16. Proposed Changes to Statutes and Bylaws
See Item 18.
17. Continuation/Dissolution of Existing
IUPAC Bodies, Proposals for New and Reconstituted Bodies/Terms
of Reference
See Item 18.
18. Proposals Formally Received from National
Adhering Organizations
The Secretary General proposed that Agenda Items 16, 17, and 18
be discussed simultaneously, since they were interrelated. He
then reviewed the background of Bylaw 4.307 and the proposed changes
to the Bylaw (see
Attachment 4). The proposed change would allow the Union's
financial resources to be allocated to projects rather than to
Titular Members. The existing Bylaw had envisaged a certain way
of working which was no longer appropriate.
The Secretary General then discussed the proposed resolution
under Bylaw 4.302. The Bylaw requires that the Council approve
the continuation of all Commissions. The proposed resolution would
continue all Commissions through 2001 and then discontinue all
Commissions after 2001. The creation of new Commissions after
2001 would be done in accordance with the procedure described
in Bylaw 4.301
The Secretary General then reviewed the transition process planned
for 2000-1 from a Commission based system for managing the Union's
scientific work, to a project-based system. He emphasized the
new role and capabilities of the Division Committees. He noted
the use of Nominating Committees, with outside members, and the
responsibility of the Division Committee in the new organization
for project management. He also described the function of the
Project Committee in approving interdivisional and larger-than-normal
projects. In describing the new project-based system, the Secretary
General emphasized that new projects can come from anywhere. In
the short term, it is expected that most projects will come from
current Commission members. In the future, IUPAC Fellows are expected
to be a significant source of projects. Other possible sources
of project ideas are IUPAC-sponsored symposia and Associated Organizations.
The Secretary General then described the Policy Statement approved
by the Bureau on Continuation of the Union's important work and
on National Representatives (see Attachment
1 and Attachment 5).
He noted the different criteria for National Representatives on
Division Committees and those on Task Groups.
The President noted the support for the integrated program expressed
by the Division Presidents in their reports to the Council. He
went on to emphasize the significance of the Bureau resolutions
on National Representatives and the continuation of the Union's
work in its traditional areas of expertise - chemical nomenclature,
data compilations, atomic weights, and isotopic abundances.
The Canadian Delegate expressed the support of his National Adhering
Organization for both proposals. He expected much work remained
to be done on implementation. The Canadian NAO felt that the ability
of anyone to submit a project proposal was an important aspect
of the new organization. The Canadian National Committee planned
to publicize this possibility to the chemical community in Canada.
The Delegate from India expressed the support of his National
Adhering Organization for both proposals. He stated that he was
sure that the valuable work of the Union would continue. He hoped
that in the future, participation of currently underrepresented
groups would increase.
The Delegate from Japan stated the support of the Japanese National
Adhering Organization for both proposals. He noted the importance
of the flexibility in managing the Union's scientific work inherent
in the integrated program.
The Delegate from Switzerland expressed the full support of his
National Adhering Organization for both proposals and congratulated
the Bureau on a comprehensive and well formulated plan. He noted
that the new organization should enable the Union to better relate
to industry.
The Delegate from the United Kingdom presented the resolution
that had been included in the Agenda. He noted that many IUPAC
activities require years of involvement before a participant can
make a significant contribution. This learning curve is especially
true of the work on nomenclature and symbols. Without permanent
Commissions, the necessary continuity will be lost and there is
a danger that the ability of the Union to do this kind of work
will be lost also.
The Delegate from Poland expressed the support of his National
Adhering Organization for both proposals. He stated that he was
confident that the important work of the Union would be continued
under the new system.
The Swedish Delegate stated that his National Adhering Organization
supported both of the Bureau's proposals but also supported what
it felt to be the sense of the proposal from the United Kingdom.
He then went on to discuss the proposals presented to Council
by the four Nordic Countries. In his discussion, he emphasized
the role of IDCNS in maintaining the reputation of IUPAC.
The Delegate from Portugal expressed the support of his National
Adhering Organization for the resolution introduced by the United
Kingdom. He stated that he was concerned that the new organization
would marginalize the chemists from smaller countries. He noted
the length of time it can take to learn a subject such as nomenclature.
He also commented that translation of nomenclature rules into
languages other than English is important. This effort requires
long-term participation in the work of a permanent Commission.
The Australian Delegate expressed the support of his National
Adhering Organization for both Bureau proposals. He commented
that the concerns expressed by the United Kingdom resolution had
been adequately addressed by the Bureau Policy Statement.
The Delegate from the Slovak explained the letter from his NAO
which was included in the Agenda. He proposed careful evaluation
of all Commissions and discontinuation of the non-active ones
in the course of the transition period to the project driven system.
The Delegate from the United States described the history of
his National Adhering Organization's criticism of IUPAC's organization.
He then noted that the US National Committee had surveyed US participants
in IUPAC bodies to determine their opinions on the proposed changes.
The US Delegate commented that his National Adhering Organization
did not regard the United Kingdom resolution as necessary and
fully supported the two Bureau Proposals.
The Delegate from Brazil expressed the support of her National
Adhering Organization for the Bureau proposals. She also supported
the comment of the Delegate from Portugal regarding the importance
of translating nomenclature recommendations. She then noted the
importance of National Representatives as a way for many countries
to participate in IUPAC activities.
Prof. H. Zollinger, a Past IUPAC President, commented on the
difficulty of discontinuing some Commissions while continuing
others. He also noted the importance of breaking what is perceived
by many to be a charmed circle of participants in IUPAC activities.
In addition, Prof. Zollinger emphasized the importance of communicating
with industry and with the general public.
The German Delegate expressed the support of his National Adhering
Organization for both Bureau proposals. He added that the German
NAO had confidence in the ability of the Division Committees to
ensure the continuation of the work of the Union in the new structure.
The German Delegate also noted the difficulty of managing interdisciplinary
work with a small number of Division Committee members.
The Delegate from the United Kingdom stated that his National
Adhering Organization supported both Bureau proposals. The motion
introduced by his Delegation was intended to apply only to the
continuation of the Nomenclature Commissions.
The Delegate from Argentina expressed the support of his National
Adhering Organization for the motion introduced by the United
Kingdom. He stressed the importance of Nomenclature to the work
of the Union and commented on the value of long-term participation
in this area.
The Belgian Delegate asked that a response be given to the points
raised in the submission by his National Adhering Organization
to Council. The Secretary General replied that a response would
be prepared in writing and sent to the Belgian NAO after the General
Assembly. The Belgian Delegate then commented on the importance
of the development of evaluated data as part of the work of the
Union. He then suggested that when evaluating project proposals,
IUPAC should always consider the question: Is an International
Union required to carry out this function?
The Delegate from the Czech Republic expressed the support of
his National Adhering Organization for the motion introduced by
the United Kingdom. He noted that personalities are more important
than structure.
The Delegate from the Republic of South Africa expressed the
support of his National Adhering Organization for the Bureau proposals
and also commented on the significance of the Bureau Policy Statement
on National Representatives.
There was some discussion of the proper procedure for voting
on the motions that had been discussed. If the motion introduced
by the United Kingdom is a separate motion, then the two Bureau
proposals must be voted on first, before the Council can take
up a new motion. If the United Kingdom motion is an amendment
to the Bureau proposal on the continuation of Commissions, then
it must be voted on first. The President ruled that the United
Kingdom motion was an amendment to the Bureau proposal; therefore,
it would be voted on first. The United Kingdom Delegate was then
asked to read the text of the motion. The results were as follows:
For: 33; Against: 74; Abstain: 24.The motion was defeated.
The Bureau proposal regarding the discontinuation of Commissions
from 2001 was then voted on with the results as follows: For:
101; Against: 6; Abstain: 26. The Bureau proposal was approved.
The Bureau proposal to amend Bylaw 4.307 was voted on. A Bylaw
amendment requires more than 50% of the assigned votes. There
were 140 assigned votes for this Council Meeting. Seventy-one
votes are therefore necessary to amend a Bylaw. The results of
the ballot were as follows: For: 123; Against: 3; Abstain: 7.
The amendment was approved.
The Secretary General then reviewed the other points to be considered
under Agenda Item 17: Terms of Reference for the Project Committee
and the Evaluation Committee; revised terms of Reference for the
Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature; the relocation of
the Commission on Biotechnology to Division III; the approval
of the new name of Division III: Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry;
and the appointment of the Chairman of the Committee on the Teaching
of Chemistry as an ex officio, non voting member of the
Bureau. The Delegate from Belgium discussed the importance of
project evaluation criteria as well as a well thought out evaluation
process. The President noted that he agreed with the Delegate
from Belgium regarding the importance of criteria to a successful
process.
All the items above were voted on by a show of cards, and were
approved overwhelmingly.
19. Proposed Category of "Associate National
Adhering Organizations"
The Secretary General reviewed the proposal that had been approved
by the Bureau. The only change being proposed was in name. Those
organizations formerly know as Observer Countries would now be
known as Associate National Adhering Organizations. It was felt
that this change would encourage these organizations to view themselves
as part of IUPAC rather than as observers. The President noted
that this was an important issue bearing on the Union's outreach
to the global chemistry community. The Delegate from Brazil asked
what this change meant with regard to individual participation
by scientists from ANAOs. The Secretary General replied that while
participation in Division Committees and Standing Committees was
precluded, unless an individual exception was made to grant Provisional
Membership status, the requirements for participation in Task
Groups had not yet been formulated.
The proposal was voted on by a show of cards, and passed unanimously.