Memo from the Ethics Committee

The Program Committee experienced what its members describe as having their charge and role "ignored by the office." As documented in their memo to the Board, crucial information about the review process was withheld for more than ten months. After a data mishap originating with the office (not the committee), the PC offered in good faith to create a fresh program despite considerable inconvenience. In response, the office imposed new rules without meaningful consultation and undermined the committee's decisions. The PC states: "The program for the 2025 AMS annual meeting does not reflect the vision, work, or insight of the program committee... [It] represents less than 15% of the work that the PC did." Committee members report that "the Office had expected that the PC would rubber-stamp the program decisions made by the Office staff."

Chairs that have resigned because of lack of cooperation, collaboration, and support:

• Andrew Chung, Paul Pisk Prize chair

• Christopher Campo-Bowen, AMS-50 Subcommittee Chair

• Candace Bailey, Eileen Southern Fund

* Laurie Stras, Accessibility Task Force and Board Membership

Financial concerns beyond governance issues have been raised by donors and members about the Society's financial stewardship. According to the Society's publicly available Form 990 tax filings, administrative expenses have grown at a rate that raises concern about organizational priorities: Total salaries increased from $207,191 in fiscal year 2020 to $572,779 in fiscal year 2024—a 176% increase over four years Salaries are projected to reach nearly $700,000 in the current fiscal year As a percentage of total expenses, salaries grew from 24% to 39% As a percentage of revenues, salaries grew from 14.9% to 38.7% This pattern of expenditure growth significantly outpacing revenue growth raises questions about financial sustainability and whether resources are being allocated in ways that best serve the Society's scholarly mission. We emphasize that these are publicly available figures that warrant transparent discussion with the membership about budgetary priorities and long-term financial planning. These are not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic pattern of centralized decision-making that bypasses member-elected bodies and volunteer committees, operates without adequate transparency, and concentrates authority in ways that contradict the collaborative, member-driven governance structure our Society requires.

The Ethics Committee was established in 2020-2021 with the explicit approval of the membership to provide mechanisms for members to convey ethics concerns independently of direct Board oversight, reporting to Council as well as the Board to ensure confidentiality and protect individual members. However, as detailed in the Ethics Committee's memo to the Board, there has been a troubling discrepancy between the charge provided to the Committee and what the membership approved. The Committee states: "The discrepancy between the charge provided to the Incipient AMS-EC and our understanding of what the Membership had approved in 2020 and we had been elected to form in 2021 is still extremely troubling to us, as is the lack of transparency in that discrepancy not being made visible to the Membership or even to the Council." The Committee has now been proposed for dissolution with minimal explanation to the membership about why the structure approved by members cannot function as intended.

Link to petition. [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PdfMKI1X09S1sJQqITGy3olP4DeiJo3W9gBdMeEXt5s/edit?usp=sharing]

As all good musicians know, there is hearing...and there is listening.

Link to archive [https://amsaccountabilityarchive.carrd.co/#two]