It transpires the APA Pacific committee has looked into moving the conference away from San Francisco and decided against it. Below the fold I’m posting the full letter explaining the move. Here’s the core paragraph.

bq. While acknowledging that neither option is without its costs and critics, the Executive Committee concludes after difficult deliberation that it would be worse, and most likely infeasible, to move the meetings from San Francisco to San Jose. Under the very best scenario we have been able to envisage, a significant number of participants would be considerably harmed or unable to come at all, and/or would lose substantial amounts already expended on prepaid San Francisco travel or accommodations.

The letter was sent to everyone on the main program so I guess many people saw this before I did, but for those of us who aren’t on the main program, here’s the full letter, which goes into quite a bit of detail about what steps the APA took before making a decision, and what is going on vis a vis the dispute at the moment.

bq.. Dear 2005 APA Pacific Division Meeting Participants,

As you may have learned from an email that is being circulated among participants, the Pacific Division Executive Committee has been attempting to find an alternative site for the 2005 Meeting. We would like to accommodate all participants, including those who feel obligated to support the boycott of fourteen San Francisco hotels that the union adopted after the cooling-off period ended in January ’05.

Last fall we determined that we could not obtain adequate alternative space in San Francisco, nor have other similar sized conventions been able to do so. At the union’s recent suggestion, we have been working with the San Jose Convention Bureau, but we have yet to receive the promised written proposal from San Jose.

The Executive Committee’s main concern is to facilitate as much participation in the meeting as possible. Unlike the executive committees and boards of some other organizations, the Pacific Division Executive Committee is not permitted under our bylaws to take public policy stands; only the membership may do this and only by a mail ballot which has itself to be authorized at the annual Business Meeting. Thus, no matter what we may think of the labor situation at the St. Francis, we must base any decision about moving on the likely effect of moving or staying on the meeting itself.

We surveyed a randomly selected sample of 10% of Main Program participants to learn whether, in view of the labor situation, they wanted to stay in San Francisco or move to San Jose. To inform those responding to the survey of arguments for moving the meeting. We included an account of the labor situation written by Professor Gasper.

77% of the survey subjects answered. 75% of those who answered do not want to move to San Jose, 15% do, and 10% were satisfied with either solution. In the comment section, we heard from participants who have prepaid packages at inexpensive San Francisco hotels, from graduate students whose participation depends on being housed by friends in San Francisco, and from others who said they could not or would not participate if the meeting were moved to San Jose.

Professor Gasper sent an email to all program participants requesting those who supported the move to San Jose to write to the Executive Committee. His email elicited messages from 20% of program participants, but many argued against moving the meeting. 11% of this group said they could not participate if the meeting remained in San Francisco, another 25% supported moving to San Jose, and 16% supported moving only if one or another condition that does not obtain is met. 41% opposed moving the meeting, often with comments that they could not participate or would experience great hardship if the meeting were moved. The Executive Committee has read and weighed all these diverse responses to the request to support moving to San Jose.

Some Executive Committee members also heard from an officer of the American Anthropological Association who was instrumental in moving the AAA’s meeting to Atlanta during the lock-out last fall. He urged us on ethical grounds to support the workers by moving the meeting, but very fairly pointed out that the AAA move had incurred significant costs to the organization and that “the greatest and gravest ‘COST’ to the AAA was in the diminished quality of our scientific program for 2004.” (The AAA also was in a position to give financial help to graduate students and foreign scholars who incurred extra expenses as a result of the move.) As the Executive Committee has to make this decision on grounds of its costs and benefits to participants, these factors also weighed with us.

While acknowledging that neither option is without its costs and critics, the Executive Committee concludes after difficult deliberation that it would be worse, and most likely infeasible, to move the meetings from San Francisco to San Jose. Under the very best scenario we have been able to envisage, a significant number of participants would be considerably harmed or unable to come at all, and/or would lose substantial amounts already expended on prepaid San Francisco travel or accommodations.

We understand that you now face a decision about whether to participate under these circumstances. To help with that decision here is some information:

1. Since last fall, the Pacific Division Executive Committee has told the hotel management that we would not sign a new contract nor do business beyond the obligations we incurred when we booked four years ago unless the labor situation is resolved. The union and Prof. Gasper suggested that we now sign a new contract with the St. Francis for meetings in 2007 and 2009 because, by giving the hotel two future years of business, we might be permitted to cancel this year’s meeting with a reduced financial penalty. The Executive Committee did not feel comfortable binding members in future to higher room rates that under the circumstances we would have no leverage to bargain down.

2. Last week we heard that the union feared there would be another lock-out. We therefore requested and obtained a written commitment from the hotel that no lock-out is planned.

3. The union is not on strike, and Local 2 workers are at work in the hotel. There are no picket lines at the San Francisco hotels. There is a federal mediator working with the parties. Of course, the situation could change. We do not think it appropriate to ask the union for a commitment as we did the hotel, but we will keep you informed of any changes in the current state of affairs.

4.We will work with the union to find ways that participants who wish to do so can support the workers when they are in San Francisco. 56% of the respondents to our survey asked us to facilitate such arrangements, and we think that we can do this without a mail ballot because members would be deciding individually about whether and what to do in support.

5. We remind you that participants who wish to boycott individually may attend the papers without purchasing anything from the hotel and with assurance that the hotel does not receive revenue from this meeting space use.

6. Participants who wish to move their sessions to another location may do so, and we will distribute information about the new location in the errata if possible.

We regret this situation very much. We could not have anticipated at the time of the last divisional meeting in March 2004 anything like this situation, so that the Business Meeting might have considered sending a statement regarding support of the union out to mail ballot. Our own decision was difficult. We recognize that you may face difficulties with yours. If we can help in any further way please let us know.

Sincerely yours,

Executive Committee of the Pacific Division of the APA

Julia Annas
David Brink
Hubert Dreyfus
Sara Goering
Michael Jubien
Dominic McIver Lopes
Jeffrie Murphy
Calvin Normore
Anita Silvers
Nicholas Smith

p. UPDATE (10:50 Wed morning): I just wanted to add that although I don’t agree with staying in San Francisco, and agree with Elinor Mason’s comments about the pros and cons of moving, I am glad to see the APA executive committee did take this serious enough to have discussions with members about it and to canvass the possible alternatives. I’ll just have to be part of the loyal opposition on this one.