|
|
|
ACSP Annual Business MeetingFriday, November 22, 2002 Baltimore, Maryland (Draft: January 23, 2003) ROLL CALL: School representatives recorded their presence on entering the room. Full Member Schools Present: Arizona State University, California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo, Clemson University, Cornell University, Florida State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Hunter College of CUNY, Iowa State University, Michigan State University, Morgan State University, Portland State University, Rutgers University, University of Texas at Arlington, University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Wayne State University, University of New Orleans, University of North Carolina, University of Oklahoma, University of Oregon, University of Pennsylvania, University of Rhode Island, University of Southern California, University of Southern Maine, University of Colorado at Denver, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Kansas, University of Memphis, University of Michigan, State University of New York at Buffalo, University of Arizona, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Los Angeles.
Affiliate Member Schools Present: None.
Corresponding Members Schools Present: McGill University, University of Calgary.
Full Member Schools Not Present: Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Auburn University, Ball State University, Boston University, California Polytechnic State University-Pomona, California State University-Chico, Cleveland State University, Columbia University, East Carolina University, Eastern Washington University, Florida Atlantic University, Harvard University, Indiana University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Jackson State University, Kansas State University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Miami University, Minnesota State University-Mankato, New York University, Ohio State University, Pratt Institute, Princeton University, Rutgers University-Cook College, Saint Louis University, San Diego State University, San Jose State University, University of Texas at Austin, University of Toledo, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Missouri-Kansas City, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of New Mexico, University of Puerto Rico, University of Tennessee, University of Florida, University of Hawaii at Manoa, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Iowa, University of Louisville, University of Maryland at College Park, University of Massachusetts, University of Minnesota, Southwest Missouri State University, State University of New York at Albany, Temple University Ambler College, Texas A&M University, Texas Southern University, University of Akron, University of Alabama, University of California-Irvine, University of Cincinnati,
Affiliate Member Schools Not Present: Appalachian State University, Eastern Kentucky University, Frostburg State University, Georgia State University, New School for Social Research, Northern Arizona University, Queen’s University, Sonoma State University, Southwest Texas State University, State University College-Buffalo, University of Massachusetts-Lowell, University of Utah.
Corresponding Members Schools Not Present: University of Saskatchewan, University of Sheffield, University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, University of Windsor, York University, University of South Australia, King Saud University, Dalhousie University, Griffith University, Ryerson University, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Universite de Montreal, University of British Columbia, University of Guelph, University of Liverpool, University of Manitoba, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, University of Nottingham.
_____________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER: By President Wim Wiewel at 5:30 p.m.
Motion: To adopt the agenda. Passed unanimously.
Motion: Approval of the Minutes of the Business Meeting held in Cleveland, November 10, 2001. Passed unanimously.
Announcements
· Introduction of New Governing Board Members: Wim Wiewel
Four new regional representatives will take up their seats at the Spring 2003 Governing Board Meeting in Denver: Robyn Boyle (North Central), Dowell Meyers (West), Rolf Pendall ( Northeast), and Roberto Quercia (Southeast).
· Recognition of Outgoing Members: Wim Wiewel
President Wiewel offered warm thanks to Bruce Stiftel, past-president, for his several years of service. This will be Bruce’s last meeting in his succession of presidential roles. In recognition of his exceedingly hard work in support of the ACSP Wim gave him a small gift, a star fish pin (recall Loren Eiseley’s “The Star Thrower”). Also, retiring from the ACSP Governing Board are Phillip Clay (Northeast), Margaret Dewar (North Central), Deborah Howe (West), and Paul Zwick (Southeast). Wim noted his great appreciation for the important contributions all have made.
Treasurer’s Report: Tom Clark · Financial Systems. Tom Clark, Secretary/Treasurer, first reported upon changes in ACSP’s financial systems, precipitated in part by Rolf Engler’s having stepped down just weeks prior to his death. Tom noted that starting in 2003, the positions of Secretary and Treasurer will be separated, under our new By-Laws. o With the encouragement of the Officers Tom traveled to Tallahassee, Florida in July, 2002, to meet with the staff of Purvis Gray & Company. With Donna Dodd in attendance, a new means for managing ACSP’s financial accounts was developed. o This new system, later approved by the Officers, is now in place. Tom circulated a flow-chart exhibiting its essential features. He noted that--
Vice President’s Report: Chris Silver
o The next AESOP/ACSP Joint Conference to be held in Leuven, Belgium in July 8-12, 2003. This is the third such event, the first having been in Oxford and the second, Toronto. March will be the deadline for early registration. A link to the Conference website is provided at acsp.org. May 5 is the deadline for guaranteed hotel bookings. Further details are provided about this and other upcoming conferences in the Baltimore Conference Program.
o Brief mention was made of continuing preparations for the 2003 Administrator’s Conference to be held October 23-26, 2003 at the Amelia Island Plantation, Florida. Gary Hack will chair this event. The ACSP Governing Board Meeting, and the Annual ACSP Business Meeting will occur here as well. The PAB will also convene concurrently. There will be a one-day “new chairs school” prior to the onset of the Conference. One theme sure to be addressed is the role of centers and of center directors.
o Chris Silver then turned to a brief overview of upcoming conferences. Portland is 2004 host. A hotel contract is now in place. Chris reported that the Governing Board has agreed that the APA and ACSP national meetings shall “co-locate” in this city, and each shall undertake to reach out to the other in its schedule of conference activities. Portland was last a host to ACSP in 1989. Charlestown, S.C. follows in 2005.
o The next World Planning Conference is set for 2006, but the location has not yet been established. The process by which a site would propose itself as host, however, has been established, and proposals are due April 30, 2003. American cities are, of course, eligible to apply though some sentiment seems to favor places elsewhere that might benefit from the exposure.
· Institutional Data Project/Guide to Planning. The Governing Board has agreed that we shall distribute the most recent data accumulated in the IDP to Departments. Chris noted recent efforts to ease the burden of responding to our IDP queries. It is estimated that the current questionnaire requires perhaps 40 percent less response time. Resulting data, as tabulated, will be provided to all Departments. Plans are underway to update the Guide to Undergraduate and Graduate Education in Urban and Regional Planning (i.e. the “Guide”), commencing in the late spring of 2003. How this would be distributed—hardcopy or digital format, or some combination of the two—has not yet been resolved.
· ACSP Legal Structure. The ACSP is currently an unincorporated tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization. But on November 7, 2001, the Executive Committee passed a resolution directing the President to pursue “the incorporation of ACSP as a not-for-profit organization under the laws of a state as yet unspecified”. It did so in order to realize the benefit of incorporation which is to reduce the potential liability of Officers and members for the actions of the Association, were it to be the object of litigation.
o But once incorporated the ACSP must then reapply for tax exemption under 501(c)(3). Loss of this status might out-weigh the potential gain of incorporation itself.
o In sum, if the ACSP applies for incorporation it must subsequently reapply for tax exempt status (which it now enjoys), as a 501 (c)(3), so there is at least a chance that the latter valuable status might be lost.
o To avoid this eventuality, Ausley & McMullen, our law firm, recommends that we form a “shell” corporation that would not be funded unless a favorable exemption letter (re-granting 501(c)(3) status) is obtained from the IRS.
o To proceed with our petition to incorporate we must first revise our By-Laws. Title XV of these By-Laws stipulates that proposed amendments must be submitted to the Secretary at least 60 days prior to a vote of the Membership, and the Secretary is to send the proposal to each voting Member.
o Alternately any committee appointed to revise the By-Laws must have reported its recommendations to the Governing Board at least forty-five days prior to a vote of the Membership. In instances in which there is a mail ballot, the resulting decision is to take effect at the next annual meeting of the Association. Chris indicated there would be an email ballot sometime after the passage of 45 days from the date of our current meeting (11.20.02). President’s Report: Wim Wiewel
Comment: Planning schools across the nation are apparently experiencing a surge in applications, and this affords ACSP a favorable environment in which to pursue some of its most important strategic objectives such as the promotion of diversity, the elevation of quality in the applicant pool, the stabilization of threatened programs, and the cultivation of our resource base.
Comment: Over 50 persons are now actively engaged in ACSP’s several committees that have an international reach. Bish Sanyal, he noted, is deeply engaged in related curricular issues. The next World Planning Conference is set for 2006, but the location has not yet been established according to Johanna Looye. The process by which a site would propose itself as host, however, has been established, and proposals are due April 30, 2003. American cities are, of course, eligible to apply though some sentiment seems to favor places elsewhere that might benefit from the exposure. This Conference is to be “self-financing” though mention was made of the possible need for some degree of ACSP support. Tongji University, PRC, has agreed to host a website related to this international effort, and plans are progressing according to Bruce Stiftel for a “Best Papers” Series to be published by Taylor and Francis. Officers of the constituent planning organizations, including ACSP, will meet periodically to maintain ties first initiated recently in Shanghai. Salah El-Shakhs will oversee efforts to promote study and research abroad.
Comment: Work to promote greater representation of minority communities on our faculties and in our student bodies continues under the able leadership of John Betancur. The APA will assist in developing planning internships for minority students in U.S. cities.
Comments:
§ Eugenie Birch is now reviewing PAB reports in order to compile a summary of applied work and community service activities among member schools.
Wim Wiewel brought the issue to focus at the just-concluded Governing Board Meeting, suggesting that it vote on strategies 3, 4 and 5, identified below. Option 5, that PAB “offer consultation services” to both individual programs and other accrediting entities, won the approval of all 15 voting at the Governing Board Meeting. None was opposed. Option 4, for PAB to offer “substantial equivalence evaluations”, secured 7 in support, and 8 opposed. This option would offer site visits to individual programs, deploying criteria adjusted to local conditions. It would not however result in actual accreditation. Finally, option 3, to “negotiate regional coverage” secured 6 in support, and 9 opposed. This last option (3) would have had PAB negotiate with other accrediting bodies “so as to provide appropriate opportunities and criteria for planning accreditation worldwide”.
In the end, a “motion” was put forward at the Governing Board Meeting that would have the ACSP recommend to PAB that its role be limited to accrediting only those planning programs that are located in the United States and Canada. This position, recall, was advocated as well by the AICP President Sam Casella. The result of this “poll” at the Governing Board meeting, however, was 6 in support, and 7 opposed.
New Business
General Good and WelfareMotion: To adjourn was made at 6:30 p.m. Passed!
Respectfully submitted, Thomas Clark ACSP Secretary/Treasurer |
