Election Report of the Nominating Committee, 1985

On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I am pleased to re­port the following results of the election:

President

Carl H. Degler, Stanford Univ. 2631

President-Elect

Natalie Z. Davis, Princeton Univ. 1899
Peter Gay, Yale Univ. 1240

Vice-President, Teaching Division

Patricia A. Graham, Harvard School of Ed. 1498
Myron Marty, Drake Univ. 1387

Council, Place 1

Sheila Fitzpatrick, Univ. of Tex­as, Austin 1085
Robert Forster, Johns Hopkins Univ. 1745

Council, Place 2

Peggy K. Liss, Washington, DC 1544
John V. Lombardi, Indiana Univ. 1148

Professional Division Committee Member

Robert Dallek, Univ. of Califor­nia, Los Angeles 1218
George M. Fredrickson, Stan­ford Univ. 1530

Teaching Division Committee Mem­ber

Sharon Harley, Univ. of Mary­ land, College Park 1472
Robert Schnucker, Northeast Missouri St. Univ. 1186

Research Division Committee Mem­ber

Herbert S. Klein, Columbia Univ. 1324
Anna Nelson, George Washing­ ton Univ. 1434

Committee on Committees

Colin A. Palmer, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1061
Linda Levy Peck, Purdue Univ. 1618

Nominating Committee, Place 1

Richard S. Dunn, Univ. of Pennsylvania 1693
Gloria L. Main, Univ. of Colora­do 1075

Nominating Committee, Place 2

Byron K. Marshall, Univ. of Minnesota 1158
David K. Wyatt, Cornell Univ. 1227

Nominating Committee, Place 3

Michael P. Johnson, Univ. of California, Irvine 1129
Suzanne Lebsock, Rutgers Univ. 1575

 

The total number of ballots cast was 3,224, a considerable decline from last year, when the Nominating Com­mittee chair reported that slightly under 3,800 ballots were cast, and from 1983, when 3,875 members voted.

The decline might be due to the fact that this year’s ballots were not sent to members in a separate mailing, but were included in Perspectives. The Nominat­ing Committee, it should be noted, was not consulted on that measure, which was approved by the Council subse­quent to the Nominating Committee’s annual meeting. If the ballot is again distributed through Perspectives in the future, and the membership becomes accustomed to the procedure, the voting totals may increase again.

In any case, the relative ease in count­ing this year’s election suggests that the AHA membership adapts quickly to in­novations. Last year the election was, for the first time, conducted with ballots that are processed with an optical scan­ner rather than with IBM punch cards. So many ballots were filled out improp­erly thot the chair of last year’s Nomi­nating Committee proposed that all such ballots be disqualified rather than subject the AHA to the cost of having them counted by hand. This year, how­ever, only 202 ballots could not be ma­chine-counted. In many cases, this was because these ballots arrived after the bulk of the ballots had been delivered for machine processing. It should be noted, too, that only two “illegal ballots” were received. In both cases, the voter chose to indicate votes for both of the candidates for president-elect.

The Nominating Committee met this year in Washington on Thursday, Feb­ruary 7, and concluded all of its work, except for contacting a handful of diffi­cult-to-reach prospective candidates, by the afternoon of Saturday, February 9.

Aside from its usual work—the nomi­nating of candidates for elected posi­tions within the AHA—the Committee was asked by the Council to come up with a scheme for regularizing elections to both the Committee on Committees and the Council. The Committee on Committees is a four-person committee whose members serve three-year terms. For some reason, however, one member was to be elected to the committee this year, none in 1986, and three in 1987.

Clearly, it would be better if the Com­mittee on Committees had an even rota­tion in its membership. The Nominat­ing Committee proposed that one mem­ber be elected in 1985, another in 1986, and two in 1987, all for three-year terms. That scheme has one disadvan­tage: it would produce a temporary fluctuation in the committee’s size, i.e. it would have five rather than four mem­bers in 1987. But there would be none of the invidious distinctions that stag­gered terms of office, an alternative means of addressing the problem, would entail.

The problem with the Council was similar. The AHA constitution specifies that the Council include (aside from the president, president-elect, and the three vice-presidents) six members elected by the membership “for a term of three years, two to be elected each year, ex­cept in the case of elections to complete unexpired terms.” The terms of three elected Council members are, however, scheduled to expire this year. As a re­sult, three Council positions would, in the normal course of events, have been on the ballot this year, none next year, and three the year after.

In an effort to bring practice into conformity with the constitution, the Nominating Committee suggested in­stead that two new Council members be elected this year, two next year, and two in 1987, all for three-year terms. Again, there is a disadvantage: the Council would include only five elected mem­bers in 1986 and seven in 1987. None­theless, the proposal seemed preferable to the alternative of electing members for staggered terms. For one thing, to elect members for less than three-year terms would itself violate the constitu­tion.

On the assumption that the Council would accept its proposal, the Nominat­ing Committee proposed candidates for only two Council positions this year. It seemed wise to nominate a slate of Eur­opeanists and a slate of persons who specialize in the history of a country or region other than Europe and the Unit­ed States. In effect, this would be filling the positions being vacated by Kather­ine Fischer Drew and John V. Lom­bardi, while leaving the Americanist po­sition, now filled by Joyce Appleby, for next year. The election of another Americanist seemed less pressing since all three vice-presidents are American­ists.

After grappling with the intricacies of the electoral system, the Nominating Committee took to its more accustomed tasks with particular pleasure. Along with nominating candidates for elective offices, the Committee for the first time nominated candidates for the AHA’s new award for distinguished senior scholars, an award that was proposed by the Nominating Committee and ap­proved by the Council last year. The award’s recipient is chosen by the Coun­cil from a list submitted to it by the Nominating Committee.

As was the case in all of my three years on the Committee, a rigorous ef­fort was made to see that the candidates for elective office reflected well the membership of the Association. The Committee attempts to find candidates from all the various geographical re­gions within the United States and to recognize as well those members resid­ing in other countries.  It considers candidates’ fields of specialization, their age or seniority, and the types of institutions at which they teach, if they are teachers.

The Committee also attempts to select candidates from among the members who are in nonteaching occupations, or who are from minority groups. In the past, it has also taken pains to see that the growing number of women in the historical profession would be reflected in the composition of the Association’s leadership. This year, I am pleased to report, it was unnecessary to pay much heed to that particular consideration: whenever the need was raised to select a candidate from a particular region, or in a particular speciality, the names of qualified women candidates were readi­ly suggested along with those of men.

Despite the most determined struggle to put up a balanced slate of candidates, however, the results are always open to criticism. No one, in fact, is more aware of its failures than the Nominating Committee. This year the Committee disbanded with acute regrets that it had put no medievalist or ancient historian on the ballot, and determined to rectify the problem next year.

Of course, complete success is impos­sible: there are always more potential constituencies than places on the ballot. Then, too, appropriate candidates often cannot be put up for office because they are not members of the AHA, or they refuse to stand for election—though in general, the willingness of AHA mem­bers to serve the Association is striking. (This year only two persons declined to run for office, both because of a rule against pluralism in office adopted by the Council last year, Candidates elected to office now must resign any other appointed or elected office in the Asso­ciation. The persons who declined nom­ination preferred to retain their current memberships on AHA committees.)

Members critical of the Nominating Committee’s work can, of course, regis­ter their complaints. It is, however, much more effective to suggest candi­dates whose nomination for office would remedy the situation. Extensive lists of persons suggested for office and letters in support of those persons are always considered carefully by the Nom­inating Committee. Individuals who propose names should ascertain that their candidates are members of the Association.

The work of the Committee was enor­mously facilitated by the assistance of Eileen Gaylard, the Association’s execu­tive assistant. I would also like to thank George Doyle of the Harvard Comput­ing Center, to which I turned for  help with some chagrin (optical scanners being apparently too “low tech” for MIT to own) and Kathleen Bielawski, the administrative assistant of the MIT His­tory Faculty, who supervised the proc­essing of ballots and made other ar­rangements for the election with ex­traordinary competence and dedication.

Finally, on behalf of the 1985 Nomi­nating Committee, I would like to con­gratulate the candidates, successful and unsuccessful, who were on this year’s ballot: to win is sweet, but to be asked to stand for office is itself an honor. I want also to thank the membership for elect­ing me to the Nominating Committee three years ago, and my fellow members for making me chair this year. Because of the commitment and congeniality of the people with whom I have worked, my time on the committee has been an exceptionally pleasant professional experience.