Annual Meeting Minutes - 1999
MINUTES OF THE ARCC ANNUAL MEETING
OCTOBER 30, 1999 | WASHINGTON, DC
(This document is intended to convey the sense of the above meeting -- the official minutes of this Annual Meeting, however, reside with the Secretary of ARCC. Draft minutes do not become an official record of ARCC until approved by the ARCC Board of Directors in a subsequent meeting.)
Presiding: Walter Grondzik, President
1. Welcome and introductions.
Walter Grondzik called the meeting to order at 5:10 pm and welcomed those attending. He introduced the members of the Board in attendance:
President: Walter Grondzik, Florida A+M University
Vice President: Bruce Haglund, University of Idaho
Treasurer: Alison Kwok, University of Oregon
Secretary: Martha Scotford, North Carolina State University
Members at Large: Mary Kihl, Arizona State University; Paul Gleye, North Dakota State University
Ex Officio/past president: Richard Schneider, University of Florida
Representatives in attendance were also introduced.
2. Approval of Minutes of 1998 Annual meeting. (copy attached)
Martha Scotford distributed copies of the minutes of the November 14, 1998 meeting for review and approval. On a motion to approve and seconded, minutes approved as submitted. A new idea was suggested for approval of annual meeting minutes: that minutes be officially approved at next Board conference call, assuming a draft and revised/final minutes have been previously distributed to all Board members by email. This suggestion accepted by consensus of the Board and will be implemented.
3. Treasurer's Report. (copy attached)
Alison Kwok presented the 1999 financial statement and an outline of revenues and expenditures for 1999-2000. A. Kwok also presented for review an audit report conducted by R. Johnson, R. Schneider and M. Scotford. Comments by A. Kwok included: report should have included comment on the necessary reconciliation of accounts that occurred; currently there are 22 members (University of Florida has 2 memberships) and renewals are going slowly; there are usually around 40 members. An invitation to join ARCC will be sent to schools of landscape architecture. There may be an increase in expenses for the newsletter as the frequency has been increased to four per year. Treasurer's report, audit and financial statements approved following motion and second.
4. Audit Report.
Robert Johnson, with other committee members concurring, stated that the report was complete and accepted.
5. President's Report. (copy attached)
Walter Grondzik presented his report, highlighting several items. ARCC sessions at the ACSA Technology Conference will be identified in labeling. Related to Montreal conference in spring 1999, not sure if member schools will receive copies of proceedings or at least a discount if offered (this possibility to be explored). Executive decision made in face of Board division about Best Paper; decided in favor of 'real research.' The King Medal process should start earlier this year to encourage wider participation. There is a need to promote the Haecker Award. Important that ARCC stage own research conference in spring 2001 (2000 conference with EAAE in France).
6. Nominations and Voting.
Nominations for officers to the Executive Board were solicited earlier by W. Grondzik who also prepared a ballot. The following ran unopposed and were accepted by unanimous consent:
President: Walter Grondzik
Vice-President: Bruce Haglund
Treasurer: Alison Kwok
Secretary: Paul Gleye
Representative to IAR: Richard Schneider
For the four at-large positions there were five nominations; ballots were distributed for voting and the following were elected:
Brian Sinclair
Michael O'Brien
Mary Kihl
Joe Bilello
Richard Schneider as past president remains an ex officio member of the Executive Board.
Short discussion question about membership voting: though number of members is small and even smaller number of attendees at annual meeting, it has never been the practice to send out ballots before meeting to allow all members to vote for board.
7. Reports from Member Institutions.
Each of the ten representatives in attendance made a short report on research activities at each institution. Mary Kihl will include most of these reports in the upcoming newsletter.
8. Update on IAR activities.
Richard Schneider reported on the collaboration with colleagues in ACSA and AIA. The group consists of: Sherry Ahrentzen, Tom Pugh, Harry Gordon, Gabor Laurent and professional member Rick Masters from US Gypsum. There is a new research coordinator who will officially start January 15, 2000; his name is Ihab Elzeyadi. Until then, the new Executive Director of ACSA, Stephanie Vierra, is the coordinator. A major mission of the group is to increase architectural research beyond the architecture schools. Would this endanger fees? Annual budget for IAR is $50,000 from ACSA and $25,000 from AIA; ARCC provides ideas, energy and action. IAR needs to be able to show both AIA and ACSA that they are getting a return on their direct financial investments.
Projects: research needs survey of industry and the profession; research methods courses survey; research activity survey of schools; all to lead to matching of schools and methods with needs of profession. In the future, after survey data in, intention to go after foundation grants.
There is a need to update the data base; IAR website research data base renewed as of 11/15/99 but still based on six-year-old information; at least use ARCC data collected by Julia Robinson three years ago. ARCC member schools should update information and individuals should as well (W. Grondzik offered to vet entries). Future plans for IAR include: research award program in long term, in short term a research poster session at March 2000 ACSA meeting in Los Angeles.
Discussion followed: would it help with funders and others if ARCC had a Washington, DC address? How can research coordinator work for ARCC members? Ihab Elzeyadi is a new Ph.D. from Wisconsin; what is his job? all ARCC members should talk to him and help him to help us. S. Vierra is positive on research and IAR, and has significant Washington experience.
9. Discussion.
Four Canadian schools are members and others are encouraged to join ARCC. There is no network of Canadian schools. Mark West from University of Manitoba will work on University of British Columbia.
P. Gleye asked what is agenda of ARCC? answer: member schools should be engaged in research. ARCC should report on current research on a regular basis; should forge connections to funders of research; should develop research methods and help develop courses, publications and conferences about this area. B. Haglund added members should provide mentoring for junior faculty. R. Schneider commented that regional ARCC meetings years ago provided some of this but not sustained and perhaps should be done again. W. Grondzik asked P. Gleye to develop a white paper on future directions and consult with Carolyn Dry and Julia Robinson; if actions proposed are appropriate, combine with IAR.
John Carmody, University of Minnesota, said presentations earlier in the day were good and not like usual research conference in type. EDRA has used other formats in the past and perhaps ARCC should consider a range of types of programs.
B. Haglund said next ARCC conference (2001) should have variety of formats and old programs should be 'repeated;' like 'snake shedding skin' with constantly renewed group, audience is ready and cycle is useful; could do workshops, panels, etc.; set up with good invited people.
B. Haglund reported received one nomination for awards. W. Grondzik reiterated need to make awards and said he would add two other nominations from last year.
10. Update on ARCC/EAAE conference 2000.
W. Grondzik in contact with Jean-Francois Mabardi, the organizer in Europe. Two-stage paper procedure: 500-word abstract (due 12/30/99 or 1/10/00) and then invited to prepare paper (due when? notified by 5/15/00 for presentation) But number of presentations to be limited to 20 total, half American and half European. Perhaps have a poster session so larger number of projects can be presented? Will schools provide travel support if only poster presenter? European suggestion of presentation by session chair vetoed. A. Kwok will be chair of paper review committee (members will include B. Haglund and R. Schneider). What language for publication? All abstracts accepted will be published.
Several questions remain: need more information from Mabardi about summary plan. A. Kwok says need schedule confirmed and call for papers should go out immediately; suggests whole paper review due 1/15/00 and notification by 3/15/00. Or paper due 3/15/00 and notification by 4/15/00? Further discussion suggested abstract due 12/15/99 or 1/15/00 with paper due 3/1/00 and notification 4/1/00 and possibility to present as poster any paper not accepted for presentation. This needs to be resolved very soon.
11. Next conference call be to scheduled by email.
Board meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm.
Addendum: notes from discussion held earlier in the day at AIA headquarters during the Research Symposium.
Respectfully submitted by Martha Scotford, Secretary 1998-1999
Attendees to Annual Meeting (in addition to Board members):
Mark West, University of Manitoba
Tom Debo, Georgia Institute of Technology
Robert Johnson, Texas A+M University
John Carmody, University of Minnesota
ADDENDUM - notes from discussion at research symposium preceding the invited presentations by Henry Sanoff (NC State University) , Charlie Brown (University of Oregon), John Carmody (University of Minnesota) - morning October 30, 1999
[attending: Henry Sanoff, Charlie Brown, John Carmody, Walter Grondzik, Robert Johnson, Joe Bilello, Mary Kihl, Alison Kwok, Martha Scotford, Mark West, Paul Gleye, Bruce Haglund, Tom Debo]
(WG) How to increase activity of ARCC group?
How to increase membership? now at 40; there are 100+ accredited architecture programs in USA. International members have dropped off; it's not about fees but about contact; should we continue to send newsletters and try to maintain email contact? What can or do we offer? the King medal for one.
(RJ) It was good to meet with ACSA administrative group. It has been good to talk with agency reps; too bad struck out on foundations this year.
(JB) ARCC not seen as vital or critical to most people. We should position meetings better to make more connections. Use "where the moose are" concept and go where the funders are. How about creating 'research methods' text? Are there ways to find more research assistantships for grad students? Would an electronic data base help?
(CB) AIA and ACSA have cyclical interest in research; have not been collaborators with existing groups.
(MK) ARCC is a loose network of university programs; it reinforces efforts as a group and research connections.
(AK) conference proceedings are important and are viewed positively by outsiders, but have not been consistent. ARCC has established a certain benchmark for conferences through ARCC-sponsored ones.
(WG) ARCC has institutional memberships but individuals benefit, especially young teachers and researchers. Conferences are good place for papers by young people.
(JC) What about more specific topical conferences? Does ARCC always get the same people to attend? Could we build an joint research agenda with specialized groups? Could we bring the strongest parts of all these other conferences together to ARCC?
(HS) Having watched struggle of ARCC for years - is it architectural research or research by architects? Need a clearer focus but realize research is interdisciplinary; therefore must expand 'market' and include other fields. Have reviewed ARCC proceedings and many not trained in research; need to raise level of research; need research strategies and how to present data properly. How many schools of architecture teach research? Proceedings are the most important part and best way to attract attention and members.
(CB) Training to design is antithetical to research; design is a need to expand boundaries and think intuitively; research requires focus and analysis.
(RJ) We collect strays; ARCC is without focus. We review abstracts but not papers; there is a quality issue.
(MS) What about a student conference as a way to go after graduate students earlier, to bring into ARCC fold? perhaps not only students but could be special focus group.
(MK) Georgia Tech conference worked well in that area; good grad student attendance and presentations, actually got quite competitive. Why are we here (Washington DC)? to connect with other DC meetings but unclear agenda is a problem. Who is the audience for this organization? Administrators?
(HS) Does this go beyond capabilities? What is audience or market? Are we the marginalized of the margins?
(WG) Back to venue for conference as focus. North Carolina worked well with lots of good submissions. Montreal not as good (foreign place, summer, with ACSA). There is now pent up demand for an event for paper presentations.
(HS) IAPS strategy was to give every one a chance to present at a session; get feedback whether paper to be published in proceedings or not. Proceedings become pre-selection as full papers are required from the start. It was good for students. Peer review process to help improve quality; some will resubmit the second year and be better for it. An EDRA example: about 300 papers reviewed but not all presented. Some allowed to present ideas only; some presented completed works; some did workshops. Variety possible because annual event and not every one can produce annually. At research roundtable possible to discover others with similar ideas and interests.
(WG) The example shows a place for a 'rule-breaker' kind of researcher/thinker to appear. Is full paper submission a problem?
(MK) EDRA provides idea; a way to sort through a variety of formats.
(WG) Need more outreach to students doing research.
(sorry, speaker identities not noted from here on)
ARCC role has been amorphous over time. Think about archival value of proceedings; how much money would it take to put up on web? Great value to members to find out who doing what.
Need to focus on students.
Comparison of administrative and research structures.
Need to update ARCC website; related to an Ejournal, name of site is important for links and searches; journal would be peer-reviewed and useful especially to junior faculty. Could also provide resources and a chatgroup. ARCC could be source for links to all building, design, architectural research.
ARCC seek grant to develop web course on Research Methods? collaboration of best people from many schools, each to do a part based on their strengths. Open University model.
How to get more involved ARCC reps? Problem of travel and money, do not know what to do to remedy. Connect a senior mentor/ARCC rep to each grad student? What if dues included extra fee that became a travel stipend back to rep? How can each rep contribute to meeting, to make interesting? Involve professions more? Provide accessible knowledge?
Conference for professional offices? explore different ways offices do research, new or applied. What is the variety of methods? How could academic research support their efforts?
Maybe a conference for different sectors and bring together with academic labs doing work in same areas.
Conference is a confluence of major problems (not like the focus of group like ACADIA); ARCC value is breadth.
What about outreach to create more interdisciplinary group? to reach out to industrial design, interior design, landscape architecture, planners?
Focus on functional topics for conferences, then different disciplines will attend. How about sustainability, energy?
Why do people come? better to provide more info on program: a brochure with specific topics, panels of good people, how to sessions.
Conference has to involve faculty and students. There are many models, but need to connect them with tasks, money, open programming.