The Access Board will hold public hearings and discussions on various topics in Dallas on September 12. The agenda for the day includes a public hearing on the Board’s proposed guidelines for public rights-of-way, panel discussions on ADA certification of state codes and access to self-service transaction machines, and an open forum where members of the public can raise accessibility issues of interest or concern.
September 12, 2011
Sheraton Dallas, Houston Ballrooms A and B
400 North Olive Street Map
Dallas, TX 75201
Agenda
9:00 – 9:30 Welcome by former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and Board Members
9:30 – 11:30 Public Hearing on Proposed Guidelines for Public Rights-of-Way
2:30 – 4:00 Panel Discussions (ADA State Code Certification, Self-Service Machines)
4:00 – 5:00 Open Comment Session
All events are open to the public. Registration is not required, but those who wish to provide comments at the hearing on the proposed rights-of-way guidelines are encouraged to contact Kathy Johnson at johnson@access-board.gov, (202) 272-0041 (voice), or (202) 272-0065 (TTY).
Showing posts with label Posted by David Lancaster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Posted by David Lancaster. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Texas Architects at the NCSL
Speaker Joe Straus at the AIA booth
Posing with Rep. Jim Murphy of Houston
David discussing issues with Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock of Killeen
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) was there with a booth to ensure the voice of architects across America was heard loud and clear…and no one is better than David in doing that—at least the loud part! To provide more local expertise and connections at these national events, AIA invites local and state component staff to participate, so representatives from Florida, Michigan, New York, and California joined David and AIA staff at the booth.
David welcomed a number of key officials to the booth, including Representatives Jimmie Don Aycock of Killeen, Jim Murphy of Houston, and San Antonio’s native son, Speaker Joe Straus.
We’re told the big hit of the booth were the insulated drink coozies made out of recycled wet suits (GO GREEN!). Certainly, wet suits haven’t been needed in THIS state for quite some time!
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Code Volunteers Wanted
With the recent completion of the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) Public Comment hearings, the International Code Council (ICC) now moves into the next step in the proposed development of an IgCC—a full cycle of ICC Code Development in 2011. As such, ICC has posted a “Call for Committee” for its 2011 IgCC Code Committee, and is seeking the AIA’s help in spreading word of that opportunity. The link to the call is:
http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/IGCC/Pages/call.aspx
The application deadline is October 1, 2010.
For more information on the IgCC development process, please contact Jessyca Henderson, AIA, director, Sustainability Advocacy, at jessycahenderson@aia.org or 202.626.7340.
Monday, August 30, 2010
More TSA Legislative Visits…with More to Come
(from left)TSA treasurer Mark Wolf, Rep. Rafael Anchia, Craig Reynolds, FAIA, and Todd Howard.
Most recently, staff lobbyists Yvonne Castillo and David Lancaster, along with contract lobbyists Kathy Grant and Wade Long, made a road trip to Dallas to visit four state representatives. On Aug. 24, Mark Watford, FAIA, and Dr. Gail Thomas, Hon. AIA, joined these four in visits with Reps. Kirk England, Will Hartnett, and Dan Branch prior to participating in a TAC reception at AIA Dallas’ Center for Architecture (DCA) that featured Rep. Rafael Anchia talking about his plans for the upcoming session and possibility of passing legislation advancing sustainability.
As a part of his DCA visit, where he also heard from architects about their hopes and concerns, Rep. Anchia (2nd from left) received a TAC check from (l to r) TSA treasurer Mark Wolf, Craig Reynolds, FAIA, and Todd Howard.
More visits are being scheduled every week, including special meetings with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Speaker Joe Straus, as well as more visits to the TSA office or AIA Austin Center for Architecture by central Texas officials or legislators coming to Austin for interim hearings or other official business.
If you haven’t already made your personal 2010 TAC contribution, click here. Thanks for investing in your profession…and getting involved!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Architects Meet with Hutchison
On Aug. 8, about 20 people, including 16 affiliated with the Texas Society of Architects/AIA, gathered at the home of TSA Public Member Director Gail Thomas (and her husband, Bob) for an intimate visit with U.S. Senator and 2010 Texas gubernatorial candidate Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison has been a special friend to architects for years, most recently in 2004 when she was the first to sponsor an amendment to the federal JOBS bill to protect a tax credit for design firms. By the time the JOBS bill was passed and signed into law by President George W. Bush, over half of her Senate colleagues had joined her as co-sponsors of her proposed change.
In discussing items of importance to Texas architects and TSA, Senator Hutchison noted measures of general benefit to the state, such as initiating (along with Congressman Kevin Brady, R-TX) a change in tax law that allows citizens that do not pay a state income tax to deduct other state taxes (i.e., state sales taxes, etc.) when figuring their federal income taxes. More details about this event will be published in the October issue of TSA’s CheckSet newsletter.
Senator Hutchison has been a special friend to architects for years, most recently in 2004 when she was the first to sponsor an amendment to the federal JOBS bill to protect a tax credit for design firms. By the time the JOBS bill was passed and signed into law by President George W. Bush, over half of her Senate colleagues had joined her as co-sponsors of her proposed change.
In discussing items of importance to Texas architects and TSA, Senator Hutchison noted measures of general benefit to the state, such as initiating (along with Congressman Kevin Brady, R-TX) a change in tax law that allows citizens that do not pay a state income tax to deduct other state taxes (i.e., state sales taxes, etc.) when figuring their federal income taxes. More details about this event will be published in the October issue of TSA’s CheckSet newsletter.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Opinions on Proposed AIA Bylaws Amendments & Resolutions
by TSA Executive Vice President David Lancaster, Hon. AIA
On the whole, I have to wonder how much serious debate or discussion the AIA Board had before it approved the proposed amendments and delegate resolutions to be voted on at the 2009 AIA Annual Business Meeting in San Francisco, CA, on May 2.
IMHO, four of the five proposed Bylaws amendments seem flawed—two because of how they’re worded (09-A, 09-D), two just seem to be bad policy (09-B, 09-C). With the exception of 09-02, the resolutions seem to be either superfluously redundant (09-01) or unwise (09-03). Resolution 09-02 could be an interesting referendum on what the driving factors for future AIA conventions should be, and, as such, could prove instructive to national leadership and staff…assuming it’s passed in San Francisco and subsequently ratified by the Board of Directors.
While the bases for my questions or concerns regarding this blog are real, I hope that at least the humor can be appreciated. With that in mind, here’s one person’s irreverent take on some of the major 2009 AIA Annual Business Meeting items:
PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENTS
09-A: Participation by Board Members at Board Meetings
“Dialing up Attention Deficit Disorderliness.” If National wants the authority to meet legally via conference calls, which is the reason I’m told that this amendment is being offered, why not just say so? The wording that’s been published would allow, if not ensure, less productive meetings—if not bad meeting habits. I’m predicting less productive (national) AIA Board meetings in the future because people either 1) won’t bother to attend in person or 2) they’ll call in…then put the phone on mute and try to do other things (like taking care of their paying business), which means reduced focus on their AIA director role. One of the reasons I’ve heard given for considering a new national governance model is that the current way of selecting directors (and, ergo, the current Board members) hasn’t resulted in choosing those who are tuned in sufficiently to be strategic and efficient. If anyone thinks national directors aren’t already tuned in, wait until they let them multi-task during meetings. The bright side of this proposal is that at least we’ll eliminate that old problem of AIA Board “class cliques.”
09-B: Public Membership
Let’s call this one “Boston (or BSA) Legal.” Most everyone is familiar with the old saw, “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” This looks like a situation in which, since the Boston Society of Architects (BSA) won’t stop offering Public Membership to the “great unwashed” of the northeast (in violation of Section 4.054 of the national Bylaws), the national component has decided to follow BSA’s lead by changing its Bylaws to let National start milking that potential cash cow, too. So what if it may well negatively impact a whole boatload of related local/state components’ architectural foundations, not to mention all those new architectural centers?!? At least everyone’s will be legal now. One other slightly troublesome item for me in the published wording: nowhere else in any other membership category section is determination of “Rights and Privileges” left to the AIA Board to write/edit/approve. This whole thing seems WAY loose…and rife with opportunity to lead us places we may not really want to go.
09-C: AIA International Membership
If Texas secedes like our Governor has hinted we should consider, will Lone Star architects qualify for AIA International? Apparently, the AIA, whose official “domain” is the United States and its territories, is concerned that it isn’t able to keep pace with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) when it comes to signing up “foreign” architects as members. The reason behind this idea, allegedly, is that the RIBA doesn’t qualify its letters, while the Institute’s title for anyone not licensed by a regulatory body somewhere within the AIA’s domain must include the word “Associate.” Not to be outdone by the RIBA, this proposal, which is touted as merely (or at least primarily) a title change from “International Assoc. AIA” to “AIA International,” one heck of a more impressive moniker. The way it’s worded, however, would make members of the new category eligible for everything except Fellowship, being an Institute officer and voting on U.S. architects’ dues (unless serving as a director on the national board). Apparently glossed over, however, are the far greater potential unintended consequences that 1) such a move might prompt a backlash by state regulatory boards wanting to avoid consumer confusion by prohibiting use of the terms “AIA” and “AIA International” by anyone not licensed within its specific jurisdiction or 2) creating a perception that someone who is “AIA International” is somehow more qualified for global practice than someone who is “just a plain AIA.” Maybe that’s why “Confused in Fort Worth” is hoping Rick Perry carries through on his “Tax Tea Party Tirade,” he’d wind up with a much sexier title!
09-D: Associate Members as Regional Directors on the Institute’s Board of Directors
“So which of the previous provision or positions still apply?” Last year, delegates in Boston approved Resolution 08-C, which recommended allowing regions to elect an Associate AIA member as Regional Director to the (national) Board, if that was the region’s choice. I’m not questioning that 2008 Vox Populi Architecti, but I must ask if allowing this eligibility will affect whether or not the two designated “Associate AIA Representative” positions set out in Section 6.02 of the Bylaws will continue, or is this the first step in a plan to do away with all constituent reps. (One could ask the same question about the International Director position on the board, too, given 09-C.) Since nothing indicates a change in any of the limitations put on the number or percentages of Associates who may serve on section, chapter, state or regional boards [see 2.333(a) and (c)], is the national board to be different or will this become an issue to answer later? Should this motion be reconsidered to cover these and other questions?
09-E: Members Emeritus
As some Texans say, “even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.” Just to prove that I’m not simply some crusty old “nattering nabob” (thank you Spiro Agnew), I’m good with this one. One person, however, suggested that the new language in 2.311(ii) [“has achieved architect emeritus status under law in any state of the United States”] could be interpreted to mean that the state with the youngest or lowest age that qualifies for emeritus status sets the bar for all the rest. Would “has achieved architect emeritus status under law in the state in which he or she is registered” work better? The same sort of tweaking could be applied to AIA International members (including Texans, if we secede) should 09-C be approved.
DELEGATE RESOLUTIONS
(Before I get into the real stuff, did anyone else notice that last year the Resolutions had capital letters rather than numbers…and this year they’ve been viced versa? Cool, huh?!?)
09-1: Component Adoption of the Gateway Commitment
“Can I get a component ‘AMEN’…or 300?” It feels good, it feels right…and who in his or her right (political) mind would vote against it, but what does it really do?!? It says “the AIA Board of Directors must urge each state and local component to embrace and adopt the…Commitment; and…develop a concrete plan” for implementing it, but why does the AIA Board have to wait for a delegate resolution to do that—or “to make readily available all resources…in the accomplishment of (the) diversity goals?” Would it be OK for the state and local components just to adopt the national “concrete plan” once we do our embracing and adopting…both of which I am all in favor of doing!
09-2: Ensuring a Viable National Convention
“This still doesn’t guarantee we’re coming to Detroit, Fred.” Given last September’s decision by the AIA Board to cede future national convention site decisions to the AIA Executive Committee, this one makes good sense. If such a review and confirmation doesn’t take place, we may well wind up with such decisions being made based only (or almost completely) on the size of the available exhibit hall space. If that’s the case, we could wind up limited to 5-6 cities (Boston, New York City, DC, Vegas, LA and Frisco). How does that fit with 09-1 and promoting diversity?
09-3: Defining a Minimum Standard to Meet Our Obligations Regarding Environmentally Responsible Design
“This resolution died on a point of order last year; it should die on its merits now.” From my narrow (OK, call it selfish) AIA lobbyist’s point of view, neither National nor its individual local and state components should “recommend and support” a single green building rating system…and that’s what I interpret the published wording as doing. (Striking the word “most” on the 4th line of the first RESOLVED paragraph might solve this issue. MAYBE!) Even if the USGBC and LEED program do exist as a result of the leadership provided by some earlier members of the AIA’s Committee on the Environment (COTE), government shouldn’t be in the business of using only one standard when “shaping public policy, action, and metrics” for green buildings—and we shouldn’t be promoting a single standard. No state legislature is going to “green light” a monopoly, even one for green building standards, so let’s avoid advocating any standard more than another—unless it’s OUR standard, one we developed, which, then, of course, would be OK.
On the whole, I have to wonder how much serious debate or discussion the AIA Board had before it approved the proposed amendments and delegate resolutions to be voted on at the 2009 AIA Annual Business Meeting in San Francisco, CA, on May 2.
IMHO, four of the five proposed Bylaws amendments seem flawed—two because of how they’re worded (09-A, 09-D), two just seem to be bad policy (09-B, 09-C). With the exception of 09-02, the resolutions seem to be either superfluously redundant (09-01) or unwise (09-03). Resolution 09-02 could be an interesting referendum on what the driving factors for future AIA conventions should be, and, as such, could prove instructive to national leadership and staff…assuming it’s passed in San Francisco and subsequently ratified by the Board of Directors.
While the bases for my questions or concerns regarding this blog are real, I hope that at least the humor can be appreciated. With that in mind, here’s one person’s irreverent take on some of the major 2009 AIA Annual Business Meeting items:
PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENTS
09-A: Participation by Board Members at Board Meetings
“Dialing up Attention Deficit Disorderliness.” If National wants the authority to meet legally via conference calls, which is the reason I’m told that this amendment is being offered, why not just say so? The wording that’s been published would allow, if not ensure, less productive meetings—if not bad meeting habits. I’m predicting less productive (national) AIA Board meetings in the future because people either 1) won’t bother to attend in person or 2) they’ll call in…then put the phone on mute and try to do other things (like taking care of their paying business), which means reduced focus on their AIA director role. One of the reasons I’ve heard given for considering a new national governance model is that the current way of selecting directors (and, ergo, the current Board members) hasn’t resulted in choosing those who are tuned in sufficiently to be strategic and efficient. If anyone thinks national directors aren’t already tuned in, wait until they let them multi-task during meetings. The bright side of this proposal is that at least we’ll eliminate that old problem of AIA Board “class cliques.”
09-B: Public Membership
Let’s call this one “Boston (or BSA) Legal.” Most everyone is familiar with the old saw, “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” This looks like a situation in which, since the Boston Society of Architects (BSA) won’t stop offering Public Membership to the “great unwashed” of the northeast (in violation of Section 4.054 of the national Bylaws), the national component has decided to follow BSA’s lead by changing its Bylaws to let National start milking that potential cash cow, too. So what if it may well negatively impact a whole boatload of related local/state components’ architectural foundations, not to mention all those new architectural centers?!? At least everyone’s will be legal now. One other slightly troublesome item for me in the published wording: nowhere else in any other membership category section is determination of “Rights and Privileges” left to the AIA Board to write/edit/approve. This whole thing seems WAY loose…and rife with opportunity to lead us places we may not really want to go.
09-C: AIA International Membership
If Texas secedes like our Governor has hinted we should consider, will Lone Star architects qualify for AIA International? Apparently, the AIA, whose official “domain” is the United States and its territories, is concerned that it isn’t able to keep pace with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) when it comes to signing up “foreign” architects as members. The reason behind this idea, allegedly, is that the RIBA doesn’t qualify its letters, while the Institute’s title for anyone not licensed by a regulatory body somewhere within the AIA’s domain must include the word “Associate.” Not to be outdone by the RIBA, this proposal, which is touted as merely (or at least primarily) a title change from “International Assoc. AIA” to “AIA International,” one heck of a more impressive moniker. The way it’s worded, however, would make members of the new category eligible for everything except Fellowship, being an Institute officer and voting on U.S. architects’ dues (unless serving as a director on the national board). Apparently glossed over, however, are the far greater potential unintended consequences that 1) such a move might prompt a backlash by state regulatory boards wanting to avoid consumer confusion by prohibiting use of the terms “AIA” and “AIA International” by anyone not licensed within its specific jurisdiction or 2) creating a perception that someone who is “AIA International” is somehow more qualified for global practice than someone who is “just a plain AIA.” Maybe that’s why “Confused in Fort Worth” is hoping Rick Perry carries through on his “Tax Tea Party Tirade,” he’d wind up with a much sexier title!
09-D: Associate Members as Regional Directors on the Institute’s Board of Directors
“So which of the previous provision or positions still apply?” Last year, delegates in Boston approved Resolution 08-C, which recommended allowing regions to elect an Associate AIA member as Regional Director to the (national) Board, if that was the region’s choice. I’m not questioning that 2008 Vox Populi Architecti, but I must ask if allowing this eligibility will affect whether or not the two designated “Associate AIA Representative” positions set out in Section 6.02 of the Bylaws will continue, or is this the first step in a plan to do away with all constituent reps. (One could ask the same question about the International Director position on the board, too, given 09-C.) Since nothing indicates a change in any of the limitations put on the number or percentages of Associates who may serve on section, chapter, state or regional boards [see 2.333(a) and (c)], is the national board to be different or will this become an issue to answer later? Should this motion be reconsidered to cover these and other questions?
09-E: Members Emeritus
As some Texans say, “even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.” Just to prove that I’m not simply some crusty old “nattering nabob” (thank you Spiro Agnew), I’m good with this one. One person, however, suggested that the new language in 2.311(ii) [“has achieved architect emeritus status under law in any state of the United States”] could be interpreted to mean that the state with the youngest or lowest age that qualifies for emeritus status sets the bar for all the rest. Would “has achieved architect emeritus status under law in the state in which he or she is registered” work better? The same sort of tweaking could be applied to AIA International members (including Texans, if we secede) should 09-C be approved.
DELEGATE RESOLUTIONS
(Before I get into the real stuff, did anyone else notice that last year the Resolutions had capital letters rather than numbers…and this year they’ve been viced versa? Cool, huh?!?)
09-1: Component Adoption of the Gateway Commitment
“Can I get a component ‘AMEN’…or 300?” It feels good, it feels right…and who in his or her right (political) mind would vote against it, but what does it really do?!? It says “the AIA Board of Directors must urge each state and local component to embrace and adopt the…Commitment; and…develop a concrete plan” for implementing it, but why does the AIA Board have to wait for a delegate resolution to do that—or “to make readily available all resources…in the accomplishment of (the) diversity goals?” Would it be OK for the state and local components just to adopt the national “concrete plan” once we do our embracing and adopting…both of which I am all in favor of doing!
09-2: Ensuring a Viable National Convention
“This still doesn’t guarantee we’re coming to Detroit, Fred.” Given last September’s decision by the AIA Board to cede future national convention site decisions to the AIA Executive Committee, this one makes good sense. If such a review and confirmation doesn’t take place, we may well wind up with such decisions being made based only (or almost completely) on the size of the available exhibit hall space. If that’s the case, we could wind up limited to 5-6 cities (Boston, New York City, DC, Vegas, LA and Frisco). How does that fit with 09-1 and promoting diversity?
09-3: Defining a Minimum Standard to Meet Our Obligations Regarding Environmentally Responsible Design
“This resolution died on a point of order last year; it should die on its merits now.” From my narrow (OK, call it selfish) AIA lobbyist’s point of view, neither National nor its individual local and state components should “recommend and support” a single green building rating system…and that’s what I interpret the published wording as doing. (Striking the word “most” on the 4th line of the first RESOLVED paragraph might solve this issue. MAYBE!) Even if the USGBC and LEED program do exist as a result of the leadership provided by some earlier members of the AIA’s Committee on the Environment (COTE), government shouldn’t be in the business of using only one standard when “shaping public policy, action, and metrics” for green buildings—and we shouldn’t be promoting a single standard. No state legislature is going to “green light” a monopoly, even one for green building standards, so let’s avoid advocating any standard more than another—unless it’s OUR standard, one we developed, which, then, of course, would be OK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
