Page 18 - Summer 2006

and backed by a strong group of willing volunteers, is necessary if any meaningful impact is to be made. A coherent plan, with both short and long-term goals, needs to be developed, funded, and implemented.
• Recognition
The Vision 2010 Committee heard comments on the means by which the Society recognizes both its members and non-members. There were little, if any, issues con- cerning the number and types of awards however, the standards by which the awards are determined varied considerably and should be made uniform.
APPENDIX A
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE SOCIETY’S VISION—
Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose.
(The more things change, the more they stay the same.)
Vision 1929. Primarily from the encouragement of three individuals—Professors Vern O. Knudsen and Floyd R. Watson, and Mr. Wallace Waterfall—forty scientists and engineers met on 27 December 1928 at the Bell Telephone Laboratories and voted to organize the Acoustical Society of America. The three individuals had originally thought in terms of an acoustical engineering society whose primary purpose was to develop and understand the practical require- ments in architectural acoustics. After corresponding with eleven additional acousticians, the group decided that it would be more desirable to expand the scope of the organi- zation to include all branches of acoustics to make the organ- ization more stable. It is not clear whether or not the fourteen thought of themselves as the Vision 1929 Committee but their spirit and functionality has endured throughout the life of the Society.
Vision 1955. About twenty-seven years later, eighteen members of the Society, comprising the then recently- formed Committee on Promotion and Development, pub- lished a report to the membership about their concerns regarding the lack of conformity to one of the stated pur- poses of the Society—“promote the practical applications of acoustics.” They cited a serious deficiency in the number of practical application papers at the Society’s semiannual meetings, in its Journal and in its recent publication, Noise Control (later to be renamed Sound: Its Uses and Control). This magazine lasted only about eight years before the Executive Council voted to cease its publication. In addition to the Society’s apparent lack of coverage of practical appli- cations in its publications and meetings, the Committee mentioned the creation of new non-Society publications that had recently started—Audio and Ultrasonic Engineering and the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society as well as non-Society symposia that appeared to be filling the gap. To the Committee, these were strong indications that the Society was failing to carry out one of its stated purposes.
The Committee noted three encouraging factors, howev- er—the establishment of Noise Control, the creation of Regional Chapters to provide increased association with fel- low acousticians and their local programs, and the recent
increase in the number of Technical Committees to seven. They were Architecture, Music, Noise, Psychoacoustics, Speech, Ultrasonics, and Underwater Sound. Still, Shock and Vibration, Audio Engineering, and Sonic and Ultrasonic Engineering were purposely left out.
The Committee strongly recommended the creation of a new organizational structure to include eight Technical Sections—Architectural Acoustics and Sound Control; Audio Engineering and Electroacoustics; Bioacoustics, Speech and Hearing; Musical Acoustics; Physical Acoustics; Shock and Vibration; Sonic and Ultrasonic Engineering; and Underwater Acoustics. The difference between a Technical Committee and a Technical Section was one of autonomy. Technical Committees were created by the Executive Council, i.e., from above, while Technical Sections would have unlimited, voluntary membership with their own elected officials (as they do now). At that time, some of the Technical Committees were quite active and some, quite inactive. The regrouping and the autonomy of the sections, including strong management capability, was seen by about half the members as revitalizing the Society and satisfying the practical application deficiency while the other half of the membership saw the Technical Sections as strong divisive influences that could render the meetings, and indeed the Society, less agreeable and comfortable than it was. As there was essentially no obvious mandate for a change, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Executive Council to keep the Technical Committee structure and to strengthen the Committees.
Vision 1994. “If you were creating the ASA today, what would you do?” was the question posed by Paul Horvitz, the organi- zational consultant for the Development Committee of the Acoustical Society of America when asked about fund raising. He advised them that first, they must clearly articulate what their Society is all about—what it is and what it wants to do. In response to this challenge, Richard H. Lyon drew together a group of over thirty members who met for a two-day discus- sion on the subject of the reCreation of the Society. A larger group met later that year that included members of the Executive and Technical Councils along with chairs of the administrative committees to continue the discussion. In 1994, Richard H. Lyon and Charles E. Schmid wrote an extensive report (The reCreation Process: Rethinking the ASA) to the membership on a wide range of concerns and suggestions for their resolution. The report covered six areas—an Introduction, Professional Issues (six topics), Outreach/Education Issues (four topics), Finance and Development (six topics), Governance/Management (four topics), and ASA Societal Structure and Growth (two topics). To attempt to summarize the report here would not do it jus- tice. Suffice it to say, it discussed the strong points of the organ- ization (for example, “the strong volunteer foundation and col- legiality”) and some of the areas that needed strengthening (for example, “particular areas of acoustics that have entirely moved out of the ASA or are under a threat to go to other organizations for one reason or another”). The report concen- trated on many of the issues that had been of concern prior to the meetings and that the Society, unfortunately, continues to
16 Acoustics Today, July 2006