ISOCARP Membership Regulation

Click on the cover to read or download the Membership Regulation.

Please also share your comments below. If you are logged into the website, you can enter your comments directly. If you are not logged in, you will be asked for your name and email address – this helps to get to know each other.

UPDATE 12 Aug 2019: The results of the vote are published and can be accessed here.

14 Comments

Jeremy Dawkins

The comments below were received recently – I post them in one post because there appears to be a limit on numbers of posts, that we have not yet overcome.
If improvements are needed to the policy — and please suggest them, as Peter and Daniel did, below — there will be an opportunity to make amendments at the AGM at 12 noon UTC on 11 September, during the World Planning Congress in Jakarta. If you can’t be there for what will be another great Congress, there will again be an opportunity to participate online. Stay tuned…
*Comment by Mustiafiz; 6 Aug*: Could you consider the degree of M.Phil. in Urban Environmental management for membership criteria? *JD* Sure, the test is that members have the education or experience to practive city and regional planning.
*Comment by Flavio Jose Nery Conde Malta, 6 Aug*: I have no comments on the regulation itself. I just want to make a point that members from developing countries as mine have more difficulties to join in events and programs by the Society and this something to consider if participation is desired. As well as the membership fee. We as a Society have a myriad of members, countries, personal conditions and so on despite the willingness to participate and engage on programs and events. Thank you. *JD* The members think of this all the time. One way to address this question is the geography of the Congress – South Africa, Norway, Indonesia, Qatar… Members may also want to see some regionalisation of activities.
*Comment by Mahak Agrawal; 6 Aug*: With the flat fee of membership, I believe earlier system of differential region-economy based membership fee is scrapped. However, the system may discourage prospective members for less-strong economic backgrounds to seek membership and contribute to the Society. Is it possible to include a provision to consider requests for reduced fee, if a prospective candidate submits necessary proof of support? *JD* (1) Nearly all fees are less; no fee has increased. (2) Quote: ‘The Board has the discretion to determine that in special circumstances a varied membership fee shall apply to certain individuals or certain groups of individual members.’
*Comment by Jef Van den Broeck; 7 Aug*: Also my compliments for this very good work. It is very good that the status for institutional members is clear now. My only remark concerns the membership fees. Shouldn’t they be not cheaper for members from developing countries? And possibly for young planners? *JD*: Thank you for the comment. On fees, nearly all fees are less; no fee has increased.
*Comment by Daniel Kinnoch; 10 Aug*: Regulation 2, Part 1, second bullet, it says ‘whether practiced at scales’ – should just be ‘whether practised at scale’. The letter ‘c’ is only used where using the noun, ‘practice’. The word ‘scale’ is singular and plural in this sentence, without adding the ‘s’.
Regulation 2, fourth bullet, it says ‘practices’ which should again be ‘practises’
Regulation 3, Part 1, simplify “The Board is authorised to adjust these fees for any following year, provided that any increase is limited to an increase in the fee of ten per cent” to “The Board is authorised to adjust these fees for any following year, provided that any increase is limited to ten per cent”.
For Regulation 3, Part 1, I encourage the Board to consider an annual ‘combo’ rate of congress admission, plus membership for that year. This could be attractive to those who attend the congress often, and it could shore up the organisation’s bottom line by attracting forward payments.
For Regulation 3, Part 1, I encourage the Board to consider a discount of 10% for those who set up a direct deposit, as they are more likely to renew on time every year. This could be considered as an ‘advance payment discount’ as many country-based professional planning bodies have (e.g. NZPI in New Zealand, and PIA in Australia). Without this, there is no point enshrining an ‘encouragement’ in a regulation, as it become meaningless in terms of regulating anything.
The extended term ‘International Society of City and Regional Planners’ is used frequently throughout the document. It could be used once, and shortened to ‘ISOCARP’ for all future references.
Regulations 1 & 2, Part 2, read more informatively than as regulation. A ‘regulation’ is commonly defined as a rule or directive, and there is nothing about the ‘reasons for joining’ that reads as a rule. There are other components of Parts 1 & 2 of the document that read similarly. I recommend that any ‘information’ is put in a preamble, or introduction section.
Regulation 2, Part 2, third bullet – how will this link in with ISOCARP’s current Privacy Policy for members. E.g. will members data and information be ‘monetised’ for the benefit of attracting institutional members? I would like to see further information on how this would work before I would consider supporting the proposed changes.
Regulation 3, Part 3, third bullet – define/pinpoint reference where the definition for ‘education and/or experience to practice city and regional planning’ is located. *JD* Many thanks Daniel, this is very valuable feedback and a great contribution to our continuing effort to improve the governance of ISOCARP. I’ll find a way to respond in detail…

Reply
Mahak Agrawal

With the flat fee of membership, I believe earlier system of differential region-economy based membership fee is scrapped.
However, the system may discourage prospective members for less-strong economic backgrounds to seek membership and contribute to the Society.
Is it possible to include a provision to consider requests for reduced fee, if a prospective candidate submits necessary proof of support?

Reply
ammar gargoum

Thank you very much for your presentation and i hope to see a program for investments …

Reply
Kanaan Almases

Dears
1-Regarding Item No. 3. Individual membership fees, I think it would be fair not to increase the The fee for individual membership who already paid for the life membership i when the Board is adjusting the Membership fees
2- is there any age limits for Membership or for performing other roles or duties at ISOCARP.
3- is it possible to consider a complementary entry invitation to ISOCARP AGM for a few members from the low income countries every year.

Finally Many thanks for your hard working
Wishing you all the best

Reply
Jeremy Dawkins

Thank you, we really appreciate these comments.
On the first point, please see my reply to Wail I. Bakhit below.
There are no age limits, young or old — Professor Erik Wiren of Sweden has been a highly-valued member since 1965!
Thank you for the suggestion in the third point.

Reply
Wanjiku Macharia

Do existing members need to reapply? How does the Society ensure that its membership are up to date with new tools and concepts i. e. will there be something close to continuous professional development program open to all?

Reply
Didier Vancutsem

Dear Wanjiku, dear all, thank you for your comments.
Regarding your question related to capacity building, the Isocarp Institute is currently developing its academic branch called “Academy”. Training and education programmes (also online) will be available for the members very soon – a first initiative starting already prior to Jakarta.

Reply
Jeremy Dawkins

Dear Peter
1 Thank you for that excellent point. To continue my planning analogy (see my comment to Zivile below), applications and decisions are always better, and quicker, when the applicant has a right of appeal.
2 Thank you also for raising, in this way, how we might amend this new membership policy.
If the policy is supported by members and adopted, there will be an opportunity at the AGM in Jakarta to move amendments, for instance to enable a decision of the Board to be reviewed.
3 Let’s discuss the best ways for this review to be done.
4 Others taking part in this discussion might also wish to suggest amendments to be considered at the AGM.

Reply
Peter Jonquiere

Compliments on this new membership policy. I consider it in w hole range of subjects a great step forward in comparison with the “old” rules and organisation of the Society.
if i may raise one small point: it seems rhere is no way of appeal if the Board decides not to accept an application. i would think it wise if such an appeal procedure should be possible.

Reply
Jeremy Dawkins

Dear Member Wail I. Bakhit
Thank you for raising the question of planners wishing to join ISOCARP when their country suffers from continuous political conflicts and a shrinking economy. For planners in Sudan and other countries experiencing conflict, membership of the global planning community is even more important. The Board wishes to provide the support of the global planning community to planners everywhere.
This is why we included the following provision:
“The Board has the discretion to determine
that in special circumstances a varied
membership fee shall apply to certain
individuals or certain groups of individual
members.” Please ask your colleagues to raise this provision when they apply for membership.

Reply
Jeremy Dawkins

Dear Zivile
Thank you for that perceptive commentary. You are right, these brief rules (like rules in planning instruments) can be confusing. I offer the following comments.
Point 1 is the general rule — professional planning practice.
2 — This is the definition, mainly to ensure that “planning” is understood to be inclusive of the many ways in which planning is practiced, not a narrow, restrictive interpretation.
3 — This is like a “deemed to comply” provision in a planning instrument: if you are eligible to belong to your local planning institute, you meet the criterion for point 1. Otherwise, you can demonstrate that you meet the criterion for point 1.
4 — Who decides? (similar to “who gives planning approval?”)
5 — The decision maker may delegate the decision to others (similar to “the planning authority may delegate the decision to a planner”).

Reply
Zivile Simkute

“An applicant meets the standard for membership if they can show that they are eligible for membership of the association or institute for professional planners in the applicant’s country of residence or in the country where the applicant practices planning.” I do not remember if this point was in the old policy but I doubt that all countries have professional planners associations or it is not clear if it this a mandatory condition. These bullet points are a little confusing as the first point is what do you need to join (prove you practice planning) second is about why first point is important, third is about professional association but it is not clear if its mandatory, forth is who makes a decision and fifth is an exception for the forth. But despite some confusion I believe that it is a good effort to make becoming a member less complex and standardized.

Reply
Wail I. Bakhit

Although the new unified fee is less than previously, I just wanted to know what considerations are made for low-income countries, especially those with continuous political conflicts and shrinking economy, such as Sudan, to make the fee affordable for them?
Thank you

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar