|
|
|
ACSP
|
 | Tom Clark, Secretary/Treasurer, first reported on the continuing progress in establishing ACSP’s new financial system procedures. |
Secretary Treasurer’s Report: Tom Clark
| The Secretary/Treasurer, Tom Clark, offered a brief summary of the projected ACSP FY03 year-end financial status of ACSP. On 7.1.02 we carried forward into FY03 a bank balance of $209,249. A net gain of $30,681 was recorded for the ensuing 12 months, the result of healthy gains in attendance in Baltimore, over Cleveland the preceding year. This, we anticipate, will yield an actual carry forward into FY04 of $239,930, on June 30, 2003. This is based on a careful analysis of the year’s financial activity, projected to that date from today’s vantage point of March, 2003. |
| 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. 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. Tom Clark is now preparing the necessary financial data that must be supplied in Tax Form 1023 which will accompany our application for recovery of this status. He will await the compilation of our Third Quarter Report for March 31, 2003, before proceeding. |
Vice President’s Report on Incorporation and 501c3 Status: Chris Silver
| As 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. 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. |
| 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. 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 at the Baltimore meeting that there would be an email ballot sometime after the passage of 45 days from the date of that meeting in Baltimore (11.20.02). Chris reports that the required changes in our By-laws have been approved by vote of the membership. Final Tally: 39 yes, None Opposed. |
| Wim Wiewel acknowledged that our finances are favorable. |
| The process for locating a new Editor for JPER is advancing. |
| He then reviewed progress in attaining each of the four major objectives of his presidential term: (1) Promote Global Awareness, (2) Increase Planning’s Visibility, (3) Promote Diversity, and (4) strengthen ties to the profession. |
| Regarding the first he noted the work of the Planning Globally Taskforce. Regarding the second, he noted the important work of the Strategic Communications Committee, accomplishments of individual faculty members in winning public recognition of their work (e.g. Gary Hack’s work with Daniel Liebeskind on the World Trade Tower project in New York), and the four topics he will feature in his ten-minute address to the APA in Denver (March, 2003). These four included: planning curricula, joint (ACSP/APA) public relations, Fund-raising for applied research, and collaborations in continuing education. Regarding the third, he noted the report of the Diversity Committee. |
| And regarding the fourth, he noted his role as co-editor (with Gerrit Knaap) of the EPA-sponsored book on university-community collaborations. Seventy chapters have been proposed of which just 12-15 will be selected. Ten-thousand dollars received for this work will flow as general overhead into ACSP coffers. Wim also noted our expectation that we will receive as much as $20,000 from the Federal Highway Administration to fund or recognize both faculty and student work deploying the FHA’s new data package. Of this amount, $4000 will apply as general overhead. |
| Chris encouraged that we move to recognize the work of the Baltimore local hosts for tha success of that conference. |
| ACTION: Moved by Sanda Kaufman, and seconded by Barbara Becker, “That ACSP express its gratitude to both the University of Maryland and Morgan State University for their excellent work in helping stage the Baltimore ACSP Meeting. Passed unanimously. |
| Robin Boyle next reported on 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. Robin circulated a summary of US/European papers submitted. There were a total of 667 submissions for both papers and round tables. These would yield a head count of 920 persons. Thirty-five students have already indicated they will be going to Leuven. As of the date of this meeting just 219 registrations had been completed, of which 66 were from the United States. |
Parenthetically, the actual deadline for early registration rates was set for the Monday, March 31, 2003, following our Saturday Governing Board Meeting. These minutes are being written following that deadline so it can now be reported that the total number of registrations received by the Monday deadline was 440. Of these: seven were “late”, and 105 were students. Of the total of 440, 239 were filed by faculty or students at AESOP or ACSP member institutions. Moreover, 365 registrants had also submitted abstracts. Further (as of Monday) the following obtained:
Registrations for Mobile workshops: 208
Registrations for Conference Dinner: 193
Bookings for student room accommodation: 91
| Of course, additional persons will in all likelihood register later so these are not final figures. Robin Boyle’s report also included sample airfares for various origins within the United States. |
| Chris Silver then turned to a brief overview of upcoming conferences. Portland is October 21-24, 2004 host. A hotel contract is now in place at the Marriott. This city was last a host to ACSP in 1989. ACSP and Portland State University, the local host, will later establish a general agreement regarding the apportionment of responsibilities. This event will run concurrent with the APA Leadership Conference and it will be important to establish certain bridges between the two. Fannie Mae hopes to support the Portland Conference, as it will not the Leuven Conference, |
| Charlestown, S.C. follows in 2005. Clemson will serve as the local host. Fort Worth or Dallas has claimed the 2006 conference, and Milwaukee, the 2007 event. |
| As the NAACP “flag” boycott remains in effect in South Carolina, some are concerned that we might later be forced to revisit this site choice. The current plan is to use the Charleston Convention Center for meetings, and rely on area hotels for lodging. It is possible that we would need to juggle the sequence of conference cities, perhaps to insure that we’ll be able to substitute for Charleston if the boycott persists. |
| The next World Planning Conference is set for 2006. |
APA/AICP Relations
| Present were Paul Farmer, AICP, Executive Director of the APA, and Bruce W. McClendon, FAICP, APA President. Paul spoke first. He had brought to us a lengthy agenda for future collaboration at any earlier meeting of our Board. So this visit had that prior conversation as backdrop. |
| Paul noted that Wim would be speaking at a plenary session of the APA the very next morning for ten minutes, five more than assigned the mayor of Denver! Paul remains very committed to the task of drawing APA and ACSP closer together. Areas where this can happen first include the upcoming conferences of our two organizations in Portland in 2004. |
| Each has pledged to facilitate opportunities for interaction at these concurrent events. He also noted APA’s pride in its web site devoted to smart growth, and urged our intellectual support for APA’s “Smart Growth Reader”. |
| JAPA, he noted, is most read by students of planning, according to a recent membership survey. |
| As a result APA undertook to reduce the cost of student subscriptions by 40%. Paul also mentioned, approvingly, Bill Page’s recent work assessing the relationship between the specializations of students in planning and positions actually filled within local planning. Several noted that many graduates of ACSP member institutions pursue career tracks other than those encompassed within local public-sector planning. |
| Next year’s AICP Exam, Paul noted, will be on the internet. |
| Bruce McClendon was next to speak. As Paul, he stressed the importance of our opportunities for collaboration at the 2004 Portland meetings. This subject was set within the larger rubric of APA/ACSP relations. Once, he said, there were 9 academics on the APA Board. Today there is just one. A division for academicians within APA remains a priority within APA itself. |
| Acknowledging APA’s hope to attract more academicians to its conference, Bruce noted that more effort will be expended in the future to publish refereed conference proceedings. H, with ACSP, also favors further effort to share the task of continuing education. Wim, of course, has also made this a significant priority for ACSP. Overall, Bruce seemed to acknowledge that APA’s approach to ACSP may require special tact. By nature, he said of himself, he is a “pit bull”, but he is willing to be a “cocker spaniel” if that will insure a more productive association with ACSP. |
| Chris Silver expressed the view that students are an extremely important bridge between APA and ACSP. Paul Farmer had acknowledged as much earlier in the session, noting how much students seem to appreciate JAPA, an enterprise that continues to have strong editorial input from academicians. Laura Lanza stressed the importance of linking education and practice, and Robert Massenburg, a second student member of our Board, noted his strong support for the joint responsibility of the two organizations in mentoring students. |
| Wim observed that his speech to the APA plenary session the next morning would stress four objectives (noted later), and that each can facilitate a productive dialogue between the two organizations. |
| Elise Bright opined that faculty often can only secure travel funding when giving papers at conferences. So it will be important for APA to insure a sufficient opportunity for sessions to be offered at its conferences that attract faculty. Bruce said APA was ready to do so. |
Publications
| JPER: Mike Hibbard introduced Alison Labbate, of SAGE, who in turn presented hardcopy of the publisher’s overview on the status of current efforts. Submissions are up. The Writing Workshop sponsored by JPER is set for August 14-16, 2002. Applications for the Workshop are due in early April. Sage has gone to an electronic system to facilitate interaction with authors. Mike noted a recent survey of journals found that the JPER had recorded the most rapid increase in citations of all reviewed. Chris Silver noted the search for a new editor for JPER is proceeding well, and will be concluded by the end of spring, 2003. |
UPDATE:
| Nancy Frank reported briefly regarding the ACSP website. She said all was working smoothly. |
ACSP GUIDE/INSTITUTIONAL DATA PROJECT:
| Fritz next turned to the rift that some claim to have observed between the academy and the profession. Fritz believes it exists and that it is a deep one which will require considerable effort to overcome. But PAB ought not be the nexus for such a recovery. It must be allowed to carry out its assigned duties unimpeded and undistracted. As we have learned in the recent past, the president of each parent body—AICP and ACSP—can withhold his/her support for the electoral outcome associated with the position of PAB Chair. |
| In fact, when Fritz had been elected Sam Casella opted not to endorse this outcome pending an agreement to accept a revision in the PAB By-laws that would mandate that the chair position rotate between AICP and ACSP members from term to term. No decision had yet been made on this proposal. Fritz, however, indicated that he would support such a proposal, and that it would be consistent with current practice in similar bodies in Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Public Administration. Sam’s decision, held out the possibility that on approval of such a rotation, Roger Hedrick—representing AICP--would secure the chairmanship. It was noted subsequently that a new proposal is now under consideration that would require rotation but allow waiver of the provision upon the approval of at least six PAB members. |
| Cheryl Contant, and Fritz as well, expressed considerable concern about the manner in which the rotation was first proposed by Sam Casella. She opposes any change in the PAB By-laws, which, she reports, can occur with approval of just 5 PAB members. Clearly, if 6 were required to over-ride rotation, opponents could alternately simply vote to change the by-laws to achieve the result they favor. It was noted, by others, that Sam’s term, in any case, expires the day after our meeting, and that Dan Lauder will succeed Sam as AICP President. Elise Bright observed that the real “disconnect” is between graduates’ acquired skills and on-the-job requirements in planning. Fritz takes a somewhat different approach on the rotation issue, but both he and Cheryl are eqully concerned that accreditation criterion now evolve to the point that our programs are reduced to “trade school” status, stripped of academic integrity. Robin Boyle offered an alternative solution for the rotation challenge, and this was co-chairs, one from each organization. It has worked elsewhere he said. Chris Silver argued we should deny our support for any change in the PAB By-laws that would sanction chair rotation. |
| Cheryl further noted that when chair terms are but one year, influence gravitates toward the continuing staff. She favors two-year terms. Roger Hedrick, a visitor, and possible candidate for chair of PAB, then took the floor from the sidelines. He noted many of us had “not yet had the pleasure of meeting him”. So he briefly introduced himself, and called for a true partnership of equals between AICP and PAB. |
| Wim concluded this discussion noting that in fact, PAB would meet to address and resolve the issue of chair rotation the very day after our own meeting. The minutes you are now reading were composed after this PAB meeting so the outcome is already known, though of course many of the issues remain unresolved regarding the relation between the academy and the profession. Parenthetically, the PAB did indeed address this proposal on the day following our Governing Board meeting, and it did approve the rotation, but required that waiver of the provision in any year would be possible if approved by at least five, not six PAB members. |
| Fritz Steiner will accordingly remain PAB Chair for yet another term. Sam Casella no longer serves as AICP President. But does this mean that it will be smooth sailing in the future? Well, some claim the “rift” was simply manufactured by a small leadership clique in AICP, and that they are out of line with the APA rank and file. A rival view is that the difficulties run deeper, and are shared by many APA members. Wim’s speech to the APA plenary session the day after our Governing Board meeting evoked considerable support for Wim and for ACSP. So at least this would suggest that ACSP—as it more fully reveals all that it does, represents and has accomplished—can successfully repair damaged relations and maintain the academic integrity of our programs. |
| Institutional Governance: No report. |
| Nominating: Sandi Rosenbloom |
 | Sandi noted that during the spring of 2003, three officer positions were addressed in elections: Secretary, Treasurer (these two are separate under our newly adopted By-Laws), and Vice President. Sixty-six member schools voted, or about 65% of all eligible. Tom Clark, running unopposed, will return as Treasurer for another term. Patty Pollack will serve as Secretary, and Mickey Lauria will serve as Vice President/President Elect. Board elections brought to the Board these new Regional Representatives: Sanda Kaufman (Cleveland State University, North Central), Ken Reardon (Cornell, Northeast), Joyce Levine (Jackson State University, South Central), Barry Nocks (Clemson University, South East), and Connie Ozawa, Portland State University, Western). |
| In a separate matter, Sandi took the opportunity to report that the Federal Highway Administration is likely to give ACSP $20,000 to encourage greater use of the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). Of this sum $4000 will cover general ACSP overhead. The remainder will support two Master’s students, one Ph.D. dissertation and $5000 for a younger faculty member. ACSP has not yet received this sum so it is not reflected in our proposed FY04 Budget. |
· Membership Committee: Elise Bright
| Elise reported on the resurrection of this committee, long dormant. Already it has undertaken to review and revise our membership application, and addressed the process and criteria for consideration of applicants for membership. Elise indicate we have three options for granting full membership: (1) yes if PAB accredited, (2) wait for awarding of a certain number of degrees in planning, or (3) simply authorize membership if an applicant currently gives a degree in “planning”. |
| One current case is the application for membership from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Both Chris Silver and Wim Wiewel said they support this application and favor our being welcoming to new members. Accreditation is not a requirement under current practice. Of course, PAB does accredit Canadian schools, but since they are outside the United States they cannot secure full membership within ACSP. Instead these are Corresponding Members. |
| The Governing Board, will in all likelihood, be asked to delegate the power to approve membership to this Committee. Differences between Affiliate and Corresponding members was discussed. |
· PAB Site Visitor Pool: No Report.
· Institutional Governance: No Report.
· Review and Appraisal Committee:
o Chris Silver, incoming President, notes there will be considerable continuity following the course of action set during Wim Wiewel’s Presidential term.
Special Committees
· Planning Globally Taskforce
o Hemalata Dandekar, accompanied by Gill Chin Lim, reported on the activities of this committee. See the report entitled “Highlights of Taskforce Report” dated 3.29.03. Wim noted the importance of this committee to his Presidential objectives. Money for a research assistant may later be required to support a study of study abroad options offered by ACSP schools. Should PAB criteria be adjusted to accommodate global concerns? Hemalata put this issue to the Board for further consideration. Diversity is an ancillary issue. It was noted that this is a “Special Committee” under the parlance of ACSP By-laws. Hence it is created for only a two-year duration after which it would be disbanded unless we opt to reestablish it for a second period (or more). Wim and Chris did agree to extend this special committee for one more two-year term.
| ACSP/AICP
Joint Task Force on Planning Education and Practice
| ||||
|
Academy and the Profession
| ||||
|
Diversity
| ||||
|
Doctoral Committee
| ||||
|
Faculty Mentoring
| ||||
|
Reassessing Scholarship
| ||||
|
Strategic Communications
| ||||
|
Technology
|
Interest Group Reports
| GPEIG: No Report. | ||
|
Faculty Women
|
Liaison Reports
Canada: No Report
Student Representatives
| Raymond Massenburg, newly seated, offered three sets of possible new initiatives featuring matters of (1) communication, (2) mentoring, and (3) special student prep sessions in anticipation of presentations at the ACSP Conference. Ray said he would organize the third. |
| Laura Lanza noted the need for both student representatives to serve on ACSP’s Doctoral Committee. She said recent doctoral workshops were very well received. She mentioned some concern for the fate of international students within our organization and hoped more could be done to make their feel welcome. The student web page is now operational. She then discussed the Job Bank. Wim noted none would be held in Leuven, due to location and timing. In the future the local host should, perhaps, help staff the Job Bank to allow students to attend paper sessions. |
ACSP Budget
| Wim Wiewel presented the Budget we have proposed for FY04. It would be a break-even year, if our forecasts prove correct. Some uncertainty attends the Leuven Conference. But if attendance is sufficient there would be no losses that ACSP would share with AESOP. |
Motion: By Bill Page, seconded by Elise Bright. To approve the proposed FY04 ACSP Budget. Approved without dissent.
New Business:
| Motion: By Sanda Kaufman, seconded by Rolf Pendall. ACSP shall co-sponsor (in name only) a conference at the University of Illinois in Chicago on “Design Matters: Best Practices in Affordable Housing”. This was approved without dissent. |
| Two new collaborations with ACSA. A first would encourage planning and architecture to collaborate in instruction and in other ways within the university setting. A second would yield a new book having DHUD sponsorship. ACSP would suggest editors. DHUD would then ask them for a book proposal. DHUD and President Wiewel would select an editor(s). He/She/They would then solicit chapters. |
| Motion: By Sanda Kaufman, seconded by Barbara Becker. “To proceed with the book projected noted above”. Approved without dissent. |
| Visa Problems: A continuing concern is the additional scrutiny applied by the U.S. State Department in the granting of Visas to foreign nationals seeking to study planning in the United States. The APA has made some headway in determining that this extra scrutiny relates to the possible strategic significance of planning, as it relates to infrastructural development. |
ADJOURNMENT: 4:30 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by
Thomas Clark
Secretary/Treasurer, ACSP
