I  U  P  A  C

 News & Notices

Minutes of 40th IUPAC Council Meeting
13-14 August 1999, Berlin, Germany


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.


Back to the Index - Next Item


Home - News & Notices - Organizations & People - Standing Committees - Divisions
Projects - Reports - Publications - Symposia/Conferences - Links - AMP


Page last modified 25 July 2001.
Copyright © 1999-2001 International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.

Questions or comments about IUPAC
please contact the Secretariat.
Questions regarding the website
please contact Web Help.