ACSP Executive Committee Meeting

Wednesday, November 7, 2001

Cleveland, Ohio

(Adopted by the Governing Board in Chicago, April 13, 2002)

Members present: Bruce Stiftel, President; Chris Silver, Vice President; Susan Bradbury, Secretary/Treasurer; Wim Wiewel, President-elect; Rolf Engler, Bursar; Phil Clay and Salah El-Shakhs, Northeast regional representatives; Sanda Kaufman and Johanna Looye, North Central regional representatives; Nancey Green-Leigh, Southeast regional representative; Elise Bright and Mickey Lauria, South Central regional representatives; Barbara Becker and Deborah Howe, Western regional representatives; Gregg Doyle and Blake Roberts, Student representatives; Seymour Mandelbaum, Conference Chair; Michael Hibbard and Edward Weeks, JPER Editors; Nancy Frank, UPDATE Editor and ACSP web master; Patty Pollak, Institutional Governance Committee Chair and FWIG; Lewis Hopkins, PAB;  David Brown, Canadian Liaison; Thomas Clark, Secretary/Treasurer-elect;, and Sandy Stevens, Conference Administrator. 

The meeting was called to order by President Stiftel at 8:40am. President Stiftel announced that he wanted to add an agenda item under the President’s Report concerning the new Secretary/Treasurer. The agenda was adopted as amended with the addition of this one item.

The consent agenda contained two items: a resolution honoring the late John A. Parker, from the University of North Carolina, and a resolution honoring the late Patricia Jackson Gleason, ACSP’s Administrative Assistant.

Motion: to adopt the consent agenda and the resolutions were made by Deborah Howe and seconded by Barbara Becker. The motion passed without dissent. 

Two additional resolutions were handed out. One resolution honored Lachlan F. Blair, from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana and Richard Williams from University of Newcastle.

Motion: to adopt the resolutions was made by Deborah Howe and seconded by Johanna Looye. The motion passed without dissent.

The minutes from the last ACSP Executive Committee meeting that was held Saturday, March 10, 2001 in New Orleans were reviewed. Elise Bright mentioned that she had recently sent the Secretary/Treasurer some minor corrections to the minutes. Secretary Bradbury acknowledged that she had received them, but the corrections did not appear in the present copy of the minutes, since the corrections were received only a few days ago. However, Secretary Bradbury stated that the minutes would be corrected.

Motion: to accept the minutes as corrected was made by Salah El-Shakhs and seconded by Barbara Becker. The motion passed without dissent.

Bursar’s Report – Rolf Engler

The Bursar reported on the Summary Budget for fiscal year 2000-2001. Based on the budget passed, ACSP anticipated total revenues to be $139,220 and total expenditures to be $224,000, resulting in an ending balance of $124,147. However from our actual budget ACSP’s total revenues were $367,620 and total expenditures were $378,891, which meant that ACSP ended the fiscal year with a balance of $196,456, somewhat higher than predicted. The reserve fund for 2000-2001 was $73,950. Currently, ACSP has $80,000 invested in CDs. In the spring at the Executive Committee meeting the 2001-2002 budget was passed. Based on that proposed budget total revenues are estimated to be $174,071 and total expenditures are expected to be $205,255 resulting in an expected balance of $165,272 at the end of the 2001-2002 fiscal year. The Bursar also handed out and discussed the financial activity report for the past fiscal year 2000-2001. This activity report showed the carryover bank balance from July 1, 2000 to be $207,729 and the balance at the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal year to be $196,456.

The Bursar also handed out the financial activity report that covers the time period March 7, 2001 (since the New Orleans meeting) to October 31, 2001. As of March 7, 2001 ACSP had a bank balance of $234,981. During that time period ACSP received income of $120,883 and had expenses of $126,455 resulting in a bank balance as of October 31, 2001 of $229,408. So far this year 29 of 122 members (this includes Full, Affiliate and Corresponding) have not paid their dues yet.

Secretary/Treasurer’s Report – Susan Bradbury

The Secretary/Treasurer presented the Finance and Investment Committee Report. The report documented the recent purchase of professional liability and employee dishonesty insurance. After obtaining several quotes the Officers agreed to purchase professional liability insurance from the Chicago Insurance Company. The coverage purchased is for $2,000,000 per claim, and $4,000,000 per aggregate. In addition, the Officers agreed to purchase a package of insurance from Zurich Insurance which includes an employee dishonesty, theft and forgery policy along with general liability insurance. The coverage for employee dishonesty is $200,000 and general liability is $2,000,000 general aggregate and $1,000,000 per occurrence. The cost associated with the insurance is $2,733 per year for the professional liability insurance.  The employee dishonesty and general liability is $505 per year. So as a result, ACSP’s insurance expenses total $3238. Both policies are now in place.

ACSP continues to work with the accounting firm of Purvis Gray & Company. Purvis Gray is in the process of completing our third financial review for the fiscal year 2000-2001. Purvis Gray also assists ACSP by filing our 990 tax forms. Purvis Gray has also agreed to work with ACSP to assist with our financial record keeping. To demonstrate the value of this relationship, when meeting with Chris Moran, of Purvis Gray, a few days ago it was suggested that ACSP could, as a non-profit, apply and receive a sales tax exemption for any purchases. If we file for an exemption each year for the state in which we hold our conference, this will save ACSP approximately $5000 in sales taxes from our hotel fees.

Vice President’s Report – Chris Silver

A call for expressions of interest to host the ACSP conference in 2005 was sent out. Some responses were received. Review of proposals will take place in early 2002 and a decision will be made at the spring Executive Committee meeting in Chicago.

President’s Report – Bruce Stiftel

There have been several new committee appointments. They are as follows:

As part of our contract with Gleason and Associates we engaged Donna Dodd to reconstitute our membership contact data base files. The contact information we have on individuals and institutions was created more than 15 years ago and fails adequately to serve our needs. The work has been completed and we now have a new membership data base system.

This year ACSP engaged two different attorneys to assist us with issues related to corporate status and tax-exempt status. This will be elaborated upon later in the meeting.

ACSP applied for and received funding for two small grants: a $3000 grant from the Fannie Mae Foundation to support the Ph.D. Workshop which took place in California this past summer, and a Fannie Mae donation to ACSP of $10,000 to help support the World Planning Congress. After contacting the people in Tongji, China it was decided that if the World Planning Congress lost money then the funds would go to support that loss. However, if the Congress broke even, then this money would be held by ACSP in advance for future international cooperation activities including the Second World Congress (discussed later).  ACSP sought but did not receive renewal funding on the HUD grant from last year. The Administration of HUD has changed and this administration does not seem to have the same interests as the old administration.

ACSP organized a meeting of planning school association executives that took place in Shanghai in conjunction with the World Planning Congress. The meetings took place over two half-days and President-elect Wiewel, Vice President Silver and President Stiftel all participated on behalf of ACSP. A total of ten planning school associations were represented and participated at the meetings. A resolution was proposed and passed and will be discussed in greater detail later in the meeting.

The President’s Office organized two plenary sessions for this conference along with several other program and business items. The President’s Office also responded to the passing of Pat Gleason both personally to her family, and in trying to assist the Association with the loss of her services. Administrative support for the Cleveland conference has been donated by the University of Arizona and Georgia Tech.

Dr. Grady Bogue has resigned from the Planning Accreditation Board. He was appointed just a year ago. The Tennessee University system has made new demands on him recently and as a result he has been forced to give up his PAB appointment. An offer has been made to a replacement candidate.

The Officers developed a statement from the Association as a response to the events of September 11, 2001. It was circulated in September.

The President’s office managed the awards process for the various Association awards. Brief discussions were also held with NASPA and APAN about coordinating recruitment resources on the web. There is the expectation that there will be further discussion with them, including putting in place linkages and cross connections on our various web sites to allow students to locate information and resources on public policy.

A document was also circulated that identifies the accomplishments of the biennium 1999-2001. This is a brief statement of the accomplishments and activities of the Association over the past two years. One item that is missing from the list is the names of the Full member schools that have been dropped and added over the past two years. Bruce asked Rolf if he could assist him with this information. This is an impressive list of accomplishments.

Rolf mentioned that the Fannie Mae money which Bruce referred to earlier in his report do not appear in the Bursar’s activity report. That is because the money from Fannie Mae was just received this week.

New Secretary/Treasurer – Wim Wiewel

As you may recall Emily Talen from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana had been elected as the new Secretary/Treasurer. As she became aware of the responsibilities of the job Emily realized that the duties were more arduous than she had assumed. Emily is not only an Assistant Professor but she is also the mother of three small children. As a result, it was decided that perhaps it was best if she did not take on the position, given its demands. However, ACSP is very fortunate in that Tom Clark, who was also a candidate for Secretary/Treasurer has agreed to accept the position. Tom has been a member of the Finance and Investment Committee and served on the Executive Committee as a regional representative fairly recently. Given these circumstances the Executive Committee must vote on accepting Tom Clark as the new Secretary/Treasurer.

Motion: to nominate Tom Clark to assume the position as Secretary/Treasurer for the balance of the term was made by Deborah Howe and seconded by Nancey Green Leigh. The motion passed without dissent.

Conference Report – Seymour Mandelbaum

Mike Hibbard reported on the World Planning Congress that was held in Shanghai, China in July. The Congress was both a financial and an institutional success. Originally 350 participants were expected and in the end 800 people from 60 countries registered for the event. Approximately 150 of the participants were from North America, so it truly was a global event. Some considerations for the future and lessons learned from this conference include the importance of electronic communication for an event like this. The need for good electronic communication such as email and access to the web site is critical. The program committee organized the conference along tracks and attempted to use email to communicate including sending abstracts by email to the track chairs. This method did not work as well as was hoped and in the future we may need to go back to using hard copies and sending mail.

ACSP owes Mike Hibbard a great debt of gratitude for all his work on organizing the World Planning Congress and for representing ACSP.

It was recommended that ACSP craft a statement of thanks to the faculty at Tongji University for their role as hosts for the World Planning Congress.

Motion: to send a certificate or a plaque which reads “ACSP commends the administration, faculty and students of Tongji University (People’s Republic of China) for a superb job and extraordinary energy in hosting an overwhelmingly successful and intellectually productive first World Planning Schools Congress in Shanghai, 2001”, was made by Salah El- Shakhs and seconded by Deborah Howe. The motion passed without dissent.

Seymour paid tribute to Pat Gleason and mentioned how much her abilities, especially with respect to conferences, would be missed. Seymour then introduced Sandy Stevens who is filling in for Pat as conference coordinator. Sandy then gave us a summary of the expected registration numbers for the Cleveland conference. A total of 486 faculty and approximately 91 students have registered for the conference for a total of 667.  Originally we budgeted a net profit of $18,000, however we are now anticipating that the conference will net a loss of $6,500.

Dennis Keating is the local host for the Cleveland conference. ACSP was fortunate to receive a good deal on the Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame which is the site for the conference’s opening reception. Sandy noted that Cleveland State University has worked very hard to make this conference a great success.

Seymour discussed some of the limitations associated with the on-line submission service for the conference abstracts. For instance you cannot reject an abstract and provide comments to the author. Also the system does not easily allow for cross track construction of sessions. Seymour was forced to suppress the tracks in order to place some papers in certain sessions, so that sessions could focus on the conference theme.

The Baltimore conference will be held in late November 2002, therefore the call for papers will go out in January, 2002. The call for papers for the Brussels conference that will be held in July, 2003, will go out in December 2002. Several track chairs are stepping down including  Sanda Kaufman, an Gerrit Knapp. This year’s conference program does not list sessions by tracks. This is an organizational and policy issue.  It issue is which decisions are to be made by the conference track chairs, which are to be made by the conference committee and which are to be made by the Association’s leadership. The Executive Committee did at one time make the decision to go to a track-based conference system. Therefore any modifications to that system must to be discussed. Seymour agreed to bring this issue to the Conference Committee meeting.  This meeting will be held on Friday and the track chairs meeting  will be held Thursday. This will provide an opportunity for discussion and therefore a decision can be made regarding the program structure for Baltimore. President Stiftel asked Seymour to report back to the Executive Committee on this issue in Chicago in the spring.

Discussion also focused the abilities and weaknesses associated with the abstract management system. Last year after the Atlanta meeting Pat did a call for proposals to abstract management companies. Before we re-signed a contract with COS, certain commitments were made by COS, which they later refused to honor. The ability to process panel proposals was one of the things it was believed that they had committed to do, but later refused to implement. When we renegotiate for new services next year, this will be an issue. In the past Pat’s office has handled this by hand. 

Third Joint ACSP-AESOP Congress 2003 – Louis Albrechts and Robin Boyle Co-chairs

The site of the joint conference is Leuven, Belgium and the dates are July 8-11, 2003. The theme of the conference is “The network society: The new context for planning”. The conference will consist of three full days of sessions and mobile workshops will take place on Saturday, July 12. It is currently proposed that the abstracts will be due December 15, 2002. The expected number of participants is between 700 and 850 people. There are no large hotels in Leuven, so several hotels have been booked, consisting of approximately 570 rooms. Prices for the hotel rooms will range from about $80 to $135. Student housing is also available at prices of around $21 per day. It must be remembered that breakfast is included in the fees.  Also note that reservations are booked per person not per room. It is also proposed that the Ph.D. workshop will be a joint enterprise. There will be a reduced student registration fee for the conference. There will be the possibility for travel tours after the conference.

2006 World Planning Schools Congress – Johanna Looye

At the 2001 World Planning Congress in Shanghai ten Planning School Associations were able to confer at length and form a basis for future collaboration. These ten include: The Asian Planning Schools Association (APSA), The Association of Canadian University Planning Schools (ACUPP), The Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP), The Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP), The Association of Schools of Planning, Indonesia, The Australian and New Zealand Association of Planning Schools (ANZAPS), The Interior Coordination Committee for the Revitalization of Planning Education in Africa (ICCRPEA), the Latin-American Association of Schools of Urbanism and Planning (ALEUP), The National Association of Post-graduate Programs Research in Urban and Regional Planning – Brazil (ANPUR), and the Association for the Development of Planning Education and Research (APERAU).

Leaders of all ten Associations signed an agreement stating that they wanted to hold a second World Planning Congress in 2006 and that they were willing to form a steering committee to prepare for that Congress. Each Association would have until December 31, 2001 formally to join in a  process to create the Congress. The Congress steering committee would, by the end of 2002, send out a call for proposals to host the second Congress. The ACSP Governing Board must vote to ratify the agreement to participate in the second World Planning Congress to be held in 2006. One decision that will eventually need to be made by ACSP is whether or not to hold our domestic conference that year. Also, it is possible that our participation on the steering committee will mean that will we be asked or required to provide to the Congress some financial resources to aid with the Congress planning. Exactly what those financial obligations will be is unknown.

Motion: to ratify the resolution which states “Resolved that the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning will join the process for planning a Second World Planning Congress to be held in 2006 and the President is directed to name a representative to the Second World Planning Schools Congress Steering Committee”. The motion was made by Mickey Lauria and seconded by Chris Silver. The motion passed without dissent.

JPER – Edward Weeks and Mike Hibbard

The JPER report identifies that the number of manuscript submissions is down somewhat from the past but does appear to be steady. A number of new journals have been added to the field and so that might account for the slightly lower submission rate. New specialty journals have been developed dealing with planning history, theory and design. The role of the Editors of JPER is therefore to ensure that the Journal is seen and viewed as the flagship Journal for planning scholarship. Another issue that has been raised concerns the long publication queue.  Efforts are underway to increase the size (number of pages) of each issue of the Journal as a means to reduce the queue. This matter will also be discussed at the JPER Editorial Board meeting to be held later in the week.

The amount of the Rapkin Award has increased, so that it now will consist of a $1000 cash award. The Chester Rapkin award is given for the best article published in JPER for each volume. This year’s winners are Robyne S. Turner and Margaret S. Murray for their paper “Managing Growth in a Climate of Diversity: South Florida’s Eastward Ho! Initiative” which appeared in Volume 20, Number 3.  The endowment fund for this award is maintained at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.

A list of members of the JPER Editorial Board was distributed. People are appointed for a 4-year term to the Board.

For the second year this summer, the Editors of JPER and JAPA held a writing workshop. This year’s workshop was targeted upon new Ph.D.’s and Assistant Professors. A total of 19 people participated. The total cost associated for the workshop was $2,100. ACSP contributed $1000 to support the workshop. The JPER and JAPA Editors have agreed to hold the workshop one more time. One of the reasons why this effort has been so successful is the fact that the two Editors are located in close proximity to one another. This factor will need to be considered when deciding whether this workshop will continue to be held in the future.

The Board has resolved to improve the marketing of the Journal, so as to increase both the number of submissions to the Journal, and the number of subscribers, especially among student members and libraries, as a means to increase revenue.

JPER & Sage – Chris Silver

Chris passed out some additional information concerning Sage and its operations. The handout provides information on the marketing effort Sage has conducted for JPER. The handout also discusses the marketing efforts proposed for 2002, the ranking of the Journal in comparison to other journals, and current circulation information. Sage is also undertaking to survey JPER readers to assist the Editors in improving the Journal.

There appears to be some discrepancy between the figures that Sage has provided as compared to the figures Rolf has assembled regarding the number of membership subscriptions. These discrepancies need to be examined and resolved, since they impact the amount of royalties ACSP receives. ACSP expected to receive royalties in the amount of $12,000 for the year 2000, however, when the royalty check arrived it was only for $2,600. One reason for this discrepancy is due to the fact that JPER is published on an academic year schedule rather than a calendar year. Thus, ACSP royalties were only for a half-year rather than a full year.

ACSP UPDATE and Website – Nancy Frank

There has been a continuing decline in the number of schools who send news to UPDATE concerning their activities. Nancy would like to generate more stories about schools. Nancy would also appreciate any feedback members have concerning the content of UPDATE.

According to the counter that was placed on the web page, it is receiving between 500 and 800 hits per week. The Guide pages receive approximately 300 hits per week. One technical difficulty Nancy has had concerns capacity constraints on the UWM server. This issue has not been totally resolved for the long run.  Some documents have consequently been removed. Nancy also asked for a show of hands of people who had difficulty accessing the conference program--several people raised their hands. This appears to be a software compatibility problem. As a result of these difficulties we may have to go to with a private company. The cost of going with a private company as host is quite small. The domain name www.acsp.org that we had thought was unavailable, had actually been purchased by Pat Gleason several years ago and is available to us after all.

Motion: the Executive Committee has the expectation that schools will submit news to UPDATE on an annual basis and that the regional representatives will work to encourage those submissions. The motion was made by Nancey Green Leigh and seconded by Mickey Lauria. The motion passed without dissent.

Guide to Undergraduate and Graduate Education – Sandi Rosenbloom

The Guide was published a year ago and was sold by APA. APA helped to subsidize the publication of the Guide. In addition to the printed format, the Guide has been placed on the ACSP web site. One of the items we need to consider for the next Guide, to be published in 2002-2003, is whether a paper copy should be published or if it should only be placed on the web. President Stiftel mentioned that there appears to be an international demand for this product, so perhaps a printed version is a good idea.

The stock of ACSP recruitment brochures was sold out several months ago. The brochures were sold in boxes of 400. One decision that needs to be made is whether the next print run should be 20,000 or 40,000 in size. The brochures contain email addresses and web pages for the schools so that potential students are able to make contact. The problem is that many of these email addresses change and are no longer valid. Therefore it is recommended that schools consider obtaining a generic email address that is not tied to a person but rather to the department so that it will be constant even as personnel change.

Concerning the institutional data collection project for this year, many schools did not answer all of the questions. The best data concern faculty salaries,  and the poorest data concern research funding and budgetary matters. Perhaps what we need to consider is just how useful are some of these data? It has been suggested that a committee should be formed to review the survey instrument and examine the questions. Based on the discussion, Wim will appoint a committee of Department Chairs to review the questionnaire. Another issue concerns whether we should distribute this information to the membership? There was support for distributing data to the membership, and for doing so on the web.

Nominating Committee – Sandi Rosenbloom

It has been a tradition to place nomination forms out on the tables at the Saturday luncheon. Because the set of offices to be elected next year depends upon whether or not the proposed by-laws are passed--which will not be known until Saturday evening’s Business Meeting--the form has been structured for both contingencies.

Review and Appraisal Committee – Wim Wiewel

The Review and Appraisal Committee was formed last year and they have met several times, once in Atlanta, and later in Philadelphia in the spring (since many of the members were at the Administrator’s conference) and they will meet again tomorrow. Wim then outlined some of the key priorities that have been identified by the Committee. The first priority includes: increasing the visibility of the field of planning and planning education, within the university (based on the notion of the “engaged university”), among students, among other disciplines and within the world at large. This corresponds with the efforts of some of our committees, such as the Committee on the Academy and the Profession and the Strategic Communications Committee. This is also an area in which we should collaborate with other organizations, such as APA, to assist with these efforts.

The second priority focuses on increasing global awareness in planning education and research.  This would include increasing the international component in planning education, facilitating study and research abroad, increasing the number of students coming in from abroad and helping to build planning education around the world. Should GPEIG be asked to help with this priority or should a separate task force be created? The third priority focuses on reaffirming our commitment to diversity: promoting diversity more aggressively and broadening the definition of “diversity”, itself. A final priority focuses on increasing collaboration with the profession to achieve concrete gains in such matters as diversity and global awareness. Wim also stated that we cannot forget about the basics that are what ACSP is really all about, such as the conference, JPER and the PAB.

Wim then asked for comments and suggestions regarding these priorities and the organizational structure needed to tackle these items. The leadership of GPEIG supported the idea of assisting with the global awareness priority. However, discussion focused on the difference between an “interest group” verses a “committee”. Typically, an interest group sets its own agenda whereas a committee or taskforce will set its agenda based on guidance from either the Executive Committee or the President.

Wim introduced Kristen Kepnick, who will be assisting him with his presidential duties.

Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) – Lew Hopkins

Lew presented three items of information concerning the PAB on which he would like to receive some feedback. The first concerns a request by a university in Jamaica to be considered for accreditation. Currently, there is nothing within the accreditation document to prevent schools from outside the U.S. to apply for accreditation by the PAB. This does contain policy implications for the ACSP that need to be considered. A related issue concerns language, i.e. whether the school uses French or Spanish verses English.

The second issue concerns budget matters. PAB announced two years ago that it would be raising its fees. Therefore, as a reminder to schools, anticipate another increase in fees in either 2002, 2003 or 2004. Also there is the possibility of shifting to a fixed site visit fee rather than what is currently done which is based on true reimbursement costs. Where the site visitors are located can impact the costs associated with the visit. The fixed fee would make it easier to work out the selection of site visitors. This is an item for discussion and consideration.

The PAB is now implementing the 7-year maximum accreditation term. Only schools currently being visited are eligible for the 7-year term. Approximately ten schools per year are now up for accreditation review. The advantage of the lengthened term is that it will reduce the annual workload, but we must consider the scheduling and timing for each school so that the number of schools considered for accreditation each year is equally distributed over ensuing years.

Lew also sought to clarify a point concerning the resignation of Grady Bogue from the PAB. His position is that of a “public member” of the board; the person is a non-planner. This  position is difficult to fill.

APA – Bruce McClendon, APA President and Paul Farmer, Executive Director

Bruce McClendon discussed some of the organizational changes that were being introduced by APA to improve the relationship with the academic community. Some of the proposed changes include: the creation of a division in APA for academics, provide an opportunity for a academic mini conference as part of the APA conference, creation of conference proceedings that would involve peer review, add academics as keynote speakers, create a national office for an academic member to serve on the APA Board, enhance the relationship between Chapters and universities – particularly through such efforts as continuing education, funding student internships and/or by having APA members serve as mentors to students, and assist with increasing the diversity of students within planning schools. It is important not only for ourselves but also for the profession in general that we work together to build strong linkages between the two Associations.

Paul mentioned his own commitment to encouraging students to become part of the planning profession and the Association. He also mentioned the need to produce a diverse workforce and that efforts to increase the diversity of the profession should begin with the schools. One method to do this might include partnering with schools for the development of fellowships. Other efforts might include partnering practitioners and academics to help make undergraduates aware of the career opportunities available in the planning field. Other efforts include: mandating continuing education (3 pilot projects are underway as an experiment); publication of books by academics, creation of a new journal (J AICP?), rename and restructure the “Land Use and Zoning Digest”.  This Digest might be renamed the “Digest of Land Use and Environmental Issues”.  He also noted the need to address topics in neighborhood planning.

President Stiftel responded that these are excellent suggestions for how APA and ACSP can strive to build a better working relationship in the future.  He stated that building better linkages between the two Associations is a high ACSP priority.

ACSP/AICP Joint Committee on Planning Education and Practice – Barbara Becker

One of the activities associated with this committee is the collaborative award. The presentation session for award winners is going to be held on Friday at 4 p.m. and the meeting of the joint committee will be held Friday evening.

Charlie Hoch summarized the other efforts of the committee.  These stress efforts to define a national agenda for planning research–part of the “Applied Research Assessment Project”. Four meetings have been held: at College Station, Texas; Philadelphia; Portland; and Chicago. The purpose of these meetings was to assemble academics and practitioners to discuss and identify areas for joint research. The result of these meetings however has produced a list of 42 possible joint research topics. The Applied Research Assessment Task Force will be making a report to the Joint Committee when it meets later this week. Its next steps have yet to be determined. It is recommended that we search for individuals or organizations who are willing to conduct and fund research concerning these issues.

Institutional Governance Committee – Patty Pollak

The proposed By-laws were emailed out to the membership 40 days prior to the Business meeting scheduled for this Saturday. This provides the membership with an opportunity to review the proposed bylaws before they vote on them. The By-laws have been revised by the Institutional Governance Committee since they were brought before the Executive Committee last March. In addition to providing Patty with comments today, there is a session scheduled during the conference to allow the membership to discuss the By-laws with the Institutional Governance Committee. Patty outlined what changes have been made to the By-laws since the Executive Committee reviewed them in the spring. In addition, Patty outlined and explained two amendments that are being proposed by the Institutional Governance Committee. The two amendments concern the structure of the Conference Committee and the appointment of Association staff. Some discussion followed concerning the composition of the Conference Committee, the membership structure (specifically concerning Canadian schools), the size of the quorum, and some typos in the version of the By-laws that was circulated to the membership. On Saturday the proposed By-laws will be put to the membership for a vote. Amendments to the proposed bylaws can be made at the meeting.

Motion: the Executive Committee thanks Patty and the members of the Institutional Governance Committee (Michael Tietz, Marcia Marker Feld, Genie Birch, Jay Chatterjee, Linda Dalton, and Bish Sanal) for all their hard work over the past four years. The motion was made by Johanna Looye and seconded by Elise Bright. The motion passed without dissent.

FWIG – Patty Pollak

Patty introduced one of FWIG’s fund raising efforts–“FWIGware” (i.e. t-shirts). Patty presented FWIGware to each of the officers. The t-shirts will be on sale during the conference. Patty also announced and reminded the Executive Committee that FWIG would be holding the inaugural Marsha Ritzdorf workshop on Saturday. The focus of the workshop is on communication skills. It was also announced that the Margarita McCoy award will be awarded on Saturday to Margot Garcia.

Davidoff Award Committee – Marcia Marker Feld

Marcia announced that the winner of the Davidoff award this year is Elise Bright. This award recognizes an outstanding publication consistent with the life work and ideals of Paul Davidoff.

The Committees on Doctoral Programs, Academy and the Profession and Faculty Mentoring did not make oral presentations to the Executive Committee. However, written reports were submitted.

Corporate Status – Bruce Stiftel

President Stiftel first introduced and read the following resolution:

The Executive Committee directs the President to pursue the incorporation of ACSP as a not-for-profit organization under the laws of a state (as yet not specified).

As the Institutional Governance Committee began its work on the By-laws, one of the questions that came up concerned whether or not ACSP was or ought to be incorporated. After careful research we now know that ACSP is an unincorporated entity, having 501-c3 status. We then began to ask what are the benefits and drawbacks of incorporation.  ACSP  then sought legal advice.  We have been advised that our unincorporated status does have one negative consequence–the Officers and members of the Association potentially are liable for the actions of the Association. As a result, we explored what possible courses of action were available to ACSP to avoid this vulnerability.  ACSP, it now appears, can protect itself against liability in three ways: (1) through the purchase of insurance, (2) by forming a Limited Liability Corporation under Florida State law and (3) incorporation.

While seeking incorporation appears to be the best strategy to protect the organization, there are some consequences associated with incorporation. The most significant concerns ACSP’s 501-c3 status. If ACSP does incorporate, the organization would also have to re-file with the IRS in order to maintain our 501-c3 status. There is the possibility that we might not maintain our 501-c3 status, which would mean that we would have to disperse our assets to other 501-c3 entities. ACSP could be judged to be a “trade association”, which is a 501-c6 entity. However, after more research, the Officers and our legal council have concluded that ACSP would have a good chance of maintaining its 501-c3 status. The Officers, moreover, believe that it is important to incorporate. It has therefore been proposed that we establish a new incorporated entity.  We would seek approval from the IRS before transferring funds from ACSP to the new incorporated entity and finally dissolving the old unincorporated entity. The estimated cost associated with incorporation is somewhere around $1000 to $2500 depending on who we get to do the filing. The other issue to be considered is in which state do we wanted to incorporate? ACSP must have a physical presence in whichever state we do decide to incorporate within.  We are aware, of course, that the laws and the liability protection vary from state to state.

Motion: to accept the resolution that reads that “the Executive Committee directs the President to pursue the incorporation of ACSP as a not-for-profit organization under the laws of a state as yet unspecified”.  This motion was made by Barbara Becker and seconded by Gregg Doyle. It passed without dissent.

Student Membership – Bruce Stiftel

ACSP in the recent past offered students a subscription package that allowed them to receive both JPER and UPDATE for $25 a year. When ACSP went with Sage, this subscription package for students disappeared.

President Stiftel introduced a resolution to be voted on by the Executive Committee which reads: Resolved that ACSP will offer Individual Membership to full-time students enrolled at ACSP-member schools at a rate of $50 per year. The current individual subscription rate for JPER is $85.

Motion: to accept the resolution that ACSP will offer Individual Membership to full-time students enrolled at ACSP-member schools at a rate of $50 per year was made by Deborah Howe and seconded by Barbara Becker.

Gregg Doyle supported the resolution because its intent is to encourage student membership and participation in ACSP. He was, however, discouraged by the fact that this rate was double the amount that it had previously been. It was also pointed out that at ACSP’s direction Sage recently sent out a mailer to Ph.D. programs advertising a student subscription rate for JPER for $25. The pitfall associated with this is that Sage is going to charge ACSP the capitation rate of $35 even though the students will only be paying ACSP $25. Thus ACSP will be losing $10 for each student subscription. There seems to have been some miss-communication concerning this issue. ACSP will have to honor what was sent out to students, however, this matter will need to be straightened out and we should not have a student subscription rate set at less than what we are paying Sage. Another issue that was raised concerned whether we should offer students just a subscription rate to JPER or whether we want to offer them membership in ACSP. The students identified a preference for whichever option would be cheaper. Given the nature of the discussion, it was thought best that the facts of this matter be explored in greater detail.

Motion: to table the resolution concerning student membership to a future meeting was made by Wim Wiewel and seconded by Phil Clay. The motion passed with one nay vote.

Canadian Liaison – David Brown

David Brown is from McGill University and is President of the Association of Canadian University Planning Programs, a post he will hold for two years. David presented a short report that demonstrated that Canadian planning schools are facing issues to similar to those confronted by ACSP. In particular Canadian planning schools are concerned about visibility and the relationship between the universities and the professional organization. The Canadian Association is currently creating a website that will soon be active. The web address for the Association is: www.acupp-apucu.mcgill.ca

Student Representatives Report–Gregg Doyle and Blake Roberts

Gregg mentioned that he was a participant at the Doctoral Workshop last summer and that he thought that it was a very worthwhile and useful event. The “Ph.D. Bowling League”, which is a listserv that is based in Berkeley, California, has become an effective communications tool for the students. There are a number of sessions and social events that are part of the Cleveland conference that are targeted especially for students. The students would like to institutionalize the practice of identifying cheaper hotels for students as part of normal conference arrangements. In addition, the students would like to establish a permanent web site specifically targeted for students. Lastly, Gregg’s term as a student representative is ending and a notice will be going out shortly to seek a replacement. The students will be working with Chris Silver, Vice President, and the new student representative will be introduced at the spring meeting.

Global Planning Education Network – Bruce Stiftel

President Stiftel presented a resolution concerning the Global Planning Education Association Network. This resolution refers to the matter President Stiftel discussed earlier in the meeting concerning another meeting involving the ten participating planning school associations. One of the results of that meeting was the passage of this resolution. The Executive Committee needs to vote on this resolution.

Motion: to accept the resolution that “the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning endorses the statement of cooperation among planning school associations signed by its President together with representatives of nine other planning school associations in Shanghai, China on 15 July 2001”. A further resolution stating that “the ACSP Executive Committee directs its President to name a representative to the Communications Committee of the Global Planning Education Association Network” was put forward by Mickey Lauria and seconded by Barbara Becker. The joint motion passed without dissent.

GPEIG – Johanna Looye

Johanna stated that there is a written report that has been submitted which outlines the activities of the Global Planning Educators Interest Group. Johanna just reported that one of the current co-chairs, Weiping Wu, would be stepping down from that position on Friday. The Interest Group has a website at http://www-scf.usc.edu/~gsukumar/Globeplan.html

Reassessing Scholarship – Phil Clay

A report was prepared and submitted. The committee continues to work on its task which focuses on: “how do we define contributions to planning from the scholarship of application, planning, and service, and how do we assess the role such contributions play or should play in tenure and promotion decisions in planning programs?” The committee will meet to discuss these issues in Cleveland.  President Stiftel subsequently mentioned that Phil Clay has recently accepted a new position as Chancellor at MIT.

Strategic Communications Committee – Nancey Green Leigh

Nancey summarized the major accomplishments of the Committee that are contained in its report. The Committee has developed a strategic communications web site that will be located on the ACSP web site. In addition a “Strategic Communications for Planning Programs” brochure has been developed.. All that remains is printing and distribution. In addition, two new members will be added to the Committee–Mickey Lauria and Ruth Yabes.

Dennis Gale then presented to the Executive Committee a paper that he and the Committee worked on entitled “Threatened Planning Schools: Lessons from Experience”. The paper addresses three case studies involving schools that successfully defended themselves. Subsequently a corollary question was raised: what about those schools that failed?  Perhaps they merit study as well, it was argued by some. President Stiftel thanked Dennis and the Strategic Communications Committee for their efforts on this project.

AESOP Conference

It was announced that the AESOP conference will be held in Volos, Greece, July 10-15, 2002.

University-Community Partnership Initiative – Bruce Stiftel

President Stiftel asked the members of the Executive Committee to review the handout concerning the University-Community Partnership Initiative Proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency. President Stiftel asked members of the Executive Committee to forward any comments they may have regarding the proposal to either himself or to Wim.

Motion: to adjourn the meeting was made at 6pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan L. Bradbury, Ph.D.
Secretary/Treasurer Outgoing

And

Thomas Clark, Ph.D.
Secretary/Treasurer Incoming