The Reform Committee met in Utrecht on December 11 and 12, 1998.

Present on 11 December were Ritta Hjerppe, Giles Postel-Vinay, Peter Solar, Richard Sutch (chair), Jan Luiten van Zanden (ex officio), and Oscar Gelderblom (reporter). On 12 December this group was joined by Patricia Thane. Pascal Bertrand replaced Oscar Gelderblom as reporter for the second day. Leandro Prados de la Escosura was unable to attend the meeting.

The Reform Committee solicited suggestions and proposals for organizing the XIII Congress from interested scholars and from the member organizations. Approximately 16 responses were received. In addition a considerable amount of discussion of the issues has been publically available on the internet site established by EH.NET. The Secretary General of the IEHA also sent a questionnaire to each session organizer following the Madrid Congress.

The discussions of the Reform Committee were greatly facilitated by the careful and well-organized summaries of the correspondence received and an analysis of the questionnaire prepared by Jan Luiten van Zanden and Oscar Gelderblom. The chair has also benefitted from the excellently recorded, detailed minutes of the two days of meetings prepared by the reporters. This assistance and the generous hospitality of the Universiteit Utrecht deserve the gratitude of the Association.

The first day of discussions were devoted to suggestions for changes in the format of the World Congresses of the IEHA. It was decided that these proposals should be transmitted to Roberto Cortes Conde as non-binding suggestions for possible implementation for our Congress in Buenos Aires in 2002. After modification by the Bureau at its meeting in Amsterdam in February, they were forwarded to all member organizations for comment. A call for the first round of session proposals, consistent with the proposed reforms, was issued by the Bureau in February. All proposals received have been circulated to the members of the Executive Committee for consideration at their meeting in Riverside, California, on May 10, 11, and 12.

The second day of discussions in December were devoted to listing possible changes in the structure and organization of the IEHA. The tentative proposals that emerged from this discussion were discussed by the Bureau in February, further refined by the Reform Committee, and then transmitted to the member organizations for comment. All comments received have been circulated.

There seems to be general agreement with the proposition that the Statutes be kept simple and that they be supplemented by a set of House Rules. Accordingly this document takes up the two issues separately.

The Statutes of the Association as approved in Milan are sketchy. On many practical issues they are silent. It was agreed that there is great merit in a simple document that provides the framework for the Association’s organization but not the detail. At the same time the Committee believes that a written document describing the practices and procedures of the Association would be desirable. We are proposing, therefore, to submit two documents to the Executive Committee in May. One will be a proposed revision of the Statutes and the second would be a set of "house rules," or Huishoudelijk Reglement. It is proposed that the Statutes could be changed only by a vote of the General Assembly, while the House Rules could be changed by the Executive Committee. This would give the Association the flexibility to make changes as needed, but provide a clear set of procedures that could be consulted by any member organization or individual.

Goals: The Committee set three goals to guide its discussion:

The proposed text of each Article precedes the commentary from the Reform Committee.

After some discussion of possible changes in the name of the Association, including the proposal that it should be called the International Association for Economic and Social History, it was decided not to propose a change. In particular, it was seen as ill advised to attempt to compete with other international organizations for social science history.

The Reform Committee did not discuss a modification of the aims of the IEHA. However, it did give considerable attention to suggestions for broadening the scope and nature of the Association’s activities. These are discussed later in this report.

Secretary General Van Zanden circulated a document on the legal status of the IEHA prepared by Anna van Gelderen. This memorandum has been circulated separately to the members of the Bureau. On this basis the Reform Commission saw no need to change Article 3.

The Commission received proposals from several quarters that the Association convert itself into an organization of individual members. This proposal was discussed at length. Particular attention was given to problem of representation of individual scholars who reside in countries that do not have a national association dedicated entirely or in part to economic history. It was ultimately decided to propose no change in this Article of the Statutes but, instead, to work toward the goal of increasing individuals’ participation by expanding the range of activities of the IEHA.

It was proposed that the present practice of holding our Congresses open to any scientific scholar whether or not he or she belonged to a member organization should be continued. The use of open calls for session proposals and papers and the advertisement of these opportunities on the Internet web should be encouraged. These proposals are discussed in a separate document on the format of the World Congresses circulated earlier to the members of the Bureau.

The Committee also discussed the wisdom of imposing a rule that permitted only one organization per country to join the IEHA or to limit membership to national organizations only. It was decided not to pursue these suggestions since the Executive Committee or the General Assembly could prevent any abuses of the membership rules. It is also suggested that the Association could be more active in soliciting the membership of national organizations and in encouraging the establishment of national organizations. The IEHA should try to induce sister organizations, of social and political sciences for example, to become members of the associations.

No change in the wording of this Article is proposed. However, the House Rules should state the subscription rates explicitly. There were two proposals from the Reform Commission concerning these annual contributions. First, subscriptions should not be the sole source of income for the Association. There was some support for a reduction in dues for small or newly-formed member organizations. Alternative income sources are discussed in the section on financial issues. Second, whether or not the subscriptions for small organizations are lowered, it was felt that the dues for large organizations should be greater than those for small organizations. The Committee did not make a specific proposal for the boundary line between small and large, nor did it discuss the optimal structure of subscription fees.

There are no Articles in the current Statutes that describe the officers of the Association. The Reform Committee proposes to add six new Articles at this position in the document. The following draft was prepared by the Chair of the Committee, to capture the essence of the proposed changes. After listing the proposed new articles, some comments of explanation are offered.

The Reform Committee’s arguments for creating the office of President-Elect are spelled out in the separate report on the format of the World Congresses. Note that both former President Tortella and the Economic History Society [of England] suggest that the office of President-Elect may pose more problems then it may solve. Also note that former President van der Wee, who supports the President-Elect proposals, nevertheless warns of possible tensions between the President and the President-Elect.

The wording of these proposed Articles presumes that the Association is willing to make the organization of the World Congresses one of its official responsibilities. This issue is discussed under Article 6.

The Reform Committee recommends that the two offices of Vice President and Treasurer be combined into one (thus holding the number of elected officers to four). However, the wording of this draft would permit the two offices to be kept separate if that is desirable. We rejected the proposal that the Association have two Vice Presidents.

Note that the Reform Commission is proposing the removal of age restrictions on the officers of the Association. Age restrictions seemed to the members of the Reform Commission to be unfashionable and unnecessary. In addition, this wording permits officers to be selected from individuals who have already served the maximum number of terms as a sitting member of the Executive Committee. It is presumed that in most cases the President-Elect will be chosen from the membership of the Executive Committee, though this is not part of the Statutes.

The Reform Committee proposes that the Executive Committee endorse only one candidate for each office to the General Assembly. However, the wording of the Statutes would permit two or more candidates to be named. It is also proposed that, as a rule, the Executive Committee should not publicize the names of candidates considered but not suggested. The House Rules would permit contested elections in the General Assembly. Only member organizations could nominate an alternative to the candidate(s) recommended by the Executive Committee. House rules would also say that contested elections in the General Assembly would be decided by secret ballot.

It should be noted that the Bureau is not mentioned as an organ of the Association. The Committee proposes that it not be made so. The mention of the Bureau in Article 8 should be removed. The Bureau, its membership, its duties and responsibilities should be described in the House Rules.

The Committee also felt that each organizing committee of a World Congress should be an official organ of the Association. However, this change might have important legal implications. If, after receiving legal advice, it is decided to make the organizing committee an organ, Article 6 should be amended to include:

This change would require a new Article (to follow the current Article 8) to describe the Organizing Committee, its membership, its duties and responsibilities. The Chair of the Reform Committee has drafted such an Article, which appears below as Article N7.

This draft includes the sentence "no person can be a representative for more than one member organization." This addition was suggested by Secretary General Van Zanden. This draft includes the sentence "Members of the Executive Committee are not automatically representatives of their member organization." This addition was suggested by the Russian National Committee of Historians.

The Commission proposes a number of changes in this article. To simplify the discussion the article will be discussed paragraph by paragraph.

The re-election limit is placed only on the sitting members. As discussed the below, in most cases the reelection to a second term would be automatic subject to the approval of the General Assembly. The Reform Committee recommends the removal of the age restriction. Note, however, the objections and questions on this issue from Tortella.

The House Rules on these nominations would include the following details:

The last two rules are new, designed to replace the re-submission rule that has been dropped. They reflect the desire of the Reform Committee to protect the interests of member organizations which might feel their concerns were being overlooked by the Executive Committee. In practice, up to three additional members could be added to the slate of 12 to 15 submitted by the Executive Committee. This gives member organizations an incentive to place nominations from the floor. The Executive Committee may wish to consider this matter closely.

The Reform Commission proposes an expanded role and responsibilities for the Executive Committee and a reduction in the role and responsibilities of the Secretary General. However, these changes are probably best dealt with in the House Rules.

The Reform Commission proposes eliminating this paragraph. The house rules could give the right to recommend these and other honors to the Executive Committee. The house rules could also permit the Executive Committee to invite past Presidents (or any one else) to attend its meetings. However, the Reform Commission strongly believes that the "right" to attend meetings should not be extended to the Honorary Presidents nor to any others without the right to vote. Tortella suggests, as an alternative, that former presidents be granted the right to attend Executive Committee meetings for eight years.

This formula was inspired by the comments of Professor van der Wee. In practice, of course, the Executive Committee would have to work with the designated President-Elect to work out a formula that was acceptable to both the Committee and the designated President-Elect. This might well include financial guarantees as proposed by van der Wee. The Executive Committee could then put the proposal before the General Assembly.

The Reform Committee did not discuss Articles 9, 10, or 11 in Utrecht. There have been calls for easing the two-month restriction mentioned in Article 9 and for easing the double two-third majorities required by Article 10. No objections have been raised to Article 11.

The Reform Committee also discussed the question of "official" languages. For the World Congresses, it was recommended that each session organizer be made responsible for insuring that all invited participants are able to effectively communicate with one another. It was also proposed, as a house rule, that future official correspondence and public communications be conducted and recorded in English. Translations into other languages be provided where this would be both practical and necessary, helpful, or courteous. It is proposed that the discussion on Reform will take place in English. A French translation of the Statutes will be provided for after the agreement on reforms.

If the proposals so far considered by the Reform Commission are adopted, then several problems must be addressed in making the transition from the old to the new governance structure. Some of these were considered in Utrecht.

The XIII World Congress: It was proposed in Utrecht that the Reform Commission’s proposals for a change in the format of the World Congresses should not be binding on the organizers of the XIII Congress. They are offered to Roberto Cortes Conde as suggestions and as licence to depart from past practices.

Revising the Statutes: The next meeting of the General Assembly is scheduled for July 2002. Since the Assembly has the sole power to amend the Statutes, full validation of any reform must either wait until that date or require the convening of an extraordinary session of the General Assembly. The Reform Commission is of the opinion that much of the reform can be begun before 2002 without violation of the Statutes. If the Executive Committee approves the House Rules in 2000 they can be implemented without need to consult the General Assembly. Other changes contemplated by the Reform Commission can be undertaken as if the new Statutes were already approved, provided that care was taken to prepare the necessary ground work in case some or all of the reform is overturned or modified by the General Assembly.

The President-Elect: One of the major reform proposals involves the selection of the President-Elect who will organize the World Congress in 2006. The Reform Commission proposes this election be conducted under the new rules. Should the reform proposal not be adopted in Buenos Aires, the person selected could under the old rules be the President. Perhaps that might require a waver of the age or term limitations in the present Statutes, but there is some precedent for that. The Reform Committee proposes that the Executive Committee nominate someone other than Cortés Conde for the Presidency for the term beginning in 2002 under the assumption that the reform as proposed will carry. The Bureau recommended that someone else be nominated for President (who would have no role in the organization of the Congress of 2006). As a transitional move, Cortés Conde could be nominated for an extraordinary (perhaps non-voting) additional four-year term on the Executive Committee and to serve as a consultant to the Organizing Committee for 2006. This would give him a follow-up term to replace a term as Honorary President that would be his under the current Statutes. Thereafter the Congress organizers (Presidents-Elect) would succeed to the office of President.

Vice-President and Treasurer: The Reform Committee suggests that one individual be selected under the proposed new procedures to serve both as Vice President and Treasurer. This would not be Johansen who will have served three terms on the Executive Committee (ineligible under the old rules) and two terms as Treasurer by 2002 (ineligible under the proposed new rules). If the reform proposal is not passed, then the individual selected to be the transitional President could be instead nominated for the Vice Presidency and the person selected for the dual job could be nominated for the position of Treasurer under the current rules.

Sitting Members of the Executive Committee: It is proposed that following its meeting in 2000 the Executive Committee ask for recommendations of candidates for the officers and members of the Executive Committee and that the Nominations Committee and the Search Committees for Treasurer (and if necessary Secretary General) be appointed. At its meeting in 2001 the Executive Committee will prepare its slate of nominees for all offices and six new members for the Executive Committee. This list of nominees would be circulated to the member organizations.

There are currently 12 sitting members of the Executive Committee; counting our four officers the total is 16. Of the sixteen, only three are beginning their third term (Cortés Conde, Johansen, and Sutch) and are ineligible under either the current or proposed rules for reelection to a regular seat. Thus only three vacancies will exist in 2002 if we follow current practice. Moreover, in 2002 the Association will need to select a President, a President-Elect, and a Vice President/Treasurer. Unless one or more of these three officers were chosen from the current board there would be no regular seats open in 2002. In the spirit of reform, it might be desirable to increase the number of new committee members who could be elected in 2002. For this reason, the Commission proposes that the number of sitting members be expanded for the next four-year cycle from 12 to 15 (as allowed by both the present and proposed Statutes). If necessary, this would mean the election of six new individuals and would bring the full committee to 18.

If approved in Buenos Aires, the two-term limitation for sitting members should apply to those members now in their first term (Borodkin, Fridenson, Kochanowicz, Lloyd, Pamuk, Metzer, Saito, and Szmrecsányi). These nine would be eligible for reelection that year, but not in 2006. However, the two-term limitation would not apply to the four members now in their second term who could under the current rules be eligible for reelection in 2002. Without retirements from the 15 regular seats, there would be thirteen vacancies in 2006. The Reform Committee proposes that the Committee size be moved back to 12 regular members at the elections in that year.

A proposal considered and rejected by the Reform Committee would request the members now in their second term (Eddie, Pohl, Reis, and Thane) to voluntarily withdraw from a third-term thus opening more seats in 2002 without the need to expand the Committee as dramatically as proposed. This idea was rejected for two reasons. First it seemed unfair to the individuals and difficult to arrange unless the Statutes were amended before the nomination process begins in June of 2000. Second, it would deprive the Association of experienced committee members who might be willing and able to serve as officers of the Association.

The Reform Commission began its consideration of the finances of the Association with a discussion of the proposal to make the IEHA a membership organization rather than an association of organizations. However desirable this proposal might be as a long-run goal for the IEHA, it did not seem practical at the moment. This is because there is currently no service or benefit the Association presently offers members that would induce them to pay dues. It seems undesirable to close participation in the World Congress to non-members. This discussion lead to a consideration of other activities and services the Association might provide that would make individual membership desirable and affordable.

The Committee discussed the possibility of founding a Journal or a series of Publications that dues-paying members would receive. While there was general approval of such a plan, it is not clear that such a new venture could be easily launched or that its financial success could be taken for granted.

It was proposed that the Association sponsor conferences on regional or specialized topics and that individual membership in the organization be required for an invitation or attendance. As the value and popularity of such conferences grows, the Association might be able to attract a sufficient number of individual members that significant flows of income is generated from member dues.

The Committee also considered allowing for the possibility of instituting a second class of membership. This idea would retain organizational membership under the present rules and the representative General Assembly, but add a provision by which individuals could also become members paying nominal dues and having a vote on certain matters in a kind of "lower house of parliament."

Without exhausting the subject of new initiatives, the Reform Commission decided to recommend that the Executive Committee have an extensive discussion of financial issues in May.

The topic of finances were raised again when the costs of running the Secretariate and the financial burden placed on members of the Executive Committee by the current arrangements were discussed. These costs have been born in the past by volunteers. This had lead to the reality or the appearance that the Association was run by a financially-privileged or -positioned elite and that individuals who were not so fortunate could not afford to participate in the governance of the Association. The Reform Commission believes that the costs of the Secretariate and the travel, food, and lodging costs of the Executive Committee members and officers of the Association should eventually be financed by the Association’s Treasury. The creation and maintenance of a Internet web site for the Association was also suggested. This too will cost money. The Reform Committee recognizes that these initiatives, if adopted, will require a greatly expanded flow of income.

To help increase the income of the Association, the Committee makes the following suggestions. It realizes that these may not be sufficient to meet the Association’s financial needs.

The Committee believes that resolving the financial issues, either by finding a new source of revenue or by reducing the costs of governing the Association, will be the key to achieving a long-lasting and successful reform. It suggests that financial issues should be a priority for discussion by the Executive Committee at its meeting in May.

General Principles: There was agreement on the following general principles:

Frequency and Timing of Congresses: At this time the Reform Committee sees no reason to depart from the current practice of holding one World Congress every four years. The next Congress, our thirteenth, is scheduled for July of 2002. Thus the Committee proposes that the XIV Congress be held in 2006. In what follows we will designate a year during which a Congress shall take place as "Year Four." Thus the calendar year following the year of a Congress is "Year One." This year, 1999, is Year One.

Responsibility: The current practice is that the President of the IEHA is also the person responsible for organizing the Congress. This individual has two roles that may come into conflict. Some people hold the opinion that in the matter of resolving the difficulties with Proconsur the interests of the Association and the interests of the organizers of the XII Congress were conflicting. Whether or not this was so, the Reform Commission suggests that for XIV Congress in 2006 the President-Elect should organize the Congress. Following the Congress the individual chosen would serve as President of the Association for a four-year term. Thus during the Congress in 2002, the General Assembly would elect both a President for a four-year term and a President-Elect who would organize the Congress in 2006 and then serve as President until 2010. The President selected in 2002 would have no personal responsibilities for organizing a Congress. The Reform Commission felt that the office of President-elect would be useful, perhaps crucial, for fund raising.

The over-all responsibility for the Congresses should be vested in the General Assembly who would delegate, as it saw fit, to an Organizing Committee and the President Elect. The President-Elect should be a member of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee and the President-Elect should have a clear, full, and written agreement about the respective organizational and financial responsibilities of both parties. Also see the recommendations on Financial Responsibilities in the next section.

Financial Responsibilities: The finances and the cash flows of each Congress should be kept separate from each other and separate from the general treasury of the Association. In Year Three (2001, 2005, ....) the potential designate(s) for President-Elect should present a year-by-year budget for the proposed subsequent Congress to the Executive Committee. Expenditures for that Congress should be divided into three distinct categories: (1) the costs of the Secretariate (to be agreed upon between the Secretary General and the Executive Committee), (2) fixed costs that will be independent of the attendance, and (3) variable costs that are proportional to the attendance. Registration fees should be set to cover the variable costs and the costs of the Secretariate. A fund-raising effort should be planned to cover the fixed costs with a limited guarantee (say US $30,000) from the general treasury of the IEHA to insure against a short fall.

Registration fees and contributions of national associations should be deposited in a Congress account owned by the Association and overseen by the Treasurer of the Association. This account would be opened by transferring the amount of the guarantee from the general treasury. The Treasurer would be authorized to release funds to the President-Elect or to the Congress organizing committee as appropriate and needed. The Treasurer would report the cash flows and the status of the Congress account to the Executive Committee at its annual meeting. Funds raised by the President-Elect or the Congress organizing committee may be received and disbursed from accounts established for that purpose in the host country. Such accounts should be owned either by the IEHA or by a non-profit corporate entity such as a University or a national economic history association. The President-Elect would be expected to make annual and closing financial reports concerning the activities of these accounts to the Executive Committee. A clear understanding should be recorded about the disbursal of any funds that might remain in such accounts after all business of the Congress has been completed.

The Reform Committee further recommends that the Bureau investigate the need for and cost of liability insurance and personal bonding and report on those issues to the Executive Committee in May.

Location of Congresses: In the past most, but not all, of the World Congresses are held in the country of residence of the Congress organizer. This makes both local arrangement and fund raising easier. At the same time, this practice has prevented the consideration of certain individuals for the Presidency because of their incapacity or unwillingness to host a Congress in their home country. It might also be argued that attractive locations stimulate attendance. It would seem a good thing if the location of the Congress could be less tightly restricted. For this and other reasons, the Reform Committee is proposing to keep the fixed costs (and thus the need for fund raising) as low as possible. Specific proposals designed to accomplish this are below.

The Reform Committee also proposes that a more open process for nominating host cities be designed and that, when possible, the host city and the President-Elect be selected independently. Here is a suggestion of how this might be implemented. In Year One member organizations and interested individuals could be invited to nominate a location for the Congress. Members of the Executive Committee would be strongly encouraged to make such a nomination as well. The proposal of a host city should include some specifics about who would take on the task of coordinating the local arrangements and some ideas about the capacity to raise funds locally. The proposal would not need to anticipate the choice of the President-Elect. The Executive Committee would then form an ad hoc committee to consider some or all of the proposals, to solicit additional proposals if necessary, and to recommend to the Executive Committee in Year Three both a city to host the Congress and a candidate for President-Elect. Obviously, the candidate for President-Elect would have to be someone who could work with the local organizing committee, but with a strong local committee and the modern conveniences of communications and transportation, it would be feasible to have a President-Elect from a country that did not include the host city. In the past our Presidents have been selected from the members of the Executive Committee, so it might be anticipated that the President-Elect recommended by the ad hoc committee would be a member of the Executive Committee although this would not be a requirement. In any case, the designated President-Elect would present the proposed budget to the Executive Committee in Year Three. At the Congress in Year Four, the Executive Committee would be asked to approve of the written understanding with the designated President-Elect.

Lodging: Unless reasons can be given for doing otherwise, the Reform Committee recommends that hotel reservations, advanced deposits, and lodgings arrangements should be the responsibility of the participants. This will avoid the need for the Association or the Conference organizers to handle the advance deposits. The local organizers should make arrangements to hold blocks of rooms, negotiate a Congress rate, and (if necessary) post a financial guarantee. A menu of suggestions should then be provided to participants who would book their own arrangements.

It is desirable to have some low-cost lodging alternatives (such as in a university dormitory). This would encourage participation by young scholars and those with limited personal and institutional support. Such facilities might be an exception to the proposal that participants deal directly with the hotels.

Fees and Grants: Registration fees should not exceed $200 US and should be set to reflect the estimated variable cost of participation plus a proportional contribution to the costs of the Secretariate. Reduced fees should be offered to Graduate Students and perhaps to participants from third-world countries. Travel grants to young scholars and those with inadequate resources or institutional support should be financed either from funds specifically raised for this purpose or from voluntary contributions of other participants solicited as an "extra registration fee."

Timing and Length of Congresses: After discussing the alternatives at some length, the Reform Committee recommends keeping World Congresses to the traditional five-day schedule. Either a Monday through Friday calendar or a Tuesday through Saturday calendar could be used. When ever possible, Congresses should be scheduled for one of the last three weeks of July or one of the first three weeks of August.

Sessions: In response to considerable complaints about the current hierarchical structure of sessions (A-, B-, C-, D-, and E-sessions) the Reform Commission recommends replacing this with a simpler structure. As proposed, most sessions would be Regular Sessions selected from those proposed in answer to two separate calls for proposals. Please, see the Call for first round prosals distributed by the Secretary General in February for details. The Committee recommends retaining the dissertation sessions. In addition the Committee proposes creating three Executive Sessions, one Presidential Session, and one Keynote Address. The Executive Sessions would be created by the Executive Committee in Year two (see below for details). The Presidential Session would be organized by the President of the Association. The Keynote Speaker would be selected by the President-Elect. The Presidential Address would be eliminated. However, the President may choose to address the Congress at the Presidential Session.

Use of the internet to broadly advertise the call for session proposals and to assist individuals looking for others to join together to make a proposal is strongly encouraged.

Each day of the Congress would be divided into four 90-minute time blocks (or possibly 105-minute blocks): two in the morning separated by a thirty-minute coffee break, a long lunch break, and two blocks in the afternoon separated by a thirty-minute coffee break. Proposals for sessions may request one, two, or three consecutive time blocks depending upon the nature of the proposed theme and the number of participants proposed. The first block of the first day would be reserved for registration. The last block of day two would be reserved for a general meeting of the whole to provide information and to discuss the business of the Association (in structure, this would be similar to the Wednesday meeting held in Madrid). No sessions would be held during the afternoon of the third day. This time would be reserved for excursions, sight seeing, assemblies of national associations, or informally-organized meetings called for special purposes. The third session of the fourth day would be reserved for the dissertation sessions. The final session of the fifth day would be reserved for the meeting of the General Assembly. The remaining fourteen time blocks would hold the scientific sessions.

Each time block could hold twelve or more concurrent sessions. If, for example, the Executive Committee selected 5 three-block sessions, 40 two-block sessions, and 60 one-block sessions, we would have a total of 110 sessions including the 3 Executive Sessions, the Presidential Session, and the session set aside for the initial lectures. This is comparable to the roughly 100 sessions that were scheduled for Seville.

Session organizers should be given great discretion over how their sessions will be organized, the number of papers, the use of formal discussants, etc. However, they should be strongly encouraged to allocate approximately 20 percent of the available time for discussion and questions from the floor. Guidelines for session organizers should be written and distributed with the call for proposals. The IEHA should distribute a more detailed version of the guidelines to organizers whose sessions are selected.

Languages: It should be the principal responsibility of the session organizers to insure that the participants can effectively communicate with each other. The Reform Committee suspects that in most cases this can be most effectively achieved by listing English as the preferred language. When other languages are used, the session organizer should make an effort to provide a summary or translation into English. As a courtesy to those whose native language is not English, the use of overhead transparencies and handouts should be strongly encouraged.

Program Committee: The Executive Committee of the Association should continue to serve as the Program Committee for the World Congresses. It should select the sessions, allocate the time slots, and make suggestions for changes and improvements in the sessions as proposed. However, the responsibility for the organization of individual sessions remains with the session organizer(s). Prior to the meetings of the Executive Committee, the Secretary General will distribute the session proposals to all members of the Executive Committee by e-mail or internet.

The Executive Committee should continue to serve as the Jury for the Dissertation Sessions.

In Year Two the Executive Committee meeting should include a substantive conference with written contributions from its members circulated in advance (and perhaps with invited speakers from outside of the Executive Committee) to consider the state and direction of the field of economic history. The goal of this discussion would be to create three Executive Sessions for the upcoming Congress. These Executive Sessions would replace the A-Themes of the present arrangement. The President is offered the privilege of organizing the Presidential Session. The theme for this session should be announced at the Executive Conference in Year Two.

Receptions: There should be an open reception on the first night of the Congress. This is an essential meeting place for people to find each other and to make plans to get together during the Congress. The Committee recommends abolishing the opening session and scheduling the welcoming remarks of the organizers and local dignitaries for the evening reception. A closing reception is nice, but might be made a fee event if a donor cannot be easily found.

Executive Committee Meetings: The outgoing Executive Committee should schedule a day-long meeting the day before the Congress opens. The new Executive Committee should meet either on the evening of the fifth day or on the morning of the day following depending upon the amount of business to be conducted. The costs of these meetings should not be part of the Congress budget, but should instead be born by the general treasury of the Association.

Proposals for Reducing the Cost of Congresses: The Reform Committee feels strongly that the financial burden on the conference organizer should be reduced as much as possible. It offers the following recommendations:

1. The cost of the excursions should not be born by the Congress. Instead, it is recommended that local tour operators be invited to the Congress venue to promote their own programs and that the cost of tours should be the responsibility of those taking tours.

2. Concerts and other entertainments should not be subsidized.

3. Electronic means of communication should be used as much as possible to reduce the cost of printing and mailing brochures. The Reform Commission urges the Bureau to fund a Association web site to disseminate information and to post and periodically update the program of the Congress as it develops and to post both abstracts and the actual papers as they arrive.

4. The Commission felt that the publication of the Congress proceedings are too expensive to warrant their continued publication in book format. Moreover, the advance time required for publication, meant that papers had to be completed a year or more in advance of the Congress. Consideration should be given to electronic publication of the proceedings (perhaps as a CD-ROM) following the Congress. Orders could be taken during the Congress itself. Session organizers should be encouraged to pursue other publishing options with commercial publishers or as special issues of scientific journals. There was some sympathy for retaining two volumes: (1) the volume of dissertation abstracts (since publication is a kind of "prize" in itself), and (2) a volume of papers by distinguished economic historians that address some of the broad themes of the Congress, including the Keynote Address. This publication might be needed to bribe distinguished members to attend the Congress and would stand as an encapsulation of the Congress’s legacy. The Committee recommends that the Bureau solicit the interests of commercial publishers in a contract for either or both of these publications.

5. The cost of lodging of the officers and the members of the Executive Committee should not be part of the Congress budget. If these costs are to be subsidized by the Association, the funds should come from the general treasury.