• Background
• The Report
• Read Member Comments
• Add your Comment/Opinion
• Participate in the Survey

The Councils of the Microbeam Analysis Society and the Microscopy Society of America have been holding discussions with regard to the possibility of realizing a merger of the two societies. In the Spring of 2004, an ad hoc committee was appointed by the Presidents of the two societies to make a report to the Councils and to the membership of the two societies. That Committee made a report to the Councils in Savannah, and there were discussions in Council and at the business meetings of the two societies prompted by the report. This document and questionnaire have also been prepared by that committee.

Since this is such an important issue we would request that you consider it carefully and respond to the questionnaire. A preliminary questionnaire was handed out to attendees of Microscopy and Microanalysis in Savannah, but even if you responded then, please reply again now. This questionnaire will be treated as quite separate form the previous one.

Of the people we have spoken to, a large majority is in favor of such a merger and would support it, if - and it may be a large if - the right conditions for the merger can be agreed. Members of both societies recognize that there are great advantages (to both societies) in joining together. For example, a large fraction of the income of the Microbeam Analysis Society is spent in administration; there would be very large savings in avoiding the duplication in management between the two societies. From the point of view of the Microscopy Society of America, a merged society would be stronger and more representative of the community it seeks to support. A single merged, society would be better placed to grow and continue to be successful in the future.

The two factors that are dominating the discussion are these: The current membership of MSA is about 2800 whereas that of MAS is about 400 (and of these 400 a significant fraction - a third or a half, perhaps - are members of both societies). MAS has a proud forty-year history and its members do not want to disappear without trace. In particular both societies are anxious to provide a structure for the joint society in which, for example, the MAS tradition of Awards, Honorary Members, and independent topical meetings may be continued.

The logic of these factors suggests that the joint society will look, in many ways, like the present MSA, but that the members of MSA who come from MAS will need to have an organizational unit which does not correspond to that of any group within MSA at present. The members of the committee believe that the most important issue is to devise an organizational structure for the joint society that provides a solution to these problems to the satisfaction of both societies. The committee has, therefore, spent a lot of time considering a large number of alternative versions for the structure of the joint organization. Most of the other details that need to be settled (for example, financial and with regard to the annual meeting) seem to be rather straightforward.

The more difficult part is to decide how the whole society is to be operated and governed. There are still different views on this.

Model 1
Leave the present structure of MSA unchanged. That is to have a Council constructed as at present, changing only the wording so that the Directors instead of being three from the biological sciences and three from the physical sciences would be changed to "three from the biological sciences and three from the physical and analytical sciences".

Model 2
To keep the present structure of Council in general but to require that (at least) one of the three Directors from the physical sciences be from the Microbeam Analysis Section, but still elected by the entire membership.

Model 3
To keep the present structure of Council except that the President of the Microbeam Analysis Section would serve as one of the physical sciences Directors.

Model 4
To change the structure of the Society to a federal system. A set of sections would be created. Present members of MSA would each join a section. These sections, like the Microbeam Analysis Section, would elect their own councils and the society as a whole would have a Council as follows: Only the President, Secretary and Treasurer would be elected by the whole Society. Presidents (and perhaps presidents-elect) of the Sections would make up the remaining members of Council.

It would take a lot of space to lay out the reasons for and against each of these proposals. We hope that you can see them for yourselves. Another complication to this discussion is the possibility of having an interim period of integration. The next model is of this kind.

Model 5
Similar to Model 3 but the president of the Microbeam Analysis Section would be a member of the Council of the joint society, but only for a fixed period of, say, six years. After that the Microbeam Analysis Section could continue to exist but without special representation on Council.

As stated above arrangements for other aspects of the merger seem to be non-controversial. However, the committee has also discussed the matter of whether the name of the Society should be changed, and this may well provoke controversy. This is one of the issues included in the questionnaire.