AOU and Other Societies to Evolve Into New Society for Ornithology

Ricky--I do not know. The Council has to sort out how to deal with this. Sue

For interest, here is the RRF's response to the invitation we received from Sue Haig to consider joining the proposed Society for Ornithology. This open letter was sent to Sue today:

 

Dear Sue:

 

Thank you for inviting the Raptor Research Foundation to join the proposed Society for Ornithology, and for sending me the draft outline of your vision for reorganizing how professional ornithology is conducted in the Western Hemisphere. At our meeting in Duluth last month the RRF Board of Directors discussed your proposal. In this open letter I’d like to share with you and the OSNA community our perspectives and our decision.

 

First, it occurred to us that what you are proposing is not an invitation for RRF as a group to join a new society. Should the SFO become a reality, RRF members certainly would be free to join or not at their discretion. Rather, what you are proposing is that RRF disband so that a new SFO could be the exclusive representative for ornithology in the Western Hemisphere. I must say that that is an astounding request! However, because the RRF Board of Directors represents not only our society, but also the interests of our membership, we carefully considered whether disbanding and allowing a new SFO to be the sole representative of Western Hemisphere ornithologists would promote the mission of RRF. The following issues were discussed by our board.

 

Membership

 

Declining memberships are of real concern to professional scientific societies. While the change in how peer-reviewed publications are disseminated (from paper to electronic) is one factor, it certainly is not the only reason for a lack of growth in new members and for non-renewals. We believe that to attract new members and to earn the renewal of current members, a society must not only give its members a first rate product, including an outstanding journal and a valuable and enjoyable experience at the annual meetings, but must also provide opportunities for the members to become personally involved in their chosen discipline. For example, under the current OSNA structure, each society has committees to address various areas of concern, such as avian conservation. Although redundant, having multiple committees addressing the same concerns increases the number of members who are able to contribute to the cause that draws them to our societies in the first place. Likewise, each society has its own governing board. We believe that consolidating several OSNA societies into one mega-society would greatly reduce the opportunities for members to be substantively involved.

 

Declining memberships in some OSNA societies seems to be a significant part of the rationale for forming a new society. However, after reviewing the Working Outline you provided, the RRF Board did not see a compelling argument on how a new society would solve that problem. At this stage the SFO proposal simply fails to make that case. In fact, a reduction in the number and diversity of societies available to potential members might very well exacerbate the membership problem.

 

Publications

 

The RRF Board recognizes that one of the greatest strengths of professional ornithology is its peer-reviewed publications. Currently, the Journal of Raptor Research competes with the Auk, the Wilson Journal of Ornithology, the Condor, and the Journal of Field Ornithology for excellent papers. Each journal has its own niche, but importantly, each is independent. The SFO structure would consist of four new journals under a single editorial office. This single office would assume the authority to decide which papers would be “game changers” and be published in the top journal (Frontiers in Ornithology), and which would be second tier and published in Advances in Ornithology. The RRF Board rejects the concept of a tiered system; we don’t believe our readers need to be told which studies are most valuable to the field.

 

The SFO proposal also envisions two additional journals, one for descriptive studies and another for applied subjects, including conservation. RRF also rejects this approach, particularly the notion that conservation-oriented studies should be relegated to something other than the top-tier journal. We believe that readers are attracted to journals in part by the variety of papers they contain. Diversity within journals may be as important as the diversity among journals.

 

The RRF Board does not support the proposal to replace the current structure of five (or more) independent outlets for scholarly literature with a group of new journals under a single editorial office. We believe that the loss of diversity and independence may do great harm to the field of ornithology, and we urge the planners of the SFO to consider very carefully the potential consequences of such a restructuring.

 

Meetings

 

RRF has a well-deserved reputation for its outstanding annual meetings. Being a relatively small society of 900-1000 members, our meetings attract a few hundred participants. There are many advantages to a smaller gathering, particularly the ease with which colleagues can spend “quality time” together. While RRF regularly joins with other OSNA societies every four years or so for the NAOC, there is significant reluctance to give up our more intimate meetings. Participation in a mega-meeting also is problematic in that it is difficult for smaller societies to maintain their unique identities. In particular, the logistics require that we forego a number of our valued traditions, such as the Andersen Award for best student paper. If the current program constraints we face with the NOAC-V meeting in Vancouver are indicative of how SFO meetings would be organized, we feel that the disadvantages of these mega-meetings would outweigh their advantages.

 

Geographic Emphasis

 

Finally, the SFO is being proposed as a new representative of Western Hemisphere ornithology. RRF takes great pride in being an international society. Our commitment to serving a global clientele is reflected in the structure of our Board of Directors. A focus on Western Hemisphere ornithology is not in RRF’s interests.

 

In summary, there are substantial disadvantages for each area of concern and, frankly, no apparent benefit for dissolving RRF. Moreover, we have serious concerns about the development of a new ornithological society without a more transparent process that from the beginning involves formal representation from all of the OSNA societies. Consequently, the RRF Board of Directors has unanimously declined your request for RRF to disband and have its members join the Society for Ornithology.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ruth Tingay, President

Raptor Research Foundation

Ruth -- It is surprising to get this response from you as I/we nevered asked RRF to join SFO. We clearly stated in the note to you, as RRF president, that we were asking RRF to join the discussion to explore development of a new society. No society, including the AOU, has been asked to join SFO. And every OSNA society was invited to participate in these discussions.

 

I wonder how RRF made the decisions they did without any idea of what the plan for SFO would be? We do not have a plan yet, hence there is really nothing for RRF or any society to judge the new society.

 

In any event, RRF will always be welcome to participate in discussions related to SFO. We hope you and RRF members will stay tuned for how this society is evolving. Sue

Sue:

 

In the letter you sent to OSNA members yesterday you stated that no OSNA Society had rejected the concept outright. The letter from RRF now informs the discussion that your statement is no longer true.

 

I don’t think it furthers the discussion to speak of a basic “concept” in one message, then in another argue that an OSNA society made a decision “without any idea of what the plan for SFO would be.” I would like to see less posturing and more candid evaluation of the basic concept/plan/working outline and the process by which it is being pursued.

Dick--I was very specific in my notes to the OSNA presidents that we were not asking them to join SFO at that time. Thus, I feel bad that RRF spent all that time going through the process of evaluating their future when they did not have the correct information to do that. Given no other OSNA society took the message I sent the way that RRF did, I think they somehow misunderstood what I was asking of them.

 

In any event, RRF or any other OSNA society is always welcome to join in the discussions at any point.

 

By the by...you keep raising this phrase "unofficial committee". It's kind of like the people that raise the issue of Obama's birth certificate. I asked President Faaborg if we could form a committee to look into the future of AOU. He readily agreed. I kept him and the Exec Comm. up to date on what we were doing. I can't see where there is fault in that. Sue

Sue, to clarify. RRF did not misunderstand anything. Our Board considered the concept of the proposed SFO, as outlined in your draft proposal. We are talking semantics here, about whether there was an invitation, or a concept, or a plan. It all boils down to the same thing - RRF rejects the proposed concept outright and will not be joining the discussion at any future point. I hope this is clear enough. Ruth.

DIck--Waterbirds and NOS have met and were going to discuss the idea but not vote on anything. SCO is sitting back and waiting to see what happens. We have the presidents of AOU, COS, AFO, and WOS attending the mid-year Council meeting so no doubt they are not voting on anything any time soon--as they understand we do not have a plan for anyone to vote on yet.

 

As for my committee, we have 3 past presidents helping directly and 2 past AOU presidents helping in the wings--5 past presidents is a lot of support. We also have former presidents of AFO, WOS, and COS helping.

 

I've been on many ad hoc AOU committees, so I'm sure we would have been called on this by our ever - vigilant secretary if there was an issue. And, I have never read where a group of AOU members could not present an idea to the Council.

 

Perhaps a focus on the big picture would be more constructive. Consider these OSNA membership numbers: would this not give you reason for concern?

 

http://ornithologyexchange.org/files/file/12-%7B%3F%7D/

http://ornithologyexchange.org/files/file/13-%7B%3F%7D/

Given this situation, how would you solve this problem? I truly would be interested in your response. Thanks, Sue

Dick--never would I think of listing you as supportive--no worries, there!

 

However, I do appreciate your non-supportive ideas as we do have a dilemma. Part of the deal with SFO is to hire someone as a serious fund-raiser as we can't support our activities (w/o draining the endowment) w/o some help.

 

And more than money, our membership decline and the fact that the average age of AOU members is in their 50's means we are are not being effective in our efforts to recruit and train ornithologists, let alone fuel the field of ornithology. So it is complex.

 

By the by, if you double click on those figures, they get much bigger. I can email the membership figures if you's like. The bottom line is we have ~25% decline in AOU members since 1999. Can't do that too many times before we have no AOU.

 

I'll pass your ideas on to the respective committees --more ideas are always welcome. Thanks! Sue

Sue:

 

You ask us to focus on the “big picture,” and illustrate what that picture is with membership data. This does seem to confirm that falling membership is indeed a principle issue that the SFO is intended to address.

 

You’ve posted two tables of raw data, but you haven’t offered a compelling argument that the basic SFO concept/plan/working outline you distributed will solve that problem. In fact, you don’t make any argument at all! Contrary to what you are simply IMYPYING, the RRF statement explicitly describes how a merger would likely exacerbate the membership problem.

 

So let me ask you very specifically: How would a mega-merger increase overall membership? Please share with us the SFO committee’s reasoning, and why you are right and the RRF board is wrong in this assessment.

John--to be specific I would have to give you a plan that we have not finished. Thus, given no one is voting on anything anytime soon, I'm afraid you will have to wait until we have something to show the world--in February. Sue

Sue:

 

I did not ask you to comment on a finished plan. I asked you to comment on the basic concept (SFO as a merged society) that you yourself distributed as a working outline. You offer the SFO as a solution to the problems you identify (e.g., membership), yet you consistently refuse to discuss how that basic concept would address those problems. The talking point you gave as a response was as unsatisfying as it was predictable. You certainly appear to be following a marketing strategy when you should instead be engaging the ornithological community in a robust discussion of what you are pursuing.

 

You state that no one is voting on anything any time soon, but your timetable doesn’t include a vote from the OSNA membership at all!

 

There is the perception “out there” that the proponents of a mega-society learned a lesson from the merger attempt that failed about 20 years ago. That lesson SHOULD HAVE BEEN to not embark on such a monumental endeavor unless and until there is widespread consensus within the ornithological community to move in that direction. You seem to be going out of your way to confirm the suspicion that the lesson learned was instead a more effective strategy to get what you want, before those who may oppose it have the chance to critically evaluate it and organize against its implementation. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s a widespread opinion (correct or erroneous) to which your committee really ought to be more responsive.

There has been concern expressed by members of established societies that the formation of the Society for Ornithology is not needed or would not help solve issues being faced by most ornithology societies today. I understand some of these concerns since it involves change and most people do not like change. However, I hope everyone will allow the process (and plan) to move forward and then try to objectively evaluate it for its merits.

 

As the informal chair of the recently created Western Hemisphere Shorebird Group (created in March 2006), I am personally very excited about the opportunities this new society may offer us. We currently lack any formal structure, and as such do not have a mechanism to fund raise, publish, or even hold meetings. My hope is that this new society would provide some structure for fledgling groups like ours that do not have the inclination or base to establish a formal structure. Having a societal structure that we could join, contribute to, and take of advantage of, would be very helpful for the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Group to step into the 21st century.

 

Rick Lanctot

Sue--

 

I was talking with Dick Banks the other day and he suggested that I review this running commentary when I had the opportunity. I have done so....although it did take me two days!

 

Like others, I will hold a final opinion on whether to support or reject any plan that is offered up. I do have several observations or points to offer:

 

1) I am a Life Member of three of the OSNA societies. There are obviously many others in the same situation, as well as those with only one or two (or maybe 4 or more?) life memberships. I do not see you listing a 'subcommittee' that is reviewing membership structure, etc. AOU has it Fellows, EMs, etc. Some consideration in 'the plan' needs to be made on how memberships would be handled if there was a merger and eventually give us some outline of what the regular membership cost might be for an individual. I think I could see a great reduction in costs per person, esp. if the person currently belongs to several OSNA societies and would only pay one, smaller membership per year.

 

2) Dropping reference to this being an "AOU 20XX Annual Meeting Presentation.pdf" and similar attributes might lesson some from thinking this is solely an AOU idea.

 

3) I am no financial person--can only ballance my checkbook! How would some of those endowments be merged of the various societies? Are there any legal restrictions to such mergers--i.e., are some very specific as to use and who may use them? I hope Fitz is including those aspects in his Financial Management working group.

 

Ricky, Dick, and John have made some very cogent points, as have others. I am still thinking this over and may have more comments later.

 

Jay

Hi Jay--nice to hear from you. I'm sorry you took so much time to review something where there really isn't much to review yet. I've given up trying to answer questions on this forum that would take pages and pages to answer when I have told people we are preparing those pages and they will be better presented in a report this spring than in this forum.

 

That being said, to address your issues briefly:

 

1. The Governance and Management committee that I chair is reviewing membership issues. I can tell you that status such as "Fellow" etc would be retained in SFO. We are working on the dues being quite minimal --$25/year?

 

2. AOU 20XX, etc.: it was an AOU idea (!) but we now have lots of interested societies. However, I hear what you are trying to say.

 

3. Finances/endowments would be tricky and would take years to resolve. Thus, we are not depending on them for starters (aside from the AOU endowment). Finances are also being dealt with by my committee: Fitz, Frank Gill, Bonnie Bowen, Jed Burtt, and Stan Senner. The best people I know in ornithology to deal with such issues.

 

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving, Sue

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Waterbird Society will join our ranks of interested societies. Thus, all OSNA societies except the RRF will join in our planning. The Neotropical Ornithological Society and Western Hemisphere Shorebird Research Group will join us as well.

Sue:

 

When you say that all societies except RRF will join in the planning, one could get the impression that these societies CURRENTLY are developing the business plan. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not the case. According to your 3 November post, small SFO committees (not appointed by interested societies) are developing the plan, and interested societies won’t have the opportunity for substantive input until the AOU Council meeting in February.

 

The significance of your timetable is that societies won’t have any formal say about the plan until the meeting at which the SFO seeks approval from the organization (AOU) that would fund the new society’s creation.

John--

 

Every interested society, including the AOU, is at the same stage right now. They are waiting for a series of committees, made up of 30+ members of all the interested societies, to draft a plan they can take a look at in feb.

 

Honestly, John, your questions in this forum are repetitive and can be answered by reading information I have already provided in this forum. I assume you are speaking from the RRF perspective. Given RRF has bowed out, I don't see why you care about this aside from being a wet blanket for something you will not be part of anyway. Thus, I will refrain from spending more of my time repeating information to you. Sue

Yes, each OSNA society is at the same stage now: effectively shut out of the process until the meeting at which the AOU will (or won’t) endorse the merger plan. What is repetitive is your attempt to spin the plan as something being developed jointly by the OSNA societies. It is not. The SFO committees making the plan were self selected among those who favor a merger. The committees were not constituted by members selected by the OSNA societies. For example, one of the “founding members” of the SFO initiative also happens to be a Past-President of WOS, and in your correspondence you repeatedly portrayed this person as “representing WOS.” The WOS Council rejected that presumption by selecting for ourselves an unbiased representative, Tim O’Connell. Are you telling us that Tim is now being given the opportunity to shape the plan according to WOS interests, ahead of the February meeting?

 

Your committee has devised a process that (inadvertently or deliberately) excludes the great majority of the ornithological community (the stakeholders):

 

1. The OSNA membership was never surveyed for their approval to develop a merger plan.

 

2. There is no provision for the OSNA membership to vote on the final plan, ever!

 

3. You’ve “stacked the deck” with merger proponents to develop the plan, rather than ask the OSNA societies from the beginning to choose their own unbiased representatives.

 

4. You won’t discuss the working outline (that you yourself circulated!) with the OSNA membership until the very meeting at which the funding organization (AOU) decides whether or not to go forward. Your implication that you’ve already answered the relevant questions is disingenuous.

 

Please, Sue, don’t presume anything about my perspective. I’ve been a member of each society (AOU, WOS, COS, and AFO) longer than you have, so I don’t appreciate your attempt to steer the dialogue away from the substantive to the personal.

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Nuttall Ornithological Club has joined the group of ornithological societies interested in participating in discussions related to development of the Society for Ornithology. It will be great to hear their perspective on the various issues we face.

I have not been involved in any of the planning or discussions of the SFO with the exception of a few emails I exchanged with Sue Haig in August/September 2011. I also have not been following the postings on Ornithology Express relating to the SFO topic. Today (02-10-12), however, I read them all―articles, comments, postings, and other exchanges. I was struck by: (a) the confusion that seems to exist among everyone involved in the discussions (and likely those who are reading the postings but not themselves commenting); and (b) the frequency with which participants seem to be talking at cross purposes without, apparently, understanding of the points being made by others. So, I am adding some comments below that I think embody many of the primary points being made. Perhaps they will help to inform the discussion.

 

1. There is a perception that approach taken by the “AOU SFO Committee” in developing the concept of the SFO and potential plans for its implementation plans has excluded meaningful participation by the other ornithological societies. This has led the ornithological societies to feel uninformed about what is actually being done or planned by the “AOU SFO Committee”. Participation of individuals appointed by the “AOU SFO Committee” that happen to be members of multiple societies is not sufficient. The societies themselves must appoint their own representatives to serve on SFO committees. Any actions that can be taken to enhance ornithology in the Western Hemisphere (an SFO or other endeavor) can be achieved only if all the societies have a stake in their development.

 

2. The SFO Committee wants to ensure that all the potentially interested societies will have ample opportunity to provide comment on the draft plan. That is certainly a good idea, but commenting after the fact on a plan prepared by the “AOU’s SFO Committee” is not the same as contributing to or being involved in the creation of that plan. More importantly, who will decide whether or not comments/ suggestions from other societies will be accepted/incorporated into the plan? The “AOU SFO committee?” Hardly an unbiased group.

 

3. The postings, articles, etc. indicate that the “AOU’s SFO Committee” is attempting to develop a plan for “how professional ornithology might be jointly organized to reflect 21^st Century realities.” This suggests that the Committee is developing a plan that will indicate how the other societies can organize.

It is likely that the other societies will want to determine (or at least have considerable input into) how they might organize.

 

4. The various NA ornithological societies approach various activities in their own distinctive ways, often differently from the way the AOU does. Their input could greatly enrich the discussion and broaden the perspective of any new society. In the long run, involving from the get-go all of the other societies that wish to participate might slow the process a bit, but likely would increase the probability of the project succeeding.