Election Report of the Nominating Committee, 1984

On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I am pleased to re­port the following results of the the 1984 elections. Of the 10,000 who were eligible to vote, less than 3,800 cast votes—just over a one­-third turnout.

The Nominating Committee was most gratified by the willingness of all but two of the thirty people whom it contacted to run for office, and it congratulates those who have been elected by the members of the Association.

President

William H. McNeill 2961

President-Elect

Carl N. Degler 2346
Arthur Schlesinger, jr. 1387

Vice-President, Research Division

Akira Iriye 1548
Mary Beth Norton 1968

Council

Bernard Lewis 1740
Thomas E. Skidmore 1508
Michael R. Marrus 1389
Louise Tilly 2026
William H. Harris 1216
George B. Tindall 1979

Professional Division Committee Member

Richard A. Baker 1308
Clara M. Lovett 1825

Research Division Committee Mem­ber

Jerome M. Clubb 1096
Rudolph Vecoli 2019

Teaching Division Committee Mem­ber

Marjorie W. Bingham 1617
Eric Rothschild 1451

Committee on Committees

Gail L. Bernstein 1696
Francisco A. Scarano 1339
David Brody 2072
Michael Katz 1117
Roger Hahn 1489
William E. Monter 1537

Nominating Committee

William H. Chafe 1665
Nathan I. Huggins 1538
Richard Graham 1279
Susan M. Socolow 1818
Patrick J. Geary 1293
Robert O. Paxton 1882

 

The Nominating Committee held its annual meeting in Washington, DC on February 9–11, 1984, in order to decide on its nominations. Unlike previous years, it gathered in time for dinner on Thursday evening, so that its most diffi­cult task, the selection of nominees for the position of president-elect, could begin that evening. It had created a short list by the following morning, and was able to select all 28 of its first choices as nominees during the day Friday. A final discussion on Saturday morning enabled it to replace nominees who did not wish to stand for election, discuss procedures and general questions about its activities, and  virtually complete the task of contacting nominees to confirm their willingness to run for an AHA office.

The Committee wishes particularly to record its thanks to Eileen Gaylard, the assistant to the Executive Director of the Association, who not only made the arrangements for the meeting but patient­ly and tirelessly made the initial contacts with nominees. Without her help, and the ability to draw on her extraordinary knowledge of the Association’s history, the Committee’s work would be far more difficult. Like our predecessors, we found her willingness to devote so much time to our meeting, especially on a weekend, absolutely invaluable.

In order to regularize its procedures and also to make clear to the member­ship the criteria according to which it operates, the committee authorized the Chairman to draw up a list of the vari­ous considerations that come into play during its deliberations. A copy of that document is included as an appendix to this report.

It should be pointed out that these criteria do change from committee to committee, but the ones listed here rep­resent something of a consensus over recent years, both within the committee itself, and as a result of communications it has received from members of the Association. The length of the list should give our colleagues an indication of the complexity of the process, and the difficulty of achieving the balances that are listed here. A document de­scribing the committee’s procedures was also prepared, and will be kept for the committee’s use by future Chairpersons.

For the fifth time in eight years, the committee discussed the pros and cons of nominating two people for the posi­tion of president-elect. This is a nomina­tion on which the bylaws are more spe­cific than they are for any other office, but the committee did not wish as a body to recommend changes, though there continued to be interest in alterna­tive approaches, such as the nomination of three candidates. The committee did, however, reiterate its recommendation that the Council establish a distin­guished scholar award. To this end, it asked the Chairman to put the request to the Council in person, and the result was the formulation of a proposal for such an award by a committee of the Council.

Its other recommendations were as follows:

1. That the deadline for nomination by petition be brought forward to July 1 so that the ballots could be prepared earlier and the short voting period, which caused such a problem in 1983, could be lengthened.
2. That the Nominating Committee itself continue to be balanced primarily by principal field of research: that is, four Americanists, three Euro­peanists, and two scholars working in other regions.
3. That the Association undertake a study of the distribution of these fields of research among the member­ship, so that the proportions of Amer­icanists, Europeanists, and historians of other regions could be represented more accurately among the nominees.
4. That the terms of office of the members of the Council and the members of the Committee on Com­mittees be staggered in the same way as other bodies so that equal numbers are elected each year. As things stand at present, three members of the Council were elected in 1984; three will be elected in 1985; and none will be elected in 1986. There is a similar imbalance in the Committee on Com­mittees. We urge that at the next elections, some members be given shorter terms so that henceforth the same number will be elected each year-in the case of the Council, for instance, two members per annum.
5. That the form requesting nomina­tions from members also solicit specif­ic information about the qualifications of those who are suggested for the various offices. The Chairman re­ceived nominations from over 100 members, but often it was difficult to tell why someone was considered ap­propriate for a particular position. By indicating the special considerations that are taken into account for differ­ent nominations, as we have done in the appendix, we hope to elicit better information from the membership, and urge that the nominations  form be revised accordingly.
6. That the AHA office include in its computerized membership lists the following pieces of information about the members that are often invoked in the nomination process:
   1. employment at public or private institution
   2. field of interest or research (America, Europe, other re­gions)
   3. type of teaching employment:
      1. research university
      2. college
      3. community college
      4. school
   4. type of non-teaching employ­ment:
      1. public agency
      2. foundation
      3. archive or library
      4. other profession
      5. independent scholar
   5. previous service on AHA com­mittees
   6. state in which employed

The Chairman has also personally recommended to future Chairpersons that incorrectly completed or mutilated ballots, which the scanning machine ei­ther rejects or ignores, should hence­forth not be included in the tabulation of votes in the annual election. That procedure, normal in political elections which rely on manually recorded bal­lots, should not have to be improved upon by the AHA. The time and cost of correcting or hand-counting the votes of the minority who are unable to follow simple instructions vastly outweighs what is spent on those who make the effort to complete the ballot properly. There seems no good reason to labor so hard to keep enfranchised the few who are unwilling to observe the  rules  of  a process that is followed without prob­lem by a substantial majority of the membership.

The work of the Nominating Com­mittee is never easy, because it strives constantly to represent the best interests of all members of the Association in its work. It is aware that a self-perpetuating body is vulnerable to charges of indif­ference to its colleagues’ concerns or the promotion of its own specific ends. In three years of service on the committee, I have never once seen the slightest hint of such partiality. The awareness of our larger responsibilities has been an insis­tent influence in all of our discussions, and it has been a privilege to work with colleagues so totally committed to the varied needs of the profession. I am grateful to them for the experience, and feel confident that their dedicated ser­ vice and the quality of nominees they have chosen will assure the Association of excellent leadership in the years to come.

Appendix

Nominating Committee Considerations Taken into Account in Nominations

The following considerations at one time or another come into play in devis­ing the slate of nominations that the committee puts together each year. Even in a  year when there is a large number of vacancies, such as 1984, the categories outnumber the names being put forward: 32 categories, but only 28 names.

1. Field
   1. United States
   2. Europe
   3. Other regions
2. Gender
   4. Male
   5. Female
3. Age
   6. Under 40
   7. 40s and 50s
   8. Late 50s and up
4. Rank
   9. Non-tenured
   10. Tenured
   11. Retired
5. Educational Institution
   12. Research University
   13. Four-year College
   14. Community College
   15. High School
   16. Private Institution
6. Non-teaching employment
   17. Librarian or Archivist
   18. Public Servant
   19. Officer of a foundation or other aca­demically oriented institution
   20. Independent scholar employed in an unrelated field
7. Region
   21. New England
   22. Mid-Atlantic
   23. South
   24. Midwest
   25. Southwest
   26. Northwest
   27. West
8. Minorities
   28. Black
   29. Hispanic
   30. Asian-American
9. Foreigners
   31. Members of the Association living out­side the United States
10. Service
    32. Previous service on AHA committees

Some of these categories, of course, are considered only with respect to cer­tain offices, and the list below indicates when they become central. Nearly all of the categories, however, are raised at some point in the nomination process. Not mentioned above are quality of scholarship, energy, wide knowledge of historians, and a concern for the en­hancement of the profession in general. Where known, these considerations are taken into account almost constantly.

The offices for which some categories are given especially close attention are as follows:

Presidency: age of late 50s and above

Council: previous service

Research division: librarian or archivist

Professional division: non-teaching employment

Teaching division: community colleges and high schools