by Wynn Wacker

Several members of the Madison Astronomical Society have requested that the MAS consider rejoining the Astronomical League a number of years after having dropped out, and the Society has made plans to take up this question in May. Because many of our newer members are unfamiliar with the AL and the reasons the MAS quit the League, I have been asked to present this information in an article which takes the "con" position to the proposal to rejoin. It won’t be entirely negative toward the League since, like any organization which has lasted more than half a century, it does have some good points. I will, however, in addition to a bit of history, be presenting my personal impression of the AL and why I believe the MAS may wish to approach the idea of re-affiliation with some caution.

The Astronomical League is an organization comprised mainly of amateur astronomical societies, though individuals may join as at-large members. The League was formed in the late 1940s and MAS was one of the founding member societies. Its stated purpose is to "advance the science of astronomy", a mission which it carries out primarily though encouraging interaction between societies and individual amateur astronomers at regional and national conventions, some programs to promote the growth of astronomical societies, and some educational programs and publications for its members. Chief among the publications is the newsletter, The Reflector, which is published quarterly and (nominally) goes to all of the membership of League. This is also the largest budget item for the AL, and the ostensible reason why the League charges societies $3 for each of their members. There are also a number of good manuals for observing, astronomy education, and running astronomical societies. These are quite reasonably priced, and AL members get a 10% discount and free S&H (though you can avoid shipping by buying them at the conventions).

The chief contact most AL members have with the League is at the conventions, and I believe that these events are the chief attraction for some of the MAS members who wish to rejoin. The AL is divided into 10 geographical regions across the U.S. (we’re in the North Central region, or NCRAL) and each region holds an annual convention in additional to the annual national convention. The regional conventions are usually one or two day affairs, while the national conventions generally run from a Wednesday through a Saturday. In addition to conducting League business, the conventions feature talks by amateurs and a few lectures by professionals, as well as field-trips, booths from sellers of equipment and books, and a concluding banquet. I attended my first NCRAL convention (hosted by the MAS) in 1965. With eye-stinging pepper spray still being wafted by the breeze after the Democratic Party 1968 convention, I attended my first national AL convention in Chicago (where I met the gentleman who was building a spaceship in his basement, but that’s another story). I have since attended a number of, mostly regional, AL conventions, and that is where I formed my impression of the organization and its workings.

The first conventions were exciting, with a chance to meet well-known amateurs and hear interesting lectures from professionals (I still remember one from UW Prof. Suomi where I first saw satellite weather images). However, a feeling of disappointment gradually set in with respect to the League itself. For an organization with the clout of hundreds of astronomical societies, it seemed to have remarkably little purpose. The serious observing programs were carried out by organizations like AAVSO, ALPO, and IOTA. Light-pollution was attracting a lot of attention in the 1960’s, but the League had no program to deal with this problem, faced by most amateur astronomers, and it was necessary to form the International Dark Sky Association to address it. Even Astronomy Day, which the League now promotes, did not originate with it. Another impression was that the League officers tended to be very in-grown. They had served for many years and, particularly at the National conventions, were so busy glad-handing each other that they didn’t seem to have time for the ordinary rank-and-file members. Not surprising considering it’s hard enough for the MAS to find volunteers to serve its officers – just think of finding someone to commit to greater responsibility with travel expenses to boot! It did, however, seem to result in a kind of complaisance regarding League operation and activities. What was surprising was the emphasis placed by the national leadership on pouring resources into building an endowment fund. The goal was to build a fund large enough that the interest could be used to hire a staff person to handle the routine clerical work, which the League leadership regarded as a major burden. I never heard the appropriateness of this use of money in an all-volunteer organization called into question in a formal meeting.

The decision of the MAS to quit the League resulted from the experience of our officers when we hosted the 1993 national AL convention. I had just rejoined MAS after returning to Madison following 15 years away, so although I attended the convention, I was not involved in staging it, and what I know of the difficulties was related to me by those who were directly involved. The first snafu was that, although the League by-laws explicitly require the AL to provide "several individuals to advise and assist" in preparing for a national convention, the designated individuals did not cooperate and no such aid was forthcoming. The MAS officers swallowed hard and undertook to put on the best convention they could, rounding up as many volunteers from among the members as they could get. The League did, however, manage to communicate several times informing MAS of additional obligations required, including covering costs for some League officials to attend. Plans hit another snag when it was decided to depart from the standard format of the presentation of submitted papers and substitute workshops lead by invited leading amateurs. Now, the quality of AL papers was never particularly high. Those who saw Dick Greiner’s talk on CCD astronomy should be aware how unusually good it was (Doc’s a pro and it showed). Many of the traditional AL papers were in the vein of "how I built my observatory/telescope" and had all the appeal of watching someone else’s vacation slides. The workshops were fantastic. The one given by Don Parker and Richard Barry on the then-novel subject of CCD imaging was worth the price of admission all by itself, and the others I attended were both interesting and informative as well. The other attendees must have enjoyed the concept also, since there was a record turn-out and the approach has been used in several conventions since then. However, some of the League officials went ballistic over this change in THE FORMAT (sing to the tune of "Tradition" from Fiddler on the Roof) and did all that they could to block it. Since the League was not providing the assistance their own by-laws required, there wasn’t much that they could do except raise a stink.

There were some other memorable moments from that convention. One was the field trip to UW to visit the Space Astronomy Lab and Space Sciences building. That was where Dr. Sanjay Limaye announced that a comet would be colliding with Jupiter next year and invited everyone to send him their CCD images for analysis. Another, less positive, moment occurred following a report by the new AL Treasurer, who boasted about how the endowment fund flourished under his care. Following the report, our then-Treasurer, Joe Keyes, rose to ask some simple questions about League finances. The AL Treasurer was unable to answer the questions and, although answers were forthcoming later in The Reflector, it considerably decreased our confidence in how League finances were being handled. After the final banquet, where the League officers congratulated themselves on a very successful convention, it came time to divvy up the profits. The League took about 75%. I suppose they thought this was generous, since the by-laws allow them to take 85% (losses, as sometimes occur, are also divided as the AL Council wishes, with the host society taking no less than 15% of that cut as well), but under the circumstances most of the MAS felt themselves ill-used.

Following the convention debacle, the MAS officers who had been most involved in organizing the convention, and in closest contact with the League officials, decided that they did not wish to continue sending dues to the AL. Dropping out of the League was very controversial as some long-time MAS members wished to remain affiliated. The MAS offered a compromise whereby those in the MAS who wished to remain in the League would have their dues submitted, while the rest of us would abstain and go without The Reflector (which Eric Thiede and I never received during the time between when we rejoined the MAS and the MAS left the AL anyway). The League officials flatly rejected this offer (inbred bureaucracies tend toward the imperious) and the course was set to leave the League. It took two attempts before the resolution to succeed passed, and some members who opposed the resolution still complain of "the snowy evening" when too few supporters were present to block it. In truth, most of the MAS officers who felt required to be present, as well as many of the most regular attendees, supported the move. In any organization like ours the minority of active members present will set the policy, but I do hope that the advance announcement of this debate will serve to prevent such ill-feelings in the future.

Which brings us to the present question. I have not been free to attend League conventions for several years, and it is possible that some new leadership is more responsive than the old (although I wonder if that’s the case at the National level where the bulk of the problem lies). I concede that the League is a good social organization for amateur astronomers. My main objections to affiliation are 1) expense and 2) lack of useful purpose. Given the current membership, it would cost the MAS more than $250 annually to be part of the League. The benefits to individual members from that affiliation can in most cases be obtained much more cheaply. You don’t have to be a member to go to the conventions. The host societies are anxious not to take a loss in these affairs and welcome all comers. I’ve attended them myself since the MAS dropped-out, and there is no stigma attached except that you can’t vote on League affairs (and most of you couldn’t anyway since it’s the societies that have the votes). If that restriction rankles you, you can be a member-at-large for $25 a year and get a bundle League publications and membership card to boot. If I read the by-laws correctly, you also get the same voting rights as a small astronomical society of ten members. If you’re just interested in The Reflector, you can get it for $8 per year. It’s true that you might have trouble being elected to a League office, but I haven’t known of an MAS member who has even run for one in the 36 years since I first joined the organization. For those who are concerned we are missing out on League doings, we could make a club officer (say the Newsletter Editor) a member-at-large for 1/10^th the price and post the important information in the Capitol Skies and on our website.

There is one area where the League offers something which appeals to certain amateurs and for which membership is required, the Observing Clubs. These are basically sets of observing projects which members can carry out. You record your observations, have your notebook certified by someone, and receive a certificate of accomplishment and get your name in The Reflector. It’s roughly the equivalent of merit badges in Scouting. The first one was the Messier Club, but the range had expanded considerably in recent years. The idea is to get people to use their telescopes, and it has been suggested that it might encourage enthusiasm among new members. My experience has been that it is the already-enthusiastic members that attempt these projects. We could certainly offer the same type of certificates to our own members without the League, though I concede the lure of a wider audience.

The decision to quit the AL was emotionally charged, but the decision to rejoin should not be. We need to weigh the benefits against the costs. How many of you would attend an AL convention this year if the MAS was a member as opposed to if it wasn’t. How many want to get The Reflector, versus just the important regional event information? The AL annual dues could purchase a small telescope to be presented to worthy student, class, or school. We could use the money to provide additional benefits for our own members. How about cap or mug for each new member, or more insurance, or materials for outreach? I’m sure some of you have your alternatives. Someone said that the Milwaukee society rejoined because they felt it was the right thing to do. We need to make sure that it is the right thing for the MAS and not just the AL.

I’ve given you my impressions, but I encourage anyone interested in the AL to attend the NCRAL convention hosted by the Neville Public Museum Astronomical Society in Green Bay May 4-5 (contact Don DeWitt 414-448-4460, ddwitt@online.dct.com) and form your own opinion. Check out the AL web page (www.astroleague.org). Although it’s beyond the scheduled vote, you should also attend ALCON 2001 July 25-28 in Frederick, MD, to see how the League national level operates.

I leave you with a final thought. The main purpose of the AL is to stage conventions, and if the MAS rejoins the League it will also be expected to host them. We were able to stage a great one in ’93 because some of our active members with national reputations and a long history in amateur astronomy were able, through personal relationships, to get leaders in amateur astronomy to give workshops. Many of those MAS members have since left the Society, and those who remain are disinclined to participate in organizing a convention. It’s hard enough to find members willing to serve as MAS officers without the added burden of AL responsibilities. We even have a tough time mustering volunteers to cut the grass at YRS. Are YOU willing to undertake the responsibility of corresponding with the AL and putting on a convention. Will YOU make the hotel arrangements, set-up the field trips and transportation, arrange for speakers, review the papers, greet the visitors, and undertake the myriad small tasks to make it work. Are YOU willing to risk the MAS taking a serious financial loss if hoped-for attendees don’t show.

Remember that NCRAL conventions occur in May when many people have school obligations.

Be honest.