Survey

Ethics Committee

Rural Sociological Society

Members were asked to complete a brief survey following the ethics plenary. A total of 16 members

submitted the survey. See page 3 for the survey. (note that the highlights in yellow are part of the Ethics Committee report and do not indicated action items – dmt)

https://www.ruralsociology.org/rss-ethics

https://www.ruralsociology.org/rss-ethics


42

1. Members were provided a list of different issues and asked to circle which ones were “most urgent and critical to address.”

• The most common response was “unintentional discrimination against minority or disadvantaged groups” (9/16)

• The 2nd most common response was “discrimination in general (whether intentional or not) against minority or disadvantaged groups” (8/16)

• The 3rd most common response was “issues of accessibility” (7/16) and “institutional forms of discrimination” (7/16)

• The 4th most common response was “sexual harassment” (6/16)

• When asked to explain further, members stated:

• “The plenary exchange--the ethics one :) -- pretty much sums it up. Unintentional microaggressions and exclusionary practices.”

• “The reputation (?) of the behavior of a few can negatively impact the retention for a whole society!”

• “One topic today nobody mentioned properly was how important is the social work with communities ethics, to be careful on practices and ways to work with them.”

• “Discrimination should be highest priority.”

• “There are very few black people or Latino people among the RSS members.”

• “RSS members should be - by training - more aware of ‘isms’ and strive to not replicate the social pathologies of society.”

• “Does RSS have any policy in place to support graduate student parents who want/have to bring kids to the meeting? I find it difficult/impossible to.”

2. Issues members would like to be better informed about:

• Discrimination (including implicit bias, microaggressions, bystander apathy & changing the culture) (5/16)

• Mentorship (opportunities & practices) (3/16)

3. Forms of education that would interest members: a. Online workshops (6/16) b. Plenaries and sessions at conferences (6/16) c. Workshops at conferences (10/16) d. An online link and resource page (6/16) e. Other: “We should have mandatory training on microaggressions/discrimination”;

“Something that's not just one-time only”

4. Members’ ideas about how RSS can best promote ethical practices among membership and during organization-sponsored events:

• Sessions at RSS or online sessions addressing discrimination, diversity, inclusion and/or solidarity (5/16)

Examples:


43

• “Create intentional, welcoming spaces for dialogue about experiences with explicit steps forward to address issues and continue improvement of the organization and membership.”

• “One idea would be to have one meeting session with roundtables 10-15 persons (each an explicit diverse mixture) and hold similar conversations as we held in the plenary session. Greater individual learning would ensue.”

• “Have a plenary session or concurrent ones. SWS has done sessions for educating white folks while BIPOC folks had a solidarity session.”

Other responses:

• “Be clear about expectations of members and outline clearly the policy for reporting if members deviate from that.”

• Monthly blog

• Ethics poster

• Informal session at continental breakfast

5. Additional comments:

• “Dialogue is great and important but need resources for increased participation and engagement from marginalized groups.”


44

2019 Ethics Plenary Exit Survey Rural Sociological Society Ethics Committee

Thank you for participating in the Ethics Plenary. Please answer the questions below and submit your completed form to a member of the Ethics Committee or as directed at the Plenary. The data from these surveys will be used for internal purposes only, including reports to Council and formal survey development.

1. Which of the issues listed above in question #1 (or other ethical issues) would you like to

be better informed about?

2. Which of the following forms of education would interest you? Select all that apply.

a. Online workshops b. Plenaries and sessions at conferences c. Workshops at conferences d. An online link and resource page e. Other:_______________________________________________________________ f. None of the above

3. How can the RSS best promote ethical practices among membership and during organization-sponsored events?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Please use the remaining space to explain any of the answers above or provide additional comments.


45

Membership SUBMITTED BY: TONY WINSON

I have submitted the call for abstracts to the Canadian Association for Food Studies to be

posted in their regular newsletter. I have also submitted the call for abstracts to the Canadian

Sociology Association as well as the extension of the deadline announcement. They have posted

these on their website. These two organizations encompass most of the Canadian academics

likely to have an interest in the RSS meetings.

I have only received one application so far for the RSS Graduate Student and Needs-

Based Travel Award so far. I have received one other communication of a student who will

apply in a day or two. I expect more in the coming week. That’s about it for now and I look

forward to suggestions and input during the upcoming conference call meeting.

Nominations Mid-Year Meeting Report Chair: Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad Co-chair: Stephanie Teixeira-Poit No one from Nominations Committee on call. Cindy Struthers discussed timing of ballots when nomination requests are sent out during the fall and issue of keeping ballot names confidential until the ballot has gone out. Updates:

• As of 1/30, we have a final ballot for 2020! We are just waiting on bios from a few people. We have a great group of diverse candidates from a variety of institutions, backgrounds, and statuses.

o A few things on the process: ▪ Selection criteria:

• While it varied slightly by position, we were generally ranking nominees based on commitment to the organization, relevant experience for the position, diversity, and—for more entry-level positions—considering newer people to the organization to try and encourage future involvement.

• As a new step this year, we sent the names of all candidates to council and the Ethics Committee to check for ethical concerns.

▪ Challenges:

• As is usual from my understanding, the most difficult position to fill was for the President-elect. While there were many nominees and many people who said they were interested in the future, it took us the longest to find both willing and suitable candidates for this position.

o Reaching out to past presidents and to the Diversity Committee was a great way to get additional names.


46

Suggestions/recommendations/discussion items for council:

• Should those who are on the Nominations Committee be able to be put on the ballot while they are serving?

o While we did not allow those who were nominated for certain positions to be a part of the discussion regarding that position, it still led to some awkward discussions and I think does not look good from the outside. I (Jessica) would recommend that we have a policy that those who are on the committee are not considered for the ballot. For the majority of positions (all but President-elect), we have plenty of people who are nominated and willing to serve and so I don’t think this will lead to people being not willing to serve on the Nominations Committee. This will give more people a chance to serve in leadership roles for the organization.

• How should information be passed between the Nominations Committee and the Ethics

Committee and Council?

o The committee appreciated only getting “unspecified feedback” from the chair with regards to ethical concerns about a nominee and the need to withdraw their name. The committee agreed, the full Nominations Committee does not need to know any specifics about a concern, and that having just the chair notified is sufficient. In the future, this practice should be continued.

o The committee thinks that some sort of record needs to be kept by the Ethics Committee regarding past concerns that have been raised about particular nominees. We are not sure what this would look like or how it should be implemented, but think it could be useful in the future.

o The committee believes that a more formal procedure needs to be established by council (perhaps written into the bylaws) regarding how we as a society are addressing ethical concerns related to nominees for awards and leadership positions. More transparency into the steps that are taken, by whom, and when should be made more apparent for the whole society.

• Can the Nominations Committee provide the list of nominees who accepted being candidates but who were not chosen to the President-elect to help fill other appointed committee positions?

o There are MANY great people willing to serve and would likely appreciate getting appointed to other committee positions. In doing this service, it would likely also increase their likelihood of being selected in the future and it would make the president-elect’s job easier and enable them to reach outside of their own networks more.

Program Report for the 2020 RSS Mid-year Council Meeting Scott Sanders, 2020 Program Committee Chair


47

Scott Sanders reported. Most of the work for the program committee will start after the mid-year council meeting. However, since the last meeting the program committee has accomplished the following:

• Met with Ex Ordo representatives for training on software and app for the 2020 annual

meeting program.

• Worked with the IDEaS RIG to allow early abstract submission. The early submission was

done to facilitate travel documents for international scholars.

• Began coordinating workshops and special sessions with RIGs and individual

contributors.

• Toured Westminster facilities to plan the layout for the annual meeting.

• Discussed possible keynote and plenary speakers with Kai and Cindy.

Publications January 2020 Chair: Becky Schewe Incoming chair: Loka Ashwood Prior chair: Stephanie Teixeira-Poit Becky reported. She sent out additional reports that should be attached to the report here. Key updates:

- Wiley contract: o The Wiley publication contract for Rural Sociology was renewed and signed

on October 24, 2019 (see amendment for copy of contract) - Journal metrics:

o Rural Sociology's impact factor has continued to increase, and was at 1.87 and citations increased during 2018 (see amendment for copy of journal metrics)

- Editorial transition: o Carol Ward of BYU has begun her "shadowing year" prior to commencing

editorship of Rural Sociology in January 2021. She has been granted access to the ScholarOne online system and will be having regular meetings with Lazlo to ease the transition.

o Point person is Matthew Mars, he will reach out monthly - Website:

o The committee has prepared a list of website recommendations (see amendment)

o Point person is Angie Carter - Policy briefs:


48

o Kai has been moving forward with the policy briefs series o Point person: Loka Ashwood

- Rural Studies book series o Spencer Wood has agreed to renew his editorship of the book series for

three more years Action items for 2020:

- Paper award: o The contract allocates $1,000 for Lazlo (or the editor at the time) to select a

paper award winner each year o Becky will reach out to Lazlo to select the winner and coordinate with the

business office and Wiley - Managing editor:

o Carol Ward needs to select her incoming managing editor so they can be introduced to the system

- Editorial transition

Action Items

• Cindy thinks we need to ask for Letters of Interest by end or mid-March. We can ask for proposals for end of April. Cindy will work with Keiko to determine actual time line for this process.

• The Executive Council would like to hear from the Council how much deficit in the annual meeting budget we as the Society should allow and whether or not the Council should set a limit. Keiko asked we consider whether this should be set or whether we determine year by year.

• Keiko Tanaka questioned whether we should restrict abstract submission to those who are members (as many other organizations do). John Green suggested we look at average deficit and then think about with how much we are comfortable. These issues will take time to address.

• Cindy asked whether we should cut some of the food and beverage services we provide. At this year’s Annual Meeting site, there are a number of restaurants where participants can get breakfast. Cindy asked if Membership could look at all of the options and Tony Winson agreed to take these issues back to Membership Committee.

• Keiko Tanaka noticed that some RIGs were carrying over significant balances and had some questions on if/how RIGs were using their funding; she suggested that some RIGs may have to put more of their own funds into the Annual Meeting. If RIGs put more funding into the Annual Meeting, it might reduce Annual Meeting costs. Cindy will check balances again. John Green proposes to ask them to use more of their own funds.

• The Awards Committee will look at issues brought up in today’s discussion and come

back with recommendations the issues, which Council may need to vote on, depending

on what the ByLaws specify.


49

• Regarding the data RSS will collect on diversity, Ian Carillo will send a cleaning up version of Option #1 (in his report) and send it to Cindy Struthers so she can use it for Annual Meeting registration.

• The Diversity Committee will help with travel and arrangements for some of the RIG guest panelists.

• The Executive Committee will update Council when we hear back from legal counsel on our policies relating to ethics.

Kai Schafft moved to adjourn at 2:43 EST. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Tootle RSS Secretary

Minutes RSS COUNCIL MID-YEAR MEETING Westminster, CO and … · 2020. 5. 4. · Jasmine Whiteside...

Documents

Transcript of Minutes RSS COUNCIL MID-YEAR MEETING Westminster, CO and … · 2020. 5. 4. · Jasmine Whiteside...