Minutes GPEAN Meeting 9-13 July 2002, Volos, Greece

Introduction

The communications committee was  formed in response to discussions among various planning school associationsat the Shanghai World Congress under the Shanghai Statement.  The role of the committee is to develop the networking aspects of a global planning education network.  As part of its deliberations, the committee also considered the relationship to organisational structures.

Members of the committee are as per the attached document.

Notes from the meeting

The meeting was called to order by Basil Dimitriou, representative of the host association, AESOP, who presented the draft agenda which had been prepared before the meeting by Bruce Stiftel and circulated to members.  With minor reordering the draft agenda was accepted as the initial agenda for the meeting. Stiftel was nominated as initial facilitator for the meeting.

Introductions

Associations presented their background including their methods of operation, and membership requirements.  Association objectives for GPEAN were also outlined by members as a starting point.  Brief discussion then took place on the meeting objectives in the context of the objectives outlined by the individual associations.

Web site

The use of Internet technologies to facilitate communication was identified as a core function of GPEAN and it was considered by the committee that initial discussion around these technologies would assist to clarify the operation of the network and related matters regarding organisational structure.  A paper prepared by Angus Witherby had previously been circulated to members as a starting point for discussion.

An interim GPEAN site prepared by Tongji University was reviewed, in particular the main areas of functionality.  This occurred through identifying a range of priorities for communication together with some preliminary views on appropriate technical frameworks and levels of sophistication.

In terms of general communication, the following issues were identified:

·                     to provide information about GPEAN

·                     the need to ensure high levels of accessibility noting there was a range of views regarding the level of technology.  The majority view was that core functionality needed to be delivered at a "lowest common denominator" level noting that some cross-cultural accessibility, such as the use of extensive graphics, may require a higher technological level. Some technical sites for special interest groups may also need higher technology.

·                     to be able to broadcast experiences generally "from all to all"

·                     the need to know what people are doing in terms of research

·                     the need to provide information across language in terms of planning research and planning education

·                     how to treat the tension between revenue needs and possibilites and the potential for commercial exploitation

·                     to provide a teaching resource

·                     to provide an academic resource both in planning education and other planning research

·                     to showcase planning practice

·                     to provide good access to contact details of researchers and academics in planning education

·                     to provide information on curriculum issues including the stimulation of debate and discussion about these

·                     to provide information for potential planning students about programs and specialisations globally

·                     to showcase planning research to users of research

It was recognized that there is a natural order in the site development, being first information about GPEAN and its member associations, going to other forms of existing information and ending in the development of new information. It is also recognized that both priorities and a sequence of tasks needed to be established and that these may be different.

Many of these functions are also available through existing national or regional networks or sites and care would be required to avoid duplicating information.  On the other hand, there were a number of clearly global level information requirements that could be met through a site or network. Focus should be on those areas of functionality which created a desire for use and which met clearly identified global needs.

It was considered that full specifications of the functionality and physical shape of a web site and associated networks would require further development.  In the interim, a subcommittee was established to develop the Tongji draft site as an interim site for GPEAN.  The subcommittee is to consist of  Wu, Dimitriou and Witherby. 

It was  decided to locate the website at Tongji until 2006, subject to annual review. A Memorandum of Understanding is to be developed between GPEAN and Tongji University regarding the site. ). The subcommittee was requested to develop both a suggested sequence for development and appropriate priority listings.    It was recognized that GPEAN’s finance sub-committee would have input into issues of commercialization of this site.

The committee expressed recognition and debt to Tongji University for their initiative in preparing the draft site and securing an appropriate Web address.

Communications groups

The communications network would need to provide functionality to support two main categories of communications groups.  The first consists of groups of people with common functions across associations including presidents, accreditation and curriculum bodies, journal editors and conference chairs.  The value was seen in global interchange between these groups across all the associations.  The second consists of special interest groups.  Initially visualisation and problem based learning were identified as potential special interest groups.  The committee recognised that individuals or groups would need to be identified to facilitate both the common function groups and the special interest groups.  Bruce Stiftel undertook to commence initial liaison with individuals to work with the common functions groups. The website subcommittee agreed to flesh out mechanisms for special interest group networking and members undertook to seek advice from their associations regarding interested individuals to progress special interest groups within this framework and to nominate a small number of initial groups for this activity.

Global best paper series

The committee commended Bruce Stiftel for taking the initiative to contact a range of global publishers regarding some preliminary proposals to spark discussion.  Two main proposals were initially presented.  The first possibility was a "best papers" series which drew on the resources of recognized refereed journals but which sought to present an annual or bi-annual publication which culled the best of these papers from across the various language groups of association members.  Various models were suggested including papers being selected by an appropriate group of journals, or papers being selected by the various associations according to some developed criteria.  The second possibility was for an "annual reviews" series where respected commentators would be invited to prepare reviews of recent literature according to identified themes.  Again, the intent would be to draw on literatures of the various language groups which make up the associations.

A subcommittee was formed to further investigate these proposals as, until detailed proposals had been developed which allowed a careful judgment to be made of the benefits of self publication rather than working with commercial publishers, it was difficult to be pre-emptive about the preferred form of publication.  A number of key objectives were identified for the subcommittee.  Publications must be self sustainable, required wide accessibility and/distribution, must provide legal clarity in terms of copyright and other intellectual property matters, and must not impose unmanageable workloads on GPEAN. Languages of publication was identified as a concern requiring further thought.  It was also recognized that some tensions exist between full cost recovery and affordability for some associations.  This must be closely considered in the subcommittee's deliberations.  The subcommittee is to consist of Bruce Stiftel, Roberto Rodriguez, Vanessa Watson, Thomas Harper, Alain Motte, and a representative from ANPUR, with Watson as the convenor.

It was decided that the publications sub-committee should address issues of content in the best papers projects considering:

finding a workable model for track chair issues

·                     the importance of "having a message" with track chair papers

·                     the need to develop guidelines covering both substantive and procedural issues

·                     the formation of an editorial board

·                     filtering processes through associations

·                     the role of the "state-of-the-art review" noting possibilities of a thought piece or "polemic"

·                     the complexity of the proposal

·                     control over content

·                     role of literature reviews in the new process

·                     annual vs less frequent publication

Ground rules for the operation of GPEAN

The committee found it difficult to consider the technical and other aspects of networking unless some attention was paid not only to the structure of the committee and its operations but of GPEAN more generally.   The committee recognized that any structural arrangements had to be subject to ultimate review and approval by the member associations.

Overall aims

It was felt that the twin aims of facilitating international cross-fertilizations and supporting and developing national and supranational associations were the key functions of the network.

Membership

There was general consensus that GPEAN constituted a network of planning school associations.  On this basis it was considered most appropriate that membership be on an association basis.  After some discussion it was suggested that associations should be considered at national or supranational scale and that associations should be required to meet most of a basic range of criteria for full membership.  Suggested criteria included regular meetings, journals or other publications, development of web site, other planning educational activities, and some years of existence (perhaps four).  Whilst not wishing to be exclusionary, it was felt that full voting rights require some stability and ongoing presence from full members.  Groups which had difficulty in meeting these criteria should be strongly encouraged and supported by GPEAN to reach full voting status and in the interim should be accorded observer status with full rights of participation in discussion, but not in voting.  Eight associations were recognized as founding members of GPEAN.  These are: Association of  Collegiate Schools of Planning (USA); Association of Canadian Univeristy Planning Programs; Association of European Schools of Planning; Latin-American Association of Schools of Urbanism and Planning; Australia and New Zealand Association of Planning Schools; National Association of Urban and Regional Post-graduate and Research Programs (Brazil); Association of the Development of Planning Education and Research (APERAU); and Asian Planning Schools Association.  The Interim Coordinating Committee for the Revitalization of Planning Education in Africa was accorded observer status.

Meeting

For the group to function, it was suggested that annual face-to-face meetings should be scheduled with these to rotate around the constituted associations most likely in conjunction with their annual conference.  The ANPUR conference in Brazil in May 2003 was identified as a suitable next meeting.  A motion was made and passed stating that GPEAN’s annual meeting should only take place in conjunction with a member association conference when  that association agrees to waive the conference registration fees of the GPEAN delegates.

Finance

This is a particularly difficult issue.  Some financial resources would greatly facilitate the work of the network, and are essential if proper support is to be provided to fledgling organizations and organizations in some parts of the world.  Capacity to pay must also be recognized, with some associations unable to contribute financially to the GPEAN endeavor.  On the other hand, care must be taken that financial dominance (whether by associations or by sponsors) did not lead to any loss of genuinely inclusive participation and the ability to set independent directions for the network that accommodated all members. A financial subcommittee was established to consist of Wu, Stiftel and another delegate from ANPUT, with Stiftel as convenor.

Voting

Models put forward included a two tier "house of representatives" and "Senate" model and a straight federal model with one vote for each association.  Weighting of votes was considered a difficult issue, particularly when issues of differential population and differential member numbers were considered.  No specific recommendation was reached, noting there was a tendency to favour simpler models.

Subcommittees

As is evident from decisions of the committee to establish subcommittees, these are seen as critical to the ongoing carriage of key matters for the network.  Subcommittees should be able to elect or co-opt members from outside the GPEAN full membership provided that the majority of subcommittee members are drawn from member associations.

In order to progress structural matters, a further subcommittee was identified.  The structure subcommittee would include (at least) Witherby, Harper, Rodriquezand Dimitriou and would have the responsibility of recommending an appropriate relationship with the World Congress Steering Committee, the identification of a draft set of bylaws, and the refinement of membership criteria. Harper is to convene the sub-committee.

Summary of structural matters.

The current GPEAN communications committee consists of eight full voting members and one observer member, being the interim African committee.  It was decided to operate on a parliamentary basis and for its ongoing operation the committee appointed a chair, co-chair and secretary.  The four identified subcommittees were funding, technology, structure and publications.  These committees will report back to the current committee which will then pass recommendations forward to member associations.

To progress the committee, the following appointments were unanimously endorsed:

Bruce Stiftel - Chair
Basil Dimitriou - Co-chair
Angus Witherby - Secretary

The group reconvened its meeting at the conclusion of the Congress following feedback from the various associations (where possible) on the progress to date.  Key tasks were to refine the relevant subcommittees and their convenors and identify a draft work schedule and processes for electronic communication.

The meeting reconvened at 18:00 on 13/07/2002.

The reconvened meeting determined a modified agenda.  Issues noted for further discussion included further examination of publications and technology issues together with several items of general business including subcommittee convenors and funding. (For convenience further discussions on individual items have  been consolidated with earlier discussion of these topics in the Minutes) Other matters of general business came forth throughout the discussions.

It was agreed that procedurally, recommendations from subcommittees could come forth without the requirement for seconding.

Marcel Bazin (representing APERAU) was welcomed by the chair.  He gave an outline of his association and raised the issue of the language of any publications emanating from the group.  It was noted that this issue is on the publications committees agenda.

General business

Finance

A suggestion was put forward by Vainer that consideration be given to a voluntary lien on registration fees to congresses held by member associations as a possible funding source. This matter was referred to the finance committee for further consideration. In addition, it was suggested that all association congresses should promote the GPEAN endeavour. This was supported. 

African interim committee

The meeting was advised that the formal African association would commence by way of a list server ahead of any face-to-face meeting.  It was expected that this initiative would be undertaken within the next few weeks.  (Note: Tongji was subsequently requested to consider developing a list server on behalf of the African group).  It was subsequently noted that the African association would require approximately US$30,000 to stage an initial face-to-face meeting.  Members agreed to investigate possible sources of funding.

The meeting closed at 19:45.

Angus Witherby                                                                         Bruce Stiftel
Secretary                                                                                  Chair

 Volos, 9-13 July 2002