|
| |
ACSP
Governing Board Semi-Annual Meeting
October 23, 2003
Amelia Island, Florida
(Draft: December 10, 2003)
Members And Others Present/Participating:
Officers: Wim Wiewel,
President; Chris Silver, Vice President/President-Elect; Thomas
Clark, Secretary/Treasurer and Incoming Treasurer; Patricia Pollack,
Incoming Secretary.
Regional Representatives: Rolf Pendall,
Northeast regional representative; Robin Boyle, North Central
regional representative; Mulatu Wubneh, Southeast regional
representative; Elise Bright and Mickey Lauria (Incoming
Vice-President/President Elect) South Central regional
representatives; and Barbara Becker, and Dowell Myers (West
regional representatives).
Student Representatives: Laura Lanza and
Raymond Massenburg.
Others Attending: Michael Hibbard JPER
Co-Editor; Nancy Frank, UPDATE Editor and ACSP web master;
Frederick Steiner, Cheryl Contant, Tridib Banerjee and Beatrice
Clupper, PAB; Sandra Rosenbloom, Nominating Committee and the
Guide to Undergraduate and Graduate Education in Urban and Regional
Planning; Joyce Levine (Incoming South Central regional
representative); Barry Nocks (Incoming Southeast regional
representative); Ken Reardon (Incoming Northeast regional
representative); Karen Christiansen (Incoming JPER Co-Editor); and
Donna Dodd, Bursar and Conference Manager. Susan Bradbury was
also in attendance. Staff members Kristen Kepnick and
Glenda Fischer were also present.
The meeting was called to
order by President Wiewel at 9:00 am. The day’s consent agenda was adopted
without change.
Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the last ACSP Governing Board meeting that was held
Saturday, March 29, 2003, Denver, Colorado Tom Clark, Secretary/Treasurer.
Motion: To accept the minutes, as amended, of the Governing Board Meeting of
March 29, 2003 in Denver, Colorado (Motion, Becker; Second, Bright). Passed
without dissent.
Treasurer’s Report: Tom Clark/Donna Dodd
 | Tom
Clark, Secretary/Treasurer, reviewed our continuing progress in
implementing ACSP’s new financial system. He also provided a summary of
our financial position as of June 30, 2003, the end of FY03. At year end
total assets amounted to $292,563.18. The bulk of these are retained in
our AmSouth Money Market Account, $163,425.11, with an additional sum of
$90,351.76 held in a CD with Cambridge Bank. We intend to consolidate our
holdings as our various instruments reach maturity. He noted as well the
pre-payment in FY03 of conference expenses totaling $24,260.72. Accounts
receivable, anticipated income, totaled $2,765, and delinquent accounts
are being pursued in several ways. Current liabilities at year end
totaled $32,600 in deferred revenues, offsetting pre-paid expenses. Total
liabilities and assets amounted to $292,340.13. |
| Tom
observed that our carry-forward is substantial—well in excess of the
amount our By-laws require to be maintained as a reserve--, and that the
Board might at some point wish to consider its options in managing the
account. Among these would be to expand the scope of our activities, and
in so doing to spend down some portion of the aggregate. Another would be
to maintain the account in its current posture, anticipating a time when,
for one reason or another, our main revenue generator—the Annual
Conference—might fail to cover its fixed front-end expenses. He argued
against any reduction in dues and capitation fees, but could see reasons
for retaining current rates even as expenses mount. The result would, of
course, be to draw down our carry-forward from one year to the next. He
also noted that FY04 is not going to achieve the level of increase in our
base as was realized during FY03 since we will not be sponsoring a
domestic conference, and instead opted to co-sponsor the ACSP/AESOP Joint
Congress in Leuven (July 2003) and the Administrator’s Conference on
Amelia Island, Florida in October 2003. Each had been anticipated to have
negligible effect on our FY04 revenue stream. It now appears that the
former may yield a modest shortfall in net revenue if certain donations
anticipated by AESOP from other European organizations are not
forthcoming. |
Vice President’s Report: Chris Silver
| Chris reported that ACSP
had indeed applied for incorporation this past year and did in fact secure
this legal status. It then was required to reapply for the same tax
exempt status it had enjoyed in past years, as a 501 (c)(3). It was
successful in this regard as well. On the way to achieving this first
result we had to revise our By-laws, and these revisions, he noted, had
previously been approved by the organization and are now available on the
ACSP web site. We are now, “ACSP, Inc.” he observed, though “ACSP” alone
should suffice in most instances. Incorporation, he reminded the Board,
has the effect of reducing the legal exposure of Officers and Board
Members. |
President’s Report: Wim Wiewel
| Wim noted this meeting
would be his last as President, and Chris would assume the Presidency at
the upcoming Business Meeting, also on Amelia Island. He then offered a
brief summary of progress realized during his term of office in attaining
each of the four major objectives that he had placed before us at the
start of his term: (1) promote global awareness, (2) increase planning’s
visibility, (3) promote diversity, and (4) strengthen ties to the
profession. A synopsis of the progress appears in his written report
“ACSP Presidency, 2001-2003”. Global awareness has indeed been
heightened as a result of the important work of the President’s special
Planning Globally Task Force. Thirty-three people volunteered to serve
on this Task Force, and it has sought to continue as a standing committee
of the organization in future years. This body, he noted, was never
intended to eclipse the Association’s Global Planning Educators’ Interest
Group (GPEIG), but rather to aid in fashioning policy and implementing
suggestions of the GPEIG. Hi original charge to the Task Force, he noted,
was to help planners to broaden the arsenal of tools available for
domestic planning, to sensitize planning students to planning matters
outside the United States, to expand the horizons of the professoriate, to
attune domestic planning and planners to the broad array of global
concerns having domestic impacts, and finally help to foster within the
discipline theories and methods that are more conversant with global
realities and global diversity
|
| Regarding the second
item on his Presidential agenda, he noted the important work of the
Strategic Communications Committee and the Committee on the Academy and
the Profession, 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. The Committee also has commenced discussions with
APA regarding the creation of internships for minority students within
larger planning agencies. Still, progress has been limited and
considerably more must be done in the years ahead.
|
| And regarding the
fourth, he noted his role as co-editor (with Garrit 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 flowed as general overhead
into ACSP coffers. At the same time he observed the persistence of the
challenges we must face head-on in crafting a workable and positive
relation with the APA. These past two years, he noted, found us at
loggerheads with both APA and AICP leaders over the operation and
direction of the PAB. But now these issues seem to have been resolved in
a manner that will allow us to enter into fruitful collaborations with APA,
while maintaining the integrity of our own organization, the ACSP. One
recent event, the APA’s Education Summit, offered to all an opportunity to
recraft our relationship. Today, new joint committees are being formed to
move forward initiatives related to curriculum, education, and public
relations.
|
| And looking to the
future, Wim observed that we are but a volunteer organization, and that we
will be well-advised in the future to do those things very well that are
at the core of our work—our conference, JPER, and oversight of the
education of planners. We must chose our targets with great care, achieve
focus, and mete our scarce collective energies while in no way
jeopardizing our core responsibilities. |
Conference
Reports
| Robin Boyle next
reported on the next AESOP/ACSP Joint Congress 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. Attendance at the Leuven event was
favorable if not exceptional: ACSP and AESOP members (312), Non-members
(143), Students (126), and one-day attendees and guests (15). Louis
Albrecht and Seymour Mandlebaum are assembling an edited volume based on
selected conference presentations, featuring the “network society” and its
implications for planning. The next such joint meeting will be held in
North America in 2009.
|
| Bruce Stiftel next
provided an overview of the Administrators’ Conference held concurrently
on Amelia Island, Florida. Gary Hack had overseen the last, two years
ago. This is the fourth such event, generally a biannual occurrence. New
this year is the “New Chairs School”. Overall the current event hosts
four keynote speakers, 45 presenters, and 110 registrants. Total
participation approached 130 attendees. He noted also that 47 spouses and
children accompanied these attendees. Dowell Meyers expressed his general
support for a fall date for the next such conference. But most eventually
agreed that the next should occur in the spring of 2005, concurrent with
the national APA Conference.
|
| Johanna Looye turned our
attention to the next World Planning Schools Congress to be held in 2006,
the subject of her memo dated October 19, 2003. The first such conference
was held in Shanghai in 2001. Four schools bid for rights to the next,
but Mexico City’s UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico)
may emerge as the final choice in deference to the LDC’s. UNAM, in turn,
estimates it will require $325,000 (US) to host the event. UNAM itself
would apparently provide some seed money and seek to raise more
contributions from other sources. But if UNAM’s latest proposal is found
lacking any of the other contestants might win out in the end. Both Louis
Albrecht and Johanna Looye did indeed visit UNAM recently to asses its
capacities. We were reminded that ACSP’s own annual conference will
proceed as usual in the fall following this July 10-16, 2006 event.
Johanna, seeking the sense of ACSP’s Governing Board, then proposed that
we endorse the UNAM host proposal, and that we cover the expense of the
registration fees for between two and five members of the WPSC steering
committee in order for them to attend our own annual ACSP Conference.
|
DECISION: Wim then called for a show of hands indicating our position on the
choice of UNAM (All voting, but one, expressed support). Mickey Lauria
(Becker seconding) then moved that we refer the matter of free registration
to our own conference committee, urging only that it be judicious in meting
out our largess. No limits on the number of free registrations were
specified. Approval was unanimous.
| Chris Silver then turned
to a brief overview of upcoming conferences. Portland is set to serve as
the 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. Cheryl Contant,
successor to Seymour Mandelbaum as Conference Chair then reported that we
have now reached agreement (an MOU) with Portland State, regarding its
specific responsibilities. Fannie Mae hopes also to support the Portland
Conference, having pledged $7000 toward the Joint Congress in Leuven.
Portland State has committed $5000 in support of the Conference. It has
further been determined that our event will “co-locate” with APA’s
Leadership Conference. Co-location, Cheryl noted, is concurrency not
co-habitation in a singular joint event. This, of course, is not the
APA’s major annual conference, but rather a secondary event. Mobile
workshops will be scheduled throughout the conference. Finally,
organizers hope to have as many as five data projectors on hand for
presentation support. Cheryl also noted that the Call for Papers would be
issued for the October Portland event in December, 2003. Abstracts will
be due February 16, 2003. Also planned is a new paper track called the
“Emerging Topics Track”, devoted in the first instance to the subject of
“Planning and Human Health and Safety”. Ethan Stetzer then brought
greetings from Portland State and expressed its strong support for this
upcoming conference.
|
| Cheryl Contant next
turned to the subject of post-Portland events. Parenthetically, during
our last Board Meeting we tentatively determined to convene in
Charlestown, S.C. in 2005. Clemson would serve as the local host, it had
been expected. Fort Worth or Dallas was earmarked as the 2006 venue, and
Milwaukee, as host in the 2007. But at our last Board meeting it was
reported that the NAACP “flag” boycott was still in effect in South
Carolina. As a result some Board members were concerned, at our last
meeting, that we might later be forced to revisit this site choice. The
current plan, at the time of that last meeting, had been to use the
Charleston Convention Center for meetings, and rely on area hotels for
lodging. But it was noted at our last meeting that it might still be
necessary for us to juggle the sequence of conference cities, finding a
substitute for Charleston if the boycott were to persist.
|
| Chris Silver then sought further input regarding the current state of
affairs in South Carolina, citing first a memo of March 10, 2003 from
James Baker, Clemson University President, and then calling on Barry Nock,
Associate Dean at Clemson (author of a second memo regarding the “flag”
issue, dated March 17, 2003), to provide an update. Barry reported that
the flag had been removed from the capitol dome, and that it had been
relocated in a confederate memorial. The South Carolina chapter of the
NAACP had accepted this, he said, but the national NAACP had not. The
relocation of the flag was, he said, a compromise developed within South
Carolina and it was acceptable to the local NAACP Chapter. Joyce Levine
of Jackson State University then spoke, indicating she was not sure how
her own colleagues would respond to the prospect of attending a conference
in South Carolina, even under the auspices of the compromise Barry had
just reported.
|
| Cheryl Contant then
foresaw our need to be able to explain our decision to the ACSP membership
at large in a way that would win its support and attendance. Mulatu
Wubneh of East Carolina University expressed his concern that the national
NAACP did not accept the compromise. Mickey Lauria framed the issue as
state versus national NAACP. Pat Pollack said the issue “could go either
way”, and suggested we might wish to consider a conference theme or track
on the subject of diversity in order to demonstrate our willingness to
enter the fray and to entertain multiple viewpoints. Rolf Pendall
indicated he might feel “uncomfortable” were we to go to Charleston since
board attendance is “mandatory”. Fritz Steiner noted he had attended
another conference in South Carolina. “Can we be a ‘change agent’? has
asked.
|
| Elise Bright: Can we
delay a decision or postpone to a later year while waiting resolution in
South Carolina? Ken Reardon: NAACP has stood alone on various issues, we
need to support them. Pat Pollack: I was not aware of the boycott. Would
we be setting a precedent in scrutinizing local political conflicts as we
try to site later conferences? Mulatu Wubneh: We shouldn’t go to South
Carolina. Dowell Meyers: We’re confusing past and present. The flag
issue is a battle over the past, i.e. the Confederacy. But blacks are
making significant strides in the new South. |
MOVED: Barbara Becker moved (Chris Silver seconding) that we locate the 2005
ACSP Annual Conference in Charleston, South Carolina.
YES
(5), No (4), Abstain (2).
Mickey
Lauria then suggested we might wish to reconsider given the closeness of the
outcome. Wim indicated he’d raise the issue once again as “New Business”
later in the day.
| We next considered the
site of the 2006 Conference. |
MOVED: That the 2006 ACSP Conference be held in the Dallas-Ft. Worth
region. This passed without dissent or abstention.
Publications
| JPER: Mike
Hibbard, outgoing JPER Editor, announced the appointment of Karen
Christensen and Karen Chapple as the new JPER Co-Editors. Karen
Christensen expressed her gratitude and commitment, and noted that the new
editors will continue the JPER-sponsored writing workshop. Mike said ACSP
should provide a special subsidy for this purpose.
|
| Mike then introduced
Alison Labbate, of SAGE, who in turn presented hardcopy of the publisher’s
overview on the status of current efforts. Submissions are up as are
abstracting and indexing of the journal’s articles. 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. Alison made brief mention of the
bankruptcy of one contract marketing firm and that this would in turn
provoke a $500 charge against royalties in calendar year 2004. Overall
SAGE’s projected return to ACSP may be $16,370 in CY03 and $18,260 in
CY04.
|
| Chris Silver argued we
will need to do more to promote institutional subscriptions, especially in
member units’ campus libraries. |
Planning Accreditation Board:
| Fritz Steiner reported
good progress in resolving some vexing issues regarding the management and
direction of the PAB. At their root has been a seeming divergence between
academicians at large, and some portion of the APA and the AICP membership
and leadership. But these differences may be more apparent than real, and
as we provide more information regarding the education of planners these
may narrow further.
|
| Several topics have of late won the attention of the
PAB. A first is a proposal to substitute AICP membership for the Ph.D. as
the designated terminal accomplishment of the field. Fritz spoke of the
advantages to all of gaining AICP status. A second concerns a broader and
more complex proposal for sweeping change in PAB criteria. This matter is
being referred to a Joint Taskforce composed of six—two each from ACSP
(Don Krueckeberg and Lew Hopkins), APA and AICP. It is to issue its
report to the PAB in the spring of 2004. A third issue concerns the
matter of a rotating chairpersonship for the PAB—a matter now apparently
satisfactorily resolved. It was noted subsequently that the PAB
has now resolved to require rotation but allow waiver of the provision
upon the approval of at least six PAB members. |
·
And the
fourth addresses the subject of international accreditation. Schools in
both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, Fritz noted, have inquired about the
possibility of securing accreditation under PAB. But PAB will not confer
accreditation outside the United States he noted. NAFTA, he supposed, might
later change this, but for now all PAB might consider doing would be to aid
other nations or regions in setting up their own processes for
accreditation.
| Parenthetically, Rolf
Pendall suggested that ACSP might wish to consider forming affiliations
with other professional entities as a complement to ours with APA—an
acknowledgment of the growing breadth of our subject and of the spheres of
knowledge and action we address.
|
| In the face of these
various, potentially controversial proposals, Fritz was quick to observe
that any revision to the official Accreditation Document must proceed
through a well defined set of actions, commencing with an initial proposal
to the PAB, and proceed to 30-day reviews by the presidents of both the
ACSP and the AICP. The “planning community” thereafter must assess the
proposal and the Presidents’ comments. The PAB then receives these
appraisals and must decide whether to forward recommended amendments to
the AICP Commission and the ACSP Governing Board. If both entities are
supportive, the PAB then would forward the proposal to the APA Board.
Finally the PAB receives the APA Board’s recommendation and votes itself
on whether or not to adopt the proposal and revise the Accreditation
Document. Clearly, the path is arduous and radical departures will face
tough scrutiny.
|
| Fritz next circulated
the proposed PAB budget. He observed that PAB derives equal shares of its
revenue base from member school payments to PAB and an annual APA grant.
ACSP, however, does not approve the PAB budget, but it does monitor and
approve the fee schedule for participating institutions. The PAB now
anticipates a deficit in FY04 of $11,000, which would increase to $20,000
in FY05. As a result it seeks an increase of the institutional fee of
$200 per annum—from $1400 to $1600— commencing in FY06. The APA, it was
reported would consider elevating its own contribution to maintain parity
in light of the 50/50 formula if ACSP agrees to the requested increase.
But we do not have absolute assurances that it will in the end agree to do
so.
|
| MOVED: Robyn Boyle
moved, with Rolf Pendall seconding, that ACSP endorse an increase in the
institutional PAB fee by $200 per annum in FY06. The motion carried,
receiving 9 supporting votes, with one abstention. |
UPDATE:
| Nancy Frank reported
briefly regarding the ACSP website. She said all was working smoothly.
In a show of hands 6 were found to favor our no longer mailing out
paper copy of UPDATE, but continuing to post it on our website. Two
respondents favored our continuing to offer both hard and electronic
copy. |
ACSP GUIDE/INSTITUTIONAL
DATA PROJECT:
| Plans to prepare a new
Guide to Undergraduate and Graduate Education in Urban and Regional
Planning, a 12th Edition, in 2003. This effort, which was
delayed until the end of FY03, is a result of Governing Board decisions in
Baltimore.
|
| It was again noted that
the Guide and the Institutional Data Project operate in fiscal tandem.
These two share information, and are financially interdependent. Revenues
from the Guide support the IDP. Indeed, those schools willing to respond
out the IDP survey will be entitled to a reduce rate for the Guide. These
provisions are available in the FY04 Budget sub-account for the Guide and
IDP. It was noted that APA sold around 400 copies of the Guide’s 11th
Edition (2000), and retained an unsold inventory of around 100 thereafter,
having first secured 500 in all. But ACSP is no longer send out free
copies of the Guide. When last done, 11,000 were mailed at some expense,
and as the weight per volume increases so would future mailing costs. At
the same time, in lieu of mailing the Guide, ACSP will send out around
22,000 Recruitment Brochures, two to each recipient. And this Brochure
will tout the availability of the Guide, on-line. |
·
Sandi
Rosenbloom is now undertaking to test the survey instrument in support of
the Guide and the IDP, with a sample set of responding schools.
Standing Committee Reports
| Membership: Elise Bright (no report issued)
|
| Nominating: Sandi
Rosenbloom, it was reported, would address this matter at the Business
Meeting. As noted in previous minutes several positions were filled
during the spring 2003 elections. These are indicated below. |
o
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 (Iowa, South Central), Barry
Nocks (Clemson University, South East), and Connie Ozawa, Portland State
University, Western).
·
PAB Site Visitor Pool: 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
Wiewal’s Presidential term. He indicated he would address the work of this
newly constituted committee in his Presidential Address to be given at the
Business Meeting.
Special Committees
·
Academy and the Profession
o
Gary Hack was to report later.
·
ACSP/AICP Joint Task Force
on Planning Education and Practice
o
Wim Wiewel addressed the work of this Committee which has not
been active over the last 12 months. It was to have responded to various
proposals from APA and the AICP regarding the establishment of an “Academic”
Division in APA and to the establishment of a mentoring program. Recall
that Floyd Lapp discussed a mentoring program overseen in part by the
College of Fellows (FAICP). He has chaired its mentoring committee. He
stressed collaboration amongst many different groups to insure the success
of such efforts. Wim had asked Floyd at our last meeting to provide to ACSP
a summary of these activities and said they would be shared with all chairs
of member schools. Floyd was to link school locations with fellow
locations. Chris Silver then observed that ACSP should establish its own
committee to explore service-based learning in order to insure our views are
fully developed and properly presented to APA.
o
Wim noted the recent issuance of a new report entitled
“Practitioners and Planning Education”. Eugenie Birch et al. have collected
data confirming the fact that ACSP schools do indeed engage in a lot of
service work in their respective communities. But once that work was
finished Eugenie and those with who she had worked on this project resigned
as co-chairs.
·
Diversity
o
This Committee once again tried to survey programs on the
subject of diversity, but the response rate was quite low. John-Jairo
Betancur, Chair, was not present.
·
Doctoral Committee
o
Brief mention was made of the Committee’s continuing to offer
its doctoral workshop. Indeed the last was offered at UC Berkeley. Overseen
by John Landis, this event occurred July 31-August 2, 2003. Instructors
included Karen Chapple, John Landis, Rolf Pendall, and Sandi Rosenbloom.
Mention was also made of the Joint ACSP/AESOP Doctoral Workshop held in
Leuven, Belgium this past summer.
·
Faculty Mentoring
o
Chuck Connerly, Chair, called on ACSP to be pro-active in
facilitation the preparation of future planning educators, the prime subject
of a major recent report assembled by this Committee. Numerous
recommendations appear in this report “Preparing Planning Educators ….”.
Wim asked Chuck to present such suggestions to the ACSP Board as actionable
items. Pat Pollack noted FWIG would like to put Barbara Becker, a FWIG
representative, on this Committee.
·
Institutional Governance
o
Pat Pollack indicated there was no activity to report.
·
Planning Globally Taskforce
o
Bruce Stiftel, in the absence of Ruth Yabes, reported on the
work of the Conference Committee of the Taskforce, one of President Wiewel’s
major initiatives these past two years. Bruce’s comments addressed the work
of the Taskforce’s Curriculum and Study Abroad Sub-committees. He also
covered issues addressed at the recent ANPUR meeting in Belo Horizonte,
Brazil. Bruce also brought to our attention a proposed charter for a
Global Planning Educator’s Network.
o
Also underway is development of an “International Best Papers
Series. Nineteen submissions have been received thus far. Rutledge will
publish these in summer, 2004.
o
Bruce noted these several objectives of the organization:
First, to transform the “Taskforce” into an ACSP Committee having a
five-year term of existence. Second, to complete the Taskforce’s study
abroad report. Third, for ACSP to ratify the GPEAN Charter. Fourth, to
assess and recommend new accreditation criteria to the PAB regarding global
planning matters (See previous section of these Minutes addressing the
procedure by which such changes become adopted as official accreditation
criteria). And Fifth, for ACSP to develop a general stance regarding the
waiver of ACSP fees for persons from the world of developing nations seeking
to attend our conferences.
o
ACTIONS:
·
To transform the Planning Globally Taskforce into a
“Special Committee” having a five-year term. Moved by Wim Wiewel. Passed
without dissent or abstention
·
To drop stipulation that this Committee would expire or
face renewal in five years. Moved by Chris Silver. Passed without dissent
or abstention.
·
Reconsideration of the first in light of the second.
Passed without dissent or abstention. Result: A new Special Committee on
Planning Globally shall be created and it shall have an indefinite term.
·
To fund a Research Assistant who would in turn complete the
Taskforce (now Special Committee) report on study abroad. Moved by Mickey
Lauria. Passed: four supporting, two opposed.
·
To accept the draft Charter establishing a Global Planning
Education Association Network formed of the ACSP and other like entities
(copies circulated). Passed without dissent or abstention.
·
Finally, it was resolved—as a general consensus—that the
ACSP Conference Committee preparing for our Portland event will work with
Bruce Stiftel and create a venue at that event for the representation of
global concerns in contemporary planning curricula both in the United States
and abroad.
·
Reassessing Scholarship
o
Linda Dalton is the new Chair of this Committee. No report
was received.
·
Strategic Communications
o
No report.
·
Technology
o
No report.
Interest Group Reports
|
Faculty Women
 | Barbara Becker briefly noted FWIG’s continuing efforts to make available
resume books to be available on line and in hardcopy. FWIG will
continue to explore new ways of communicating amongst its members and
with the ACSP and profession. New officers are to be elected later this
year. |
|
Liaison Reports
o
Canada: A
written report was made available.
Student Representatives
·
Laura Lanza had noted previously the need for both student
representatives to serve on ACSP’s Doctoral Committee. She said recent
doctoral workshops were very well received. More will be done to encourage
doctoral students to participate in the doctoral studetns’ “Bowling League”.
·
Raymond Massenberg then noted that “pre-sessions” will be
organized at the Portland ACSP Conference to allow doctoral students to make
“dry runs” of their paper presentations. The student web page is now
operational and will contain student profiles for viewing by potential
employers. He then discussed the Job Bank. Wim noted none would be held in
Leuven, due to location and timing. But in the future the local host should
help staff the Job Bank to allow students—who would otherwise have to serve
as staff--to attend paper sessions.
AICP/APA Issues
o
Wim Wiewel then addressed matters concerning our relations
with our professional counterparts in the APA and with the AICP. An
“Education Summit” was sponsored during the early fall of 2003 in Chicago to
which were invited the ACSP Officers and others. Wim, Chris and Fritz
attended. Wim found most of the APA members with whom he met were wholly
support of our efforts. He also spoke at some length with Mark Kay Peck,
APA President, regarding our relations. Chris Silver indicated he would, as
President, name a new internal ACSP Committee to address these issues.
Thereafter we may wish to participate in a Joint ACSP/APA Committee
regarding matters of mutual concern such as APA’s effort to establish a new
Division of Planning Education. Ken Reardon urged that we not allow the APA
Conference to be our sole link with the APA. Tom Clark expressed his
concern that such a Division might eventually come to oversee APA Conference
sessions that would draw only planning educators: better that planning
educators be integrated in the mainstream conference panels and paper
sessions.
Unfinished Business:
| Elise Bright provided a brief overview of the recent
work of the Membership Committee. A newly revised form by which schools
can seek ACSP membership will be posted on the Web.
|
| Mickey Lauria as Mike Hibbard if JPER/SAGE planned
to again do a fall mailing to promote subscriptions and memberships to
students.
|
| Tom Clark, circulated the FY04 budget sheets.
|
| Elise Bright put forward a novel approach to APA—namely
that ACSP should ask APA to advocate that new agency hires should possess
a formal degree in planning in exchange for ACSP’s faculty members
reciprocating through involvement in the AICP.
|
| Chris Silver asked the Board officially to adopt
the wording provided in acknowledgement of the achievements of Eric
Freund. Approved without dissent. |
Continuing Agenda: Further Discussion
Regarding Charleston, South Carolina’s bid to host the annual ACSP meeting
in 2005.
o
Wim Wiewel had pledged to return to this issue—already
discussed—once again at the end of the Governing Board Meeting. An informal
poll was taken of incoming Board Members and Officers not yet formally
eligible to vote: Pat Pollack, Ken Reardon, Joyce Levine, and Barry Nocks.
Two supported Charleston’s bid and two did not.
o
Thereafter a new vote was taken regarding the choice of
Charleston for the 2005 Annual Conference. Eligible voters cast five votes
in support. Four were opposed and two abstained.
ADJOURNMENT: 4:00 p.m.
Minutes respectfully
submitted by
Thomas Clark
Secretary/Treasurer, ACSP |
|
