Explanations, Apologies, and Corrective Actions

The Ethics Committee

The Board acknowledges that from the outset, there have been ambiguities and conflicting understandings around the remit of the Ethics Committee. According to the By-Laws (VII.B.3), “The Ethics Committee shall be charged with advising the President, the Executive Director, the Board, and the Council on matters pertaining to ethical conduct within the spaces, events, and publications of the AMS.” For example, it was charged with a periodic re-assessment of the AMS “Guidelines for Ethical Conduct” and the organizing of sessions and events on issues of professional ethics. The Board also authorized $1,000 to support committee-organized sessions and events on professional ethics.

The Board now recognizes that the very existence of a committee called the “Ethics Committee” encourages AMS members to report to the committee issues the committee cannot address. We feel we can’t fix this simply by revising the committee’s remit. Thus the Board has proposed a By-Laws change that would sunset the Ethics committee.

The crux of the problem is that when AMS constituents seek out Ethics Committee members to report conflicts and grievances, they inadvertently put Ethics Committee members in an uncomfortable and legally tenuous position. The Ethics Committee is not empowered to handle investigations. Moreover, the reporting of grievances to the Ethics Committee creates legal liability for both the society and the members of the committee. For example, an attempt by the committee to resolve a complaint could turn into an accusation of slander or libel against the AMS and against a committee member as an individual.

The existence of the Ethics Committee has also obscured the processes already in place that  address ethical complaints and grievances. Under current procedures, the Board receives ethics complaints related to incidents occurring in the context of AMS programs and events through the AMS office. Individuals who submit ethics complaints not occurring in the context of AMS programs and events are referred to law enforcement or home institutions. For information on how to submit ethics complaints, visit the Complaints and Grievances section of the AMS Contact Us page. All complaints are handled confidentially and fully investigated.

The Board will continue to work on clarifying and strengthening our existing ethics policies and procedures as needed.

Governance

The Board takes seriously the concerns that members have raised about the balance between the Executive Director, the Office staff, the Board, the Council, and our committees. As laid out in the By-Laws (VI.E.2), “The Executive Director is hired by the Board of Directors to provide administrative management for the society. The Executive Director oversees the operations of the society, including program management, fundraising, financial management, management of staff and volunteers, and external communications.” The Board of Directors sets the strategic direction and oversees the finances of the society. The Executive Director and the AMS staff work in partnership with the President, the Executive Committee, and the Board to implement the Society’s programs and support the work of its more than 300 volunteers.

The Board will take steps to ensure that the Society’s leadership retains its focus on our mission and works together on behalf of the membership. As part of this ongoing process we know that our communication can and should be improved so that members are informed and included. We will continue to solicit member feedback to help us stay informed and to guide future work. And we will continue to strengthen the relationship between the Board, the Council, committees, local chapters, and the AMS staff.

AMS governance is no more static than any other system of government. As a shared practice rooted in principles rather than permanence it must change with the world around us and the aspirations of our members. We continue to review our practices and will adjust them in response to member feedback.

We are grateful for the time, care, labor, and imagination offered by volunteers, donors, program participants, and staff alike. The involvement of members who share their expertise remains central to the Society’s programs. Volunteers are invited to participate through open calls for service, and the Board tries to appoint committees that reflect a wide range of perspectives, interests, and experiences.

Staffing and Finance

The Board determines staffing and salaries. The growth of the AMS staff was a planned and deliberative response to changing circumstances. Over the last decade, across the academy, the non-profit sector, and beyond, volunteer capacity has been stretched thin. We are not alone in navigating the challenge of asking already overextended scholars to give their time and labor. In 2019, when Robert F. Judd was still Executive Director, the Board commissioned a third-party, independent assessment of AMS operations. The report noted that the office staff of 2.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) was “severely overtaxed.” Since that time, thanks to grants and the generosity of donors, AMS programs have grown further. To serve our members appropriately, the Society’s 2021 strategic plan called for expanding organizational capacity through external grants, asset appreciation, and increased fundraising.

Under the 2021 strategic plan some responsibilities that once were managed by committees, study groups, or chapters have shifted to the AMS office—not to lessen member involvement, but to ensure that programs are supported reliably, and that volunteers are not asked to take on more than is reasonable. Strengthening our governance in this way is meant to protect the spirit of volunteer service on which the Society depends and rely on the expertise, enthusiasm, and wisdom of our members.

Thanks to successful grant applications and the generosity of our donors, the Society has greatly expanded its support for members. The current staff of 7.5 FTE organizes approximately 300 volunteers and manages our growing budget; legal compliance; the annual meeting and the Teaching Music History conference; the Many Musics of America event series; and several AMS publications. It assists 15 chapters and 22 study groups; supports 45 committees that award nearly $500,000 per year in grants, fellowships and other funding; arranges public programs with the Library of Congress and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum; and much more.

The Board is committed to prudent financial management. The Society employs two separate accounting firms to assist with and supervise its accounting. One firm (YPTC) assists with accounting throughout the year and the other (Dinowitz & Bove) conducts the annual audit. The Society’s finances are also reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Finance Committee, which meets directly with the Society’s auditor. Additionally, the Society publishes copies of its annual IRS filings and financial statements on the AMS Reports page, as well as regular annual reports from the AMS Treasurer. All AMS members are also entitled to receive a full copy of the Society’s auditor’s report upon request. Lastly, the Society employs Fidelity Investments to invest and manage most of the Society’s assets.

We will continue to develop new ways to keep people informed about the governance and finances of the Society.

Howard Mayer Brown Fellowship and Eileen Southern Scholars Program

Members are understandably upset about threats to the Howard Mayer Brown Fellowship and the Eileen Southern Scholars program. The Society’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion has not changed.

We are currently facing twin challenges. We’re working within a complicated legal landscape, and what’s more, the Howard Mayer Brown Fellowship and the Eileen Southern Scholars program have never been fully funded by their endowments; each has relied on added cash from the Society’s general operating funds. The loss of significant federal funding in March of 2025 jeopardized operating funds and made it more challenging to continue to fully fund many of our programs.

Because federal guidelines changed and we lost funds in the middle of the application season, the Board had to make a time-sensitive decision about the Eileen Southern Travel Fund program. Happily, we were able to offer supplemental grants for students who would have previously been funded under the Eileen Southern Travel Fund program through the Annual Meeting Travel Grant.

Fortunately, generous donors have stepped up to ensure the continuation of the Howard Mayer Brown Fellowship as a full-year fellowship in 2026. The Board is working to raise funds to sustain both programs through a targeted fundraising campaign begun by the Development Committee in 2023.

We will continue to monitor the legal landscape, seek new sources of funding, and revisit our approaches to these programs in the coming months.

2025 Annual Meeting Programming Process

We apologize for mistakes made during the 2025 annual meeting programming process and the failure to communicate clearly with the Program Committee and the membership. We recognize that acceptance onto the annual meeting program is highly charged, and that every year there are more strong submissions than there are available program slots. For that reason none of the issues discussed here reflect on the quality or merit of the scholarship submitted, whether accepted or not.

What Happened in 2025: A spreadsheet error in the AMS Office disrupted the evaluation process, resulting in an initial program built on incorrect numerical data. As a result, the Program Committee was asked to create a second draft within a matter of weeks, profoundly compressing the period of reassessment. The Program Committee produced a second program draft that resulted in 257 of 294 individual proposals they recommended appearing on the final Minneapolis program. That means that 87% of the Minneapolis program was determined by the Program Committee, including the top 20% of abstracts, which were automatically accepted.

Then, following established practices and at the Board’s direction, the Office reviewed the Program Committee’s second draft and made changes, including restructuring a number of panels and adding highly-rated abstracts from underrepresented fields. Normally, this review process would have been done in close consultation with the Program Committee; because there was no time, there was no consultation. We understand the Program Committee’s frustration with the changes made and regret that there was not more consultation.

Next Steps: The problems we experienced this year have revealed flaws in communications and places for improvement in the programming process. We regret the lack of clarity in the process for both the Program Committee and the membership. We’ve started the work of clarifying the current process by creating a more thorough handbook for future Program Committees. The current CFP and evaluation system emerged from Board deliberation stretching back to 2018, and the process will continue to change going forward.

After meeting with the Program Committee over the summer, and in response to feedback from a number of Program Committees past, the Board determined that the Society should return to in-person Program Committee meetings. These were the norm before the pandemic and it was concluded that an in-person programming meeting would have ensured smoother work between the Program Committee and the staff. The return to in-person program committee meetings will be implemented in 2026.