[URBANTH-L]sma letter, locked-out workers statement, litigation

bvergara at sfsu.edu bvergara at sfsu.edu
Wed Oct 27 13:38:22 EDT 2004

[Moderator's note: once again, apologies for crossposting.]

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:42:11 -0400
From: "Robert T. O'Brien" <robrien at temple.edu>
Subject: URGENT: Message from the SMA Board

Please read the appended message from SMA President Craig 
Janes and reply to the survey ASAP if you are an SMA member.

I'm so proud to be an SMA member right at the moment.

By the way, Society for the Anthropology of Religion is 
currenly doing the same thing.

>   October 26, 2004, 10:30pm MDT

>   Colleagues:
>   As you are no doubt aware, the Executive Board of
>   the American Anthropological Association has decided
>   to move the annual meetings from San Francisco, Nov
>   17-21, to Atlanta, December 15-19.  You should have
>   received a letter from AAA president, Elizabeth
>   Brumfiel, which outlines the reasoning behind this
>   move.  Although there was a possibility that
>   management's lockout of the unionized hotel workers
>   might be ended by this afternoon, current
>   information suggests that the hotel group has
>   declined to do so.  The Executive Board of the AAA
>   has passed a motion that gives management until 5 pm
>   PDT, tomorrow, October 27th, to agree to end the
>   lockout and allow the union workers to return to
>   their workplace. In the absence of such an
>   agreement, the American Anthropological Association
>   has declared its intent to withdraw its business
>   from San Francisco and hold its meeting in Atlanta
>   on December 15-19, 2004.
>   Given this current information, the SMA Board
>   presumes that the 2004 AAA meetings will take place
>   in Atlanta.
>   It this decision holds the SMA board has decided to
>   withdraw formally from the AAA meetings; that is,
>   Executive Board and Business Meetings will not be
>   held in Atlanta.  However, SMA sponsored & invited
>   sessions, as well as individual special interest
>   group meetings, may go forward according to the
>   wishes of organizers and participants.  This is a
>   decision that must be left to the individuals
>   involved.
>   The SMA Board will meet in San Francisco on November
>   19 in order to conduct its business.
>   The SMA Board has several other matters and options
>   before it.  These include holding a public,
>   "alternative" meeting in San Francisco, working with
>   the Society for Applied Anthropology to move
>   sessions which might otherwise be cancelled to their
>   annual meeting in Santa Fe, April 5-10, and pressing
>   the AAA to move its 2004 meetings to San Jose.
>   Before we reach decisions on these various matters,
>   and in order to craft a statement to the AAA that is
>   reflective of SMA members' sentiments, it is
>   critical that we hear from you.  I'm writing to ask
>   that you complete a very short survey found at the
>   following website.  Please respond ASAP; we would
>   like to move forward as quickly as possible.
>   http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB223VUJ89SHE
>   Thank you,

>   Craig Janes
>   SMA President

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:51:13 -0400
From: "Robert T. O'Brien" <robrien at temple.edu>
Subject: Statement from the Locked-Out Workers of
 the Hilton

Hello Liz, Dan, Bill, Alan, and Rob,
Below is a statement from the locked-out workers of the 
Hilton.  Please call
me if you have any questions.
Kelly Dugan
Local 2 Community Organizer
415 864 8770 x751

We the staff of the San Francisco Hilton and members of Local 
2 thank you
for showing your respect and solidarity with the locked-out 
workers of San
Francisco. We ask you to drive home this message to the 
Hilton Corporation,
which has made a national decision to go on the offensive 
against us, and
appeal to you to move your event to San Jose.

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David L. R. Houston" <dlrh at uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: [URBANTH-L] Litigation & Credit Card Disputes (was re: Clarification
 on What Expenses can be Reimbursed)

While I won't disagree with the legal structure you present, I have to 
ask: is this what we want?  After all is said and done - sure, we're 
upset; yep, many of us are out $ (myself included).  But in the end, do we 
want to initiate litigation which will not bring back the meeting, likely 
will give us only a percentage (possibly a small percentage) of our $ 
back, and almost certainly leave a stain of rancor and bitterness for 
quite some time?

And yes, we could act to try and recover costs incurred using a credit 
card (although I have to admit the prospect of being on hold for ### mins 
is not on the top of my list), but how much would this ccontribute to the 
erosion of the organization?  I am not suggesting that this action would 
kill the AAA, but it would likely add to the malaise.  Does that make 

It seems to me that part of the answer to this entire quagmire is to be 
more active in the organization (one of the few reasons I am debating 
going to <wherever> to attend).  Voicing concerns, becoming part of the 
infrastructure are part and parcel of "being there" and in the end might 
go a long way in avoiding this sort of problem in the future.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.

	David Houston

More information about the URBANTH-L mailing list