Back to Members Only - Meeting Minutes Page
|
Back to Members Only - Meeting Minutes Page |
Welcome – MS
Installation
of New Officers – MS
a. Ron Rood – President; Jason Bright – Treasurer; Laurel Heap – Vice
President of Ethics
Approve
previous minutes – KT
a. Last meeting’s minutes will be posted on UPAC this coming week.
Treasurer’s
Report – CT
a. Investor Advantage Account: $4,355.09
b. Checking Account: $5,103.06
c. Total of both account balances: $9,458.15*
d. *Does not include the $2,000 for all February meeting costs or Utah
Archaeology production.
e. MS: Problems with limited locations of current bank.
f. Executive Committee will decide whether to move account/bank.
Discussion
of Section 106 Consultation – MS
a. Goal: to improve archaeology in Utah. UPAC functions as third party.
MS and SMa’s efforts have had “mixed results” in that
only a few projects have come through the process. There has been good
success regarding the agencies sending information (US-6 and Nine Mile
Canyon). Problem: limited comment period allowed, and it’s hard to
find people who are not already involved in the projects. By the time the
project hits the draft report stage, it’s almost too late.
b. KJ: UPAC should let agencies (BLM) know UPAC’s intent to provide
input.
c. MS: How formalize the procedures?
. i. Provide unsolicited comment on EAs.
. ii. UPAC identify persons or form a committee to monitor the BLM website.
. iii. Committee to put more effort into resource management plan – types
of projects
. iv. Committee should track sensitive areas (i.e., Nine Mile Canyon).
d. MS: Therefore, do we want to cast the net wide, or limit UPAC’s
involvement to “special” sites, regions, projects?
e. SMi: UPAC should send a letter to agencies identifying types of projects/areas
that they are interested in commenting on.
f. JA: Problem seems to be to identify areas or regions to let the agencies
know.
g. MS: Other related issues include cumulative impacts. Do we still need
to form a committee to address this issue?
h. CJ: Regarding RMPs, professional archaeologists are in a better position
to handle/respond to agency documents. UPAC should also try to review RMPs.
i. MS: UPAC provides “anonymous reviewer” comments. Executive
Committee typically coordinates who will review the document.
j. SS: Government Affairs has involvement with selection of reviewer.
k. MS: Section 106 committee could be more effective – this would
be their primary role with UPAC.
l. KJ: MOVE: President and VP of Gov Affairs to solicit Section 106 comment.
m. MS: SECOND
n. JA: Will the P and VP do the review or identify projects to be reviewed?
o. MS: The P and VP will identify the issues, set goals, and identify projects
of interest.
p. RR: UPAC commenting on Section 106 projects is great. Also, if the goal
is to improve archaeology in Utah, perhaps UPAC could work on increasing
public education efforts?
q. DW: How about putting a form letter on the UPAC website to raise the
issues?
r. RQ: UPAC could provide the basic format, and each responder could make
slight modifications to highlight the key points.
s. SS: If the issue is info dissemination to move towards the goal, should
consider education.
t. SMi: US6 data should be sent to whom for review?
u. RR: That will be decided – just send it to the UPAC office address
for now.
v. RR: Other questions?
w. SMi: What about peer review of data recovery projects?
x. KJ: UPAC might consider allocating $50 or renew mentorship as incentive
for UPAC representative that conducts the review.
y. MS: As long as there is no conflict of interest, and time is allocated
to do so, supports the peer review process for data recovery projects.
z. SMi: For example, on the San Rafael Swell Project, agencies were willing
to select a panel. The result was a better project.
aa. RR: Not agree with better project statement; considering how the Swell
Project ended.
Discussion
of UPAC and USAS presence at SAA’s - SS
a. SS: Met with Toby Brimsack (SAA Rep). The conference will be at the
Salt Palace. Expecting 1,600 attendees; if there are 1,800 attendees, it
will be a huge success. It will cost $835 per booth. UPAC is a member of
the Council of Affiliated Societies. UPAC and USAS want to have a public
archaeology presence. Will know in October if we have a booth. Volunteers
will have to go through the SAA HQ, not locally.
b. KJ: Liquor issues for archaeologists in light of Utah’s liquor
laws?
c. SS: Liquor is Garth Portillo’s issue.
d. MS: Goal of the booth is to couple UPAC and USAS for public relations
and orientation functions for locals.
e. JA: How about MS lead the effort?
f. MS: Plans on spearheading a Lithic Workshop at the SAAs – next
topic of discussion.
g. RR: Good idea to team with USAS.
h. SS: Will pursue it, but won’t have confirmation about the booth
until the fall. The booth should include marketing current and past editions
of Utah Archaeology at the regional level.
i. CT: SAA’s have their own publicity machine: television, newspapers,
radio.
j. RR: UPAC is interested in proceeding with this effort as we gain more
information.
Discussion
of Lithic Scatter Workshop at SAA’s – MS
a. MS: Last summer’s meeting focusing on the issue of lithics resulted
in good discussions. Let’s try to keep the lithics discussion rolling
by having pre-meeting discussion of papers, followed by real discussions
at the SAAs. The goal is to draw regional interest, ultimately resulting
in a publication. To do this, we’ll need 1) volunteers to help coordinate,
prepare, participate; and 2) put out a general call to target key lithic
experts in the field.
b. SS: Supports UPAC sponsoring this effort. But also should consider UPAC
hosting a round-table lunch which would be less effort and meet same goal.
Lunch could be $5 and a ticket to participate could be purchased at the
time of registration.
c. MS: Sounds good, but what about the publication of the discussion?
d. SS: Get 3-4 lithic experts on board to commit to project which would
result in the deliverable / publication.
e. MS: Can stipulate in the roundtable abstract that the discussion will
be published? Can hit ACRA, etc? Should there be a workshop co-chair or
roundtable? Will experts pass on their workshop papers?
f. SS: MS should advertise, email experts first to see if they will be
able to attend.
Special
Election – VP of Governmental Affairs and Research – RR
a. RR: Shane Baker has taken a job in Idaho and will be leaving his position
as VP of Gov Affairs shortly. Can someone handle SMa’s responsibilities
for the remaining one year of his tenure as VP GA&R?
b. KJ: NOMINATED Sonia Hutmacher.
c. RR: SECOND
d. RR: He will ask Sonia her directly if she is interested in this position.
e. MS: SECOND.
Discussion
of Journal Editorship Position - SS
a. SS: Journal Editorship position is now open. Renee Barlow has offered
institutional support. Jim O’Connell agreed to accept on behalf of
the University of Utah.
b. RQ: NOMINATE Jason Bright
c. JB: He would accept the position if he could get some assistance or
take a break in editorship duties during the field season, and there are
no out-of-pocket expenses.
d. SS: Typically, the university donates $1,000 plus SS has donated $1-2,000.
e. KJ: UPAC has the funds to donate to this cause.
f. JB: Then he accepts, as long as the costs are absorbed elsewhere and
there is no publication expectation during the field season.
g. RQ: The UPAC bylaws indicate that Jason can be the Treasurer and Editor
at the same time.
h. JB: That’s great, but physically impossible. If Renee and Jim
are interested, they can be retained as Editorial Board.
i. RQ: Curriculum Director is the only position that states the person
can hold two offices.
j. KJ: It’s just not a good idea for one person to hold the Treasurer
and Editor positions at the same time.
k. JB: Keith Montgomery agreed to the nomination of Treasurer. Perhaps
he is still interested in the position?
l. RQ: A conditional vote can be made at this time, per the bylaws.
m. RR: He’ll contact Keith and Sonia regarding these opportunities.
n. RQ: NOMINATED Jason Bright as the Editor
o. MS: SECOND.
p. ALL: AGREED.
Other
Items – State Permit Issue – KJ
a. KJ: A letter requesting a general changes to the antiquities permits,
specifically including a provision for the permit to cover a two year period,
as opposed to the current one year period. This request will be submitted
before June 30th. It will then be published on the state register and open
for a 60 day review period. If there are no comments at the end of 60 days,
it will become an official regulation.
b. The peer review of permit-holders will not be addressed as part of this
amendment process. However, if anyone has any questions, it is still open
for further discussion.
c. SMi: Is it conflict of interest for a government agency to make another
agency pay for membership? For example making RPA a requirement for the
state permit.
d. KJ: No. Civil surveyors, professional engineers, and professional geologists
must pay dues to be classified as such.
e. MS: MOVE TO ADJOURN
f. JB: SECOND.
g. ALL: AGREED.
|
UPAC MEMBERS ONLY SECTION © All content property of Utah Professional Archaeological Council (UPAC). |