January 15, 2002

 

 Board approves President Brandt's beautification committee - January 15, 2002

Posted on January 1, 2002

 

The Executive Board unanimously approved a recommendation by President James H. Brandt to impanel a committee that will evaluate designs for the landscaping and beautification of the entrance and first floor of the AVMA headquarters building.

In his address to the AVMA House of Delegates last July, Dr. Brandt said it was important that the five-story building in Schaumburg, Ill., present a professional appearance. "We provide a nice building in a prestigious location, but right now, it's just a big square box," he said at the time. "Our location needs to make a statement about who we are."

Several AVMA leaders have suggested improving the main entrance to the headquarters building. In 1999 an architectural design was considered to remodel the approach to the building and lobby area in conjunction with the installation of a statue donated by an AVMA member. The board considered the project too expensive, and it was disapproved with no alternative plan.

Dr. Brandt wants efforts to get underway for examining ways to upgrade the building entrance and lobby area to provide an attractive and secure entry that will establish a favorable image of the AVMA to its many visitors, while also clearly identifying the owner of the building.

The recommendation approved by the board calls for the board to create a five-person Architectural Design Committee that will evaluate design plans and submit recommendations to the board. Its members consist of three board members and two AVMA staff, who will submit their recommendations to the board in time for the June 2002 meeting.

The committee is to conclude its work before the end of the year.

The board disapproved a recommendation by President Brandt to add a full-time attorney to AVMA staff. Dr. Brandt believed an in-house attorney would be a valuable asset to advise, consult, and assist staff on day-to-day matters with potential legal consequences. Board members, however, thought retaining legal services on an as needed basis more cost effective vis-à-vis a salaried staff attorney. Furthermore, situations may arise requiring specialized legal counsel. As a result, the board voted down the recommendation.