PRESENT: Barker, Capps, Carroll, D'Antonio, Davidson, Gaede, Gilkes, Hadaway, Hadden, Hammond, Hoge, Hood, Johnson, Neal, Nelsen, Ploch, Roof, Roozen, Seidler, Silverman, Wood.

Sister Neal called the council meeting to order at 8:30 p.m., November 3, 1983.

1. MINUTES: The minutes of the 1982 council meeting were distributed. The minutes were approved subject to minor corrections by those who had not yet had an opportunity to read them carefully (only one correction was forthcoming: on page five, section sixteen, line eleven, the last sentence was changed to read--"Roof reported on CSR").

2. ELECTION RESULTS AND WELCOME OF NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS AND NEW EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: As of December 1, 1983 Jeffrey Hadden and Phillip E. Hammond will be assuming the position of president and vice president respectively, and Kirk Hadaway and James Davidson will become members of the Council. Jackson Carroll, William D' Antonio, and Hart Nelsen will be leaving the Council this year while Hart Nelsen will replace Clark Roof as executive secretary for the Society.

3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The executive secretary announced that 206 people had pre-registered for the 1983 Society meeting. As expected, attendance will be lower this year than it was last year at the Providence meetings. About one hundred people have signed up for the banquet and presidential address on Friday night.

4. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY'S REPORT: Clark Roof began his report with the observation that the Society remains in sound and healthy condition. Membership is up, journal subscriptions are holding steady, program and activities are expanding, and the general fund balance is up almost $25,000 over last year's balance.

A. MEMBERSHIPS: As of August 31, 1983 our membership/subscriber list totaled 2,550, which is forty-seven above the 1982 figure. This upswing results from an increase in new members since there was a decline in renewals. Future stability in membership will require continued efforts in recruitment.

B. ANNUAL MEETING: Clark Roof expressed his appreciation for the hard work and superb program put together by Sister Neal and Cheryl Gilkes, and the expert local arrangements made by Don Ploch.

Relative to the annual meeting finances, Roof noted that there has been a considerable decline in the net income from advertising received over the last five years. He questioned whether we were doing all we could to generate advertising income. D'Antonio observed that this pattern has been evident in the ASA meetings as well. It was agreed that Harve Horowitz, our advertising agent, should be questioned further on this issue. Roof pointed out that with declining advertising income and growing meeting costs, we must necessarily increasingly rely on registrants to pay meeting expenses.

C. PUBLICATIONS: The executive secretary thanked Don Capps and Bob Wuthnow for their excellent editorial leadership. Ho also noted that the Society has a good working relationship with A&A Printing and that there will probably be no cost increases over the next year.

D. FINANCES: Clark Roof reported that the financial condition of the Society is stable and encouraging for the future. Though we operate a deficit budget (this is by design) in actual cash flow, the Society's investments continue to grow and offset the deficit. He concluded that we should proceed cautiously in expanding our commitments.

E. PERSONAL NOTE: Noting that this was his final report as executive secretary, Roof expressed his appreciation for the support of the officers, Council, editors, and members of the Society during his term in office.

5. TREASURER'S REPORT: David Roozen came bearing good and bad news. The good news was that in the past year, the Society showed a decided improvement in its ability to deficit spend. The bad news was that Clark Roof and Company's hot hand in the market continued to confound our best efforts to reduce our total assets.

We budgeted an $18,700 deficit for the past year. On a simple cash flow basis we spent $5,500 more than we took in (the comparable figure for the previous year is $500). But, over and against the $5,500 operating deficit we had a net gain of $21,056 from the sale of investments (and a $10,000 increase in income from an auditing peculiarity having to do with the accruing of dues and subscriptions applicable to past and future years). The bottom audited line, therefore, is that our total assets increased from $131,442 to $146,126.

A detailed look at actual versus budget income and expense figures indicates that income (other than through the sale of investments and auditing peculiarity in regard to dues and subscriptions) was pretty much on target, but that actual expenses were thirteen percent less than budgeted. Four line items account for the bulk of this. Printing of the Journal cost $3,000 less than budgeted, although this appears more due to an overly generous budgeted figure than to any actual economies in printing. The membership directory cost $1,500 less than budgeted, in large part because about half of the cost of the directory was paid out of the previous year's budget. We did not publish a monograph, but had budgeted $3,750 for one. And, we paid out $1,600 less than budgeted in advertising agent commissions. Because commissions are related to sales, one implication of the latter worth noting is that our advertising income continues its downward trend.

In short, we remain fiscally healthy--perhaps overly so given the concerns that have driven us to budget deficit, over the past two or three years. What must be kept in mind, however, is that our financial prosperity is due in large part to our good fortune in the investment market.

6. PROGRAM CHAIR'S REPORT: Cheryl Gilkes reported that she was generally pleased with the final program developed for the '83 meeting. A majority of the papers submitted for the meeting were unsolicited while approximately twenty-five percent resulted from requests made by session organizers or the program chair. The volume of papers relative to the number of available discussants necessitated the inclusion of four papers in most sessions. Gilkes noted that a large pool of discussants would have allowed her to reduce the number of presentations per session.

The program chair expressed concern about the lack of competition for the student paper award. She indicated that only two papers were unsolicited while another three papers were submitted at the request of the Chair. Though she was pleased with the quality of the finalist's papers, she felt that the number of participants in the competition ought to be higher. John Seidler said that there were eighteen competitors for the '82 award (though he thought many of the manuscripts were originally submitted as general session papers). Cheryl Gilkes suggested that a special committee ought to be set up to handle the student paper award and to encourage participation.

Cheryl Gilkes also indicated that too many program participants were failing to actually register and/or present their papers at the meeting. She thought the Society should have a policy to deal with this problem. Most members of the Council agreed.

MOTION: It was moved (Carroll) and seconded (Gilkes) that the Society require pre-registration of all program participants prior to the printing of the program. The motion passed.

Clark Roof returned to the student paper award issue. He asked about the possibility of doing a little more for the award winner (aside from the $100 honorarium, a $400 travel allowance, and the reception of the reward). A general discussion ensued. It was noted that the paper earning last year's award was published in the JSSR. Don Capps explained, however, that the paper was published on its own merits, not simply because it was the recipient of the award. It was agreed that while publication could not be guaranteed, the award winner should be formally recognized at the banquet. Clark Roof noted that the winner of the award may need a travel advance in order to afford the trip to the conference.

John Seidler asked about the possibility of having the '85 program chair work with the '84 program chair in the execution of the '84 meeting. Such an arrangement he felt, would provide both continuity in programming and an orientation period for the next year's program chair. It was pointed out, however, that currently the program chair is chosen too late to make this kind of an arrangement possible. Seidler asked about the possibility of selecting the program chair earlier. William D'Antonio noted, however, that this would be difficult under the election schedule specified in the by-laws of the Society. Sister Neal agreed and indicated that this was only one of several problems with the existing set of by-laws.

MOTION: It was moved (D'Antonio) and seconded (Neal) that a subcommittee be established by appointment of the president to review the by-laws and make recommendations to the Society to the end that general procedures might by improved and streamlined, particularly as they relate to the timing of elections and the selection of program chair. The motion was passed.

Sister Neal concluded with words of high praise for the 1983 program chair. She noted that Cheryl Gilkes had performed her tasks with great diligence and competence and wanted to thank her for her efforts on behalf of the Society. The Council concurred with: "Hear! Hear!".

7. LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE '83 MEETING IN KNOXVILLE: Words of praise were heaped upon Don Ploch for his handling of local arrangements for the Knoxville meeting. He responded with words of appreciation for the staff of the Hyatt hotel which, he said, had made his job much easier. He suggested, however, that there was a need for a local media contact--someone who knows the details of the program and could respond to question from the local press. He did not think the local arrangements chair was knowledgeable enough about the program to handle such questions.

8. PUBLICITY AND MEDIA: David Roozen reported that media interest in the Knoxville meeting was not as great as it was in the Providence meeting. Media coverage of last year's meeting was the highest it has been in some time. At least nine representatives of the press were in attendance, and Roozen received follow-up requests for copies of over fifty presentations. He attributed the degree of interest to the proximity of Providence to both Boston and New York, to the size of the meeting, and to the fact that four different associations were involved in the meeting. this year he said he expected only five media persons to attend the conference.

The one new wrinkle in our media relations efforts for this year was the attempt to place interested meeting participants on local radio and television shows. Only four members responded to Roozen's notice in the program booklet asking for volunteers. The names and interests of these persons, plus a few drafts, were circulated to local radio and television stations by the Knoxville convention bureau. As of this time, however, these efforts have not led to any placements.

David Roozen stated that if it is still the intention of the Society to make surplus copies of the Journal available to the national press, then he would recommend four additions to the list of recipients: Jim Castelli of "Our Sunday Visitor" and also a stringer for USA TODAY and US NEWS; Dave Anderson of UPI; Jim Gallaway of THE ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION; and John Dart of the LA TIMES.

Clark Roof noted that our media efforts over the years have paid off and that the Society is receiving more press coverage. David Roozen asked about the need for a policy relative to television coverage at sessions at annual meetings. The general opinion of the Council was that television coverage would be helpful to the goals of the Society and that, therefore, a restrictive policy was not necessary.

9. ADVERTISING AGENTS: Harve Horowitz expressed his frustration concerning his inability to generate advertising income at this year's meeting. He attributed this, in part, to the location of the '83 meeting. He was confident that next year's meeting in Chicago would produce more advertising income. He estimated that this year's gross income for advertising would be about $4,000, while the net would probably be around $2,400. This net, however was attributable primarily to a significant cut in expenses. Hart Nelsen asked about the decline in ads in this year's program booklet. Harve Horowitz responded with the confession that he is finding it increasingly difficult to get publishers to take out advertising space in our programs. A general discussion followed concerning the need for better communication between the publishers and the Society relative to the type of books in which Society members are likely to have some interest.

10. 1984 PROGRAM REPORT: Jeff Hadden announced that next year the Society will once again be meeting jointly with the Religious Research Association. The program theme will be "Religion and the Public Conscience: Shaping of the 'Brave New World' Beyond 1984". The SSSR program chair will be Dean Hoge. An '84 meeting announcement and call for papers and programs were handed out to council members. Dean Hoge reported that next year there will be a committee to handle the details of program planning. No presidential address is being planned. Once again, we will try to be as inclusive as possible in the selection of papers.

Clark Roof asked about the possibility of providing honorariums to outside speakers. There followed a general discussion of the pros and cons of such a policy.

MOTION: It was moved (D'Antonio) and seconded (Johnson) that the council authorize up to $500 (total) in honoraria payments to invited, non-member participants. The motion was passed.

11. REPORTS OF JOURNAL EDITOR AND BOOK REVIEW EDITOR: Don Capps presented a report on the status of the JSSR. His report indicated that during 1983, 126 submissions were made to the journal. Of these, 67.0 percent were rejected, 20.5% were accepted for publication, and 12.5% were resubmit requests. The average turnaround time has been about forty days. The editor stated that he assumed these trends would continue through the next year.

Don Capps asked about the inclusion of the ASR call for papers in the Journal. Phil Hammond stated that he took this announcement out of the Journal when he was editor and put it in the newsletter. A general discussion followed about the pros and cons of including other societies' call for papers in the Journal.

MOTION: It was moved (D'Antonio) and seconded (Johnson) that the JSSR establish a principal of reciprocity with SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS and THE REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS RESEARCH which would assume that each journal would carry the call for papers of the other associations. The motion was passed.

In Robert Wuthnow's absence, a written report of the book review editor was accepted by the council. The report indicated that:

A. Over the past year the journal has published its usual allotment of fifty book reviews, which continue to be of high quality and focus upon the psychology and sociology of religion.

B. The number of women reviewers has been increased from one book in fourteen over the last decade to one book in five during 1983.

C. The book review editor depends substantially upon Society members for suggestions of books to be reviewed, since publishers do not automatically send books to the Journal.

The Council commended Wuthnow for his concern and action relative to the inclusion of women reviewers.

12. REPORT OF MONOGRAPH SERIES EDITOR: James Wood reported that seven manuscripts were submitted this year. Four were rejected, one was withdrawn during the review process (and published elsewhere), and two were accepted. Wood is in the process of editing THE SACRED AND THE SUBVERSIVE: POLITICAL WITCH HUNTS AS NATIONAL RITUALS by Albert Bergesen of the University of Arizona. The other accepted manuscript is Samuel Blizzard's THE PROTESTANT PARISH MINISTER: A BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE INTERPRETATION.

Wood stated that he welcomed suggestions about how to increase the number of manuscripts submitted to the monograph series. He noted that most authors seem to think they can place their manuscripts with more visible publishers and that it took a great deal of hard work to solicit the seven submitted manuscripts. D'Antonio did not think we should be dissatisfied with the results of our efforts. He noted that even though the society has published only three monographs in the seven-year history of the series, we have recovered most of our expenses and the published monographs have been of good quality. He recommended that we continue supporting the monograph series.

James Wood noted that the first monograph by Fenn has been sold out and asked about the possibility of a revised edition. The Council agreed with the desirability of such an edition and encouraged Wood to pursue the matter with Richard Fenn.

13. RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT: Jeff Hadden reported that the research award program is enjoying modest growth. Over the last year, thirty-six inquiries were received, resulting in a total of twenty research proposals. This represents an increase in the number of inquiries and proposals over the previous year (twenty-nine and seventeen respectively)The gradual growth in the availability of funds seems to be generating a slow but steady increase in interest and applications.

Six research awards were given in 1983 representing a total outlay of $9,250 (out of a total budget of $10,000). The quality of applications, according to Hadden, was mixed but generally good. Though the applicants represented six disciplines, Hadden was disappointed that more disciplines were not represented in the awards. The preponderance of applications continue to come from the disciplines of sociology and psychology.

Based on his experience of the past two years, Hadden recommended to the Council:

A. That the amount of money available for research be kept at the $10,000 level for 1984.

B. That a $3,000 maximum on any research project be retained.

C. That we modestly increase the amount of publicity about the research awards.

D. That the 1984 annual meeting program include a didactic seminar on writing a grant application.

Some members of the Council felt that a $12,000 budget would be more appropriate. The budget issue was post-poned until the general budget discussion.

Clark Roof suggested that we need a mechanism by which we can be assured of getting a final report from the award recipients concerning what research has been accomplished. Jeff Hadden agreed to make sure that we receive such reports from last year's award winners and Hart Nelsen agreed to do the same for this year's winners.

14. MEMBERSHIP DRIVE REPORT: William Silverman reported on the results of this year's membership drive. He said that mailings were sent out to psychologists, ethicists, graduate students, and nominees. From a total of 2,357 mailings, seventy-six new members resulted. Sixty-six of these new members came from the mailings to psychologists and ethicists. The least successful mailings were those sent to the nominees. These new members were achieved at a cost of $10.37 per person.

SiIverman suggested a number of alternative directions for future SSSR membership campaigns. First, we might engage in more direct mail efforts, sending letters to people who are potentially interested in joining the Society. This can be done at relatively low cost, but the success rates are also quite low. Second, purchase large mailing lists from various associations that might have members interested in our Society. The advantage of this approach is that even low success rates yield a relatively large number of new members. The costs of this approach, however, are high. Finally, we might seek to cultivate alternative procedures to reach potential new members.

Clark Roof suggested that, relative to the options presented by Silverman, we try to do a little bit of each. Eileen Barker asked about the possibility of reduced rates for new members living outside of North America. Silverman noted that postage rates may make such a procedure impossible. The Council agreed that this matter, along with the various options presented in Silverman's report, would be explored by a special subcommittee.

15. AFFILIATIONS: Clark Roof stated that there is nothing new to report on our marginal relationship with CSR except that dues will increase from $500 to $600 next year. CSR dues, he noted, are going up for all members. Roof also reported that for the first time this year, we became full-fledged supporters of COSSA, the Washington-based social science lobby agency. Roof feels that this is a cause worthy of our continuing support, especially since research funds are becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain.

Roof also reported that we do not have a spot on the AAAS program for next year. Both Don Ploch and Clark Roof indicated that it is very difficult to get on the AAAS program, both for logistical and substantive reasons. Don Ploch stated that he thought it was time for him to resign as the SSSR representative to AAAS. The Council agreed to let the executive secretary and president fill this opening.

16. NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE: Ben Johnson gave a brief progress report on the work of the nominations committee, indicating that things seem to be proceeding smoothly. Sister Neal stated that some groups are still significantly under-represented on the Council and among the officers. The Council agreed and urged the nominations committee to keep this issue in mind.

17. REPORT ON SSSR-SPONSORED VOLUME: Phil Hammond said that the "handbook volume" which the Council supported last year is now ready to go to press. He was pleased with the results. The Council was pleased with his progress.

18. FUTURE MEETING SITES: Hart Nelsen reported that both Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Savannah, Georgia were under consideration as possible meeting sites for the '85 meeting. He said that he had spent a good deal of time looking into various hotel options in both cities. In the end, he concluded that the Hilton in Pittsburgh and the Hyatt in Savannah would provide preferable accommodations. Both hotels will cost an average of $60 per night and both are well-suited to handle a conference of our size. Nelsen concluded with the recommendation that, since the '84 meeting is in Chicago, we consider Savannah, Georgia for the '85 meeting and a mid-west location for the '86 meeting.

There followed a lengthy discussion on the pros and cons of holding the meeting in Savannah. D'Antonio felt that we should consider another northern city in '85 since a large percentage of the members live in that area. He also voiced great concern about the prices we would have to pay at both the Hilton in Pittsburgh and the Hyatt in Savannah. He asked about the possibility of cheaper accommodations in other cities (Cleveland?). Others asked about the possibility of meeting in Atlanta. Nelsen responded that the Savannah site was relatively close to Atlanta and that the location was extremely desirable.

MOTION: It was moved (Ploch) and seconded (Hood) that we approve Savannah, Georgia as our '85 meeting site and look to the possibility of a northeastern city for the '86 meeting. The motion was passed.

19. "ENDOWMENT/FOUNDATION" PROPOSAL: Jeff Hadden handed out a report put together by the ad hoc committee to explore the establishment of a foundation. He reviewed the history of the Council's interest in the possibility of establishing a foundation to raise money for the purpose of furthering the aims of the society. In 1982 James Richardson chaired a committee which initially examined this possibility. The Richardson committee concluded that the establishment of a foundation was both feasible and desirable. Two models were proposed by the Richardson committee, the first involving a separate foundation and the second involving an in-house foundation or endowment. The committee recommended the separate foundation option.

Hadden noted that when the ad hoc committee (hereafter called the Hadden committee) began to explore the implementation of the Richardson committee suggestion, they became increasingly convinced of the advantages of an in-house endowment. The principal advantage of creating an in-house endowment is that it would not require any new applications to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status. That fact would save the Society a considerable amount of time and money. The endowment, moreover, can accomplish the same objectives as the separate foundation.

MOTION: It was moved (Hadden) and seconded (D'Antonio) that The Council establish an endowment fund to raise and disperse monies in a manner which will enhance the purposes and goals of the society, and that this endowment fund be known as the Fund for the Scientific Study of Religion. The motion was passed.

20. "DlSTINGUISHED SCHOLARLY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD" PROPOSAL: John Seidler submitted a report suggesting that the Society establish an award designed to recognize outstanding scholarship in the social scientific study of religion. Such an award would "honor those who have made substantial scholarly contributions in the future". He suggested that an awards committee be established by the Council to receive nominations and choose the best book published during the previous two years.

MOTION: It was moved (D'Antonio) and seconded (Johnson) that the Society established a Distinguished Book Achievement Award designed to recognize the best book published by a member of the SSSR during the previous two years dealing primarily with the social scientific study of religion. The motion was passed.

21. BUDGET: David Roozen distributed the proposed '83-84 budget for the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. After considerable discussion, the following changes were made in the proposal:

A The proposed income budget for monograph sales was increased from $500 to $2,000.

B. The proposed expenditure budget for the monograph series was increased from $3,750 to $7,500 (printing up from $3,250 to $6,500 and promotion and postage up from $500 to $1,000).

C. The proposed expenditure budget for foundations was increased from $3,000 to $4,000.

These changes brought the total expenditure budget for '83-84 to $103,900 and the total '83-84 income budget to $72,700. Thus, the anticipated deficit for '83-84 is $31, 200 .

MOTION: It was moved (D'Antonio) and seconded (Johnson) that the proposed '83-84 budget be accepted as amended. The motion passed.

22. OTHER BUSINESS: Sister Neal proposed a resolution of appreciation to Don Ploch, the Department of Sociology of the University of Tennessee, and the Commission on Religion in Appalacia for their efforts with regard to the '83 society meeting in Knoxville. The Council gave their hearty approval to this resolution.

Sister Neal also expressed her thanks to Clark Roof for his dedication and hard work during the years that he served as executive secretary. Once again the Council joined her in a general round of thanksgiving.

The Council retired to the Volador Room for lunch. In the midst of much epicurean frivolity, Sister Neal ventured to make the following suggestion:

MOTION: It was moved (Neal) and seconded (Hadden) that Hart Nelsen be approved as the new Executive Secretary for the Scientific Study of Religion. The motion passed.

23. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m., Novermber 5, 1983.

Respectfully submitted,
S.D. Gaede
Secretary