[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics

Minutes of Meeting

March 26-27, 1976

1. Introduction

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics met at the offices of the Institute, 335 East 45 Street, New York, N. Y., on Saturday, 27 March 1970. This meeting was preceded on the previous evening by a social hour and dinner, held at The Hotel Roosevelt in New York City. After dinner there was an informal discussion, led by Chairman P. M. Morse, on the theme that was on everyone’s mind — the need for consolidation of AIP's operations. Arrangements had been made for a tour on the afternoon of March 26 of the Lake Success building by interested members of the Governing Board and Society officers.

In preparation for the official meeting of the Board, which was not scheduled to start until the next morning, two documents were distributed to supplement the material sent to Governing Board members on March 16:

  1. A "Status Report on the Search for an AIP Building" dated 25 March 1976, prepared by H. W. Koch (copy attached as Exhibit A)

  2. A packet of memoranda and letters dealing with activities of the APS Building Committee (copy attached a. Exhibit B)

H. W. Koch and R. H. Marks discussed some of the highlights of Exhibit A dealing with the need for consolidation for efficient and economical AIP operations so as to overcome inflationary effects in the publishing of AIP and Society-owned journals and with added costs that will be incurred if AIP maintains an additional location in Manhattan for headquarters and certain member-related services such as History of Physics, Public Relations, Manpower, and Placement.

W. A. Fowler and J. A. Burton discussed highlights of Exhibit B stressing the importance of maintaining a joint ARS-AIP headquarters location in Manhattan, the need for more complete information before a major new building commitment can be justified, and urging extreme caution before embarking on an expansion requiring increases either in membership dues, subscription prices, or page charges.

These presentations and the questions and answers that followed were intended to guide the Board members in their reading later in the evening of the documents that were distributed that evening, as well as those in their possession which had been distributed prior to March 26.

In addition to the Governing Board members listed below who attended the meeting on Saturday, March 27, I. R. Piore was present at the Friday evening session.

Members Present: Philip M. Morse – Chairman, Reuben B. Alley, Jr., Herbert A. Anderson, Robert T. Beyer, John V. Bouyoucos, Edward L. Brady, Kenneth E. Davis, Frank K. Edmondson, Milan D. Fiske, James L. Flanagan, William A. Fowler, Peter Franken, F. N. Frenkiel, Martin Greenspan, W. W. Havens, Jr., Sherwood K. Haynes, J. R. Knox, H. William Koch, J. A. Krumhansl, J. Ross Macdonald, A. I. Mahan, Sidney Millman, Melba Phillips, Jarus W. Quinn, A. H. Rosenfeld, Boris P. Stoicheff, R. A. Young

Absent: L. W. Fredrick, J. E. Goldman, Janet B. Guernsey, John S. Laughlin, E. R. Piore

Nonvoting Participants: J. A. Burton (APS), James B. Gerhart (AAPT). Betty H. Goodfriend (ASA), H. M. Gurin (AAS), Jacque. Ovadia (AAPM), J. H. Singleton (AVS), Marian Whitehead (AAPT)

AIP Staff: H. William Koch, Director; Sidney Millman, Secretary; G. F. Gilbert, Treasurer; Lewis Slack, Associate Director for General Activities; Robert H. Marks, Associate Director for Publishing; Dorothy M. Lasky, Assistant to the Director; Mary M. Johnson, Assistant to the Secretary

Chairman Morse called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. and introduced the new Board members, Messrs. Franken and Knox, and the nonvoting participants.

2. Minutes

Upon motion made and passed without dissent, the minutes of the 4 October 1975 meeting of the Governing Board were approved as distributed.

3. Report of Chairman

Morse presented a brief review of AIP events since the previous meeting of the Governing Board. He noted that the staff has arranged for the acquisition of a larger computer. It has concluded a long series of discussions with the Soviets leading to the assignment of translating rights on our side and permission to reproduce our journals on their part. It has negotiated a new and more favorable contract with Plenum Publishing Corporation to translate some of the Soviet journals. Four new translation journals are to be started this year.

AIP now has a new Member Society as of April 1. A committee made a thorough study of the nature of our committees and the new machinery will begin to operate as of this meeting. There was a decision that the Secretary is now an ex officio member of the Governing Board and Executive Committee, as has been the Director. Both have a right to vote on the Board but not on the Executive Committee. The Constitution was also amended to provide that new Member and Associate Member Societies must have at least 800 (instead of 400) individual members at the time of admission, and to eliminate representation on the Governing Board by Associate Member Societies. (A copy of the Constitution as amended, effective 17 February 1976, is attached as Exhibit C.)

The "AIP Handbook for Society Officers," which Morse said he has found very useful, was prepared and copies have been sent to all Board members and Society officers. It is intended to be updated every year.

4. Report of Annual Corporation Meeting

Millman reported that a brief meeting of the AIP corporation, as required by New York State law, was held early on the morning of 27 March, just before this Governing Board meeting. He noted that the date of the corporation meeting sets the new governance year for the Board. The meeting this year was not typical because we did have an election of a new Member Society, the American Vacuum Society, which will be represented on the Governing Board after 1 April by J. H. Singleton and C. B. Duke. The meeting also heard brief reports from the Director and the Treasurer, as is customary at the annual meeting of the corporation.

5. Report of Board Property Committee

Beyer, the Chairman of this Committee, distributed copies of his letter dated 26 March (copy attached as Exhibit D) and made a few comments before introducing a motion. He said that the Committee has met four times. He noted that an APS committee was also formed with some partial overlap of members. He regarded the AIP Board Committee's job as one of extracting information. Its last meeting was held at AIP headquarters on March 12 jointly with the AIP Executive Committee, leading to the passing of the following motion by the Executive Committee:

MOVED that AIP inform the Governing Board representatives of the Member Societies that, in order to help finance the acquisition of an additional building on Long Island and maintaining of the present building on 45th Street in New York City, AIP is contemplating requesting a contribution from each Member Society of $2 to $3 per individual member per year for a maximum of 5 years. This proposal is being advanced in anticipation of decreased costs of publishing in the future by the centralization of production operations out of New York City while providing room for expansion of the Physics History Library, other general activities operations, and Member Society offices in New York City.

This was given by the Secretary in his 16 March notice to the Governing Board.

Beyer stated that he did not believe that the Societies will endorse a special tax at this time to support an expensive alternative when a more economical solution is available, whereupon he introduced the following motion:

MOVED that AIP proceed with the purchase of the Levitt Building at the offered price of 2.4 million dollars subject to the attractive first mortgage arrangements as described in the letter from Levitt and Sons to Koch dated 19 March (Attachment 2 to Exhibit A), with the understanding that the headquarters building on 45th Street be sold or rented in its entirety. (Note action at bottom of Page 8.)

The motion was seconded by Knox and the Chairman called for discussion of the motion.

Beyer opened the discussion by noting that it has been generally agreed that it is important to consolidate, and that a building in New York City would still leave AIP with a grave problem of the costs in Manhattan – the cost of labor, inability to have a second shift, and operating in different locations. His personal conviction is that the best course for AIP, on balance, is to move all its operations out of Manhattan. He thought there were three possible alternatives: (1) the one given in his motion, (2) have some fairy godperson give us a building or a million dollars, and (3) that the people who support most vigorously the maintaining of a presence in New York City leading to the split operation, support it financially.

Edmondson stated that he would agree that, if other things were equal, AIP should choose the most economical alternative, but noted that other things are not equal and that these other things do count.

Millman noted that, as an AIP Secretary and member of the Board, he also had some comments. He reminded the Board members that he serves the Institute in a dual capacity, as a Secretary reporting directly to the Board, and as a member of the management group reporting to the Director. He noted also that he came three years ago to the American Physical Society and started the Visiting Physicists Program which he has continued to run under the auspices of the APS Committee on Education. He has come to appreciate the central position that APS occupies in AIP operations. He also observed that the current AIP operations – publishing, subscription fulfillment, fiscal – are in top shape. He cited that, at the meeting of the Committee on Society Services held on 26 March, there was not a single complaint about any of the AIP services. He had therefore, recommended to the Management Committee, and repeated his recommendation, that AIP management should reject any proposal for a major consolidation of its operations that does not have the enthusiastic support of APS.

Koch replied that he has felt that the role of AIP management was to develop alternatives and that is what he has attempted to do. He thought that Board members should interpret Millman's remarks as having been made while wearing his APS hat. He noted that the "Status Report on the Search for an AIP Building" (Exhibit A) was typed only two days before the meeting and that it contained also the suggestion of looking at a building here in central New York City with similar price and financing conditions as the building at Lake Success. When one is dealing with anything major like the purchase of a building, we have to be able to answer as many questions as we can. The Management Committee should not make a specific proposal, endorse, or not endorse. He noted that in Exhibit A he has stated that where AIP is located is properly the decision of the Governing Board and the Societies they represent. The management goal will continue to be to provide services to the Member Societies serving the physics community.

At the request of Phillips for more comments from Burton, the latter read the following from page 2 of the "APS Building Committee Report” dated 22 March (copy included in Exhibit B): "We urge the AIP Governing Board not to take precipitous action on the sale of the present AIP headquarters building or the purchase of the Levitt Building at Lake Success. Instead, we suggest that APS join with AIP and the other Member Societies to formulate an appropriate plan for our future building needs."

Knox asked Burton whether, if the Governing Board should vote to purchase the Levitt Building including the sale or rental of the 45th Street building and if AIP maintained the member services somewhere in Manhattan, APS would support wholeheartedly that sort of arrangement. Burton replied that APS would not since, if we purchase the Levitt Building, it means that it is going to be a headquarters. There is a strong feeling on the part of the APS Building Committee that the physics community should not have two headquarters locations. APS would go along with the sentiments expressed in the first sentence of Koch's 25 March status report which reads, "The management of AIP believes that consolidation of AIP and Society activities at a single location should be the goal of an AIP building search." This would not rule out the continuation and extension of the Mataxas-type activities currently housed in SUNY, Stony Brook.

Greenspan said that we are acting unnecessarily fast. He had the feeling that not all of the alternatives have been explored. He did not see that we would lose much by waiting a couple of years.

Quinn thought that we should be looking for a building with 80,000 square feet with the unneeded space to be rented out, thus providing room for future expansion. The Levitt Building with its 57,000 square feet reduces the possibility for expansion. Koch replied that, when we got into the discussion about building alternatives, this question was raised. We thought the answer might be having two locations and renting out some space at both. It would cost more money and we felt the Governing Board would not tolerate it. But, if we want to spend the money, we could explore it further. Beyer observed that, if you have 80,000 square feet, you will fill 80,000 square feet. A preferred way of expanding from his point of view is to have multiple shifts.

Haynes thought that it was strange for us to embark on this without the strong recommendation of the APS Building Committee. He then asked whether the motion that Beyer introduced was recommended by the AIP Board Property Committee. Beyer replied that it was not a motion of the Board Property Committee.

In answer to Alley's question as to what APS would do if AIP should move to Lake Success, Burton replied by quoting from his memo of 26 March to Fowler entitled "Notes on APS Building Committee Report" (copy included in Exhibit B): "If the AIP Governing Board should decide to purchase the Levitt Building at Lake Success and to sell the present 45th Street building it would present the APS with a very difficult choice. In order to maintain a single physics headquarters, the APS would have to move to Lake Success also and abandon any possibility for a 'Center of Physics' kind of headquarters in a metropolitan location. This prospect has received no support from the APS Executive Committee or Building Committee members."

Franken noted that other Societies have their headquarters in places other than New York and asked why APS headquarters must be in Manhattan. Burton replied that it should be where it can interact as well as possible with the public, the press, and the physics community. The two strongest possibilities are Manhattan and Washington and the latter has been ruled out since it would cause a major disruption in AIP operations. Fowler added that AIP has at least two functions, publications, on which we try to make money, and the rendering of service to society and to our members. APS feels it is best for the Editor of Physics Today, Public Relations, Center for the History of Physics to be in Manhattan. If there is any chance for a large center for physics in the future, it should be in Manhattan. If it costs us more, APS is willing to pay to maintain a consolidated operation in New York.

Krumhansl noted that, as a member of the Advisory Committee on Physics Today, he believes that perhaps only 20% of the PI operation is involved with production. The rest involves use of the library facilities and people who come to the office on Society business. Koch stated that a survey of the staff conducted by management brought forth very frank comments. The PT staff said they would much prefer to be in New York City. The History and Public Relations staffs felt the same. The total number of people involved in these activities is about 45.

Frenkiel stated that he is sure most of our journal editors would prefer to have everything except the Metaxas operation in one building and in New York City. Because that operation is so successful, it would be risky to move it too far away from its present location.

In answer to a question by Bouyoucos as to the relative importance that AIP attaches to publishing and services for Member Societies, Koch noted that AIP started out completely based on the publishing aspects and, even today, 90% of its staff is in what we broadly call "publishing." The 10% in the member-related areas are completely dependent on the net income generated in the publishing and fiscal services. For a number of years we have argued that support from the Societies is not sufficient to make the member-related services stand on their own feet ($60,000 member dues versus $600,000 costs). He thought that in the future there are going to be more requests for AIP to become involved in member-related services.

Havens stated that, historically, the Institute was created to do those things which can be done better than the Societies could do them, themselves. He believes member-related activities are on the increase and we can never expect them to be self-supporting. The whole purpose of the Institute, and APS, is to improve physics. Publication is only one aspect, though it is the one that supplies the income. If that were its only function, the Institute should certainly go where it can have the most efficient operation. He believes we have to have a metropolitan location as a headquarters or we will not be able to carry out those other functions.

Koch replied that, if headquarters is defined as where the Governing Board and management meet, we could have a staff in Manhattan of the order of 60 persons. We could have 12,000 to 15,000 square feet, and it would be easy to have the most economical operation with production close enough that we can get to it.

Anderson thought that it would be unacceptable to the Member Societies to have the headquarters moved out of Manhattan, but moving certain activities out would be acceptable if it results in economies. He thought the location of a headquarters does prescribe a boundary condition which must be taken into consideration. Beyer noted that there is nothing in his motion that precludes that.

Stoicheff thought that he would find it difficult to vote either way. If the motion is approved, we might do irreparable damage. It would produce serious problems for APS and divide the physics community. He thought we should rather concentrate on the advice given by the hard-working Board Property Committee, who did a magnificent job, and try to come up with something constructive. Morse observed that the Board could vote the present motion down. That does not say we cannot vote later on trying to get the 2 April deadline of the Levitt offer extended and/or look at other solutions. Many things need consideration. He is not sure the Levitt Building is completely out of the picture yet. He then called for a secret ballot, and appointed Gilbert and Gurin tellers.

The MOTION (middle of page 5) was defeated by a vote of 22 to 4.

Morse remarked that it seems we need another hard-working committee to carry on. Knox suggested the setting up of a joint committee of AIP and APS to find a suitable location, with AIP members appointed by the Chairman and APS members also appointed by Morse but in consultation with the President of APS. Havens then introduced the following motion:

MOVED that the Chairman of the AIP Governing Board be authorized to appoint a committee in consultation with the President of APS to examine the long-range physical plant and facility requirements of the physics community and recommend to the AIP Governing Board and the APS Council a course of action for the future. (Note action at bottom of this page.)

Anderson remarked that he believed APS was trying to tell us that the right way for AIP to behave is to have the headquarters in Manhattan, and that the production activities should be done in the most economical way possible. They were not trying to single themselves out more than any other Member Society. He thought it would be out of order to put APS in a specialized position in regard to this. Morse stated that he interpreted this motion as putting APS on the spot. There is going to be the matter of expense and there has been mentioned the possibility that APS can help and, therefore, he thought there is some rationale for involving APS a little more than the other Societies. Phillips thought that APS does have more at stake in this because they would like to continue their headquarters with AIP and have a stronger conviction of the desirability to have such headquarters in Manhattan.

Edmondson stated that he interprets this as a committee that will report to the AIP Governing Board. Reporting also to APS helps in that it shortens the communicating time. Frenkiel wondered whether the motion should include a statement pertaining to the retention of the joint headquarters location for AIP and APS. Fowler stated that he did not like the inclusion of APS but it is a fact that it would shorten the time. APS will cooperate and recommend the best minds it has, and try to resolve the issues involved here. He personally will work to see in what ways APS can participate in the funding of any opportunities that arise. Frenkiel also felt that the justification for singling out APS was the desirability of maintaining a joint headquarters.

Franken expressed his uncomfortable feeling about forming another committee without some instructions from the Board. Havens thought that this should be in the charge to the committee but not in the motion. He added that both AIP and APS feel strongly that a combined headquarters is proper.

The MOTION (top of this page) was passed without dissent, but with one abstention, that by Beyer.

Fowler proposed that ideas of Board members and Society officers be submitted to the new committee in writing, with the approval of their respective organizations as far as possible. Macdonald felt that, in addition, they should be passed around among the Societies. Morse said that both of these proposals could be implemented by sending suggestions to the Secretary's Office where they will be duplicated and distributed appropriately. He said it would be useful to have these comments by the end of May.

Phillips commented that AAPT is the second largest Society. It is not as much involved with the journals. She would like to reiterate something said earlier, for the last six or eight months she has had no complaints and would hope AIP services continue to be as good and as cordial as they have been. AAPT does want to express its appreciation for all the things that are done. Where AIP is located does not matter so much to AAPT but it should not like disruption in any way of the services which make AIP such a good organization. Knox agreed that the Society of Rheology would like to see as many economies as possible but would not like to see disruption of services. Edmondson commented that the concern of the American Astronomical Society is primarily with services and it would not want to see anything that would rock the boat. Stoicheff made a similar comment for USA; the best service at the lowest price, and they seem to be getting that at the moment.

Quinn added that many of the services we have been talking about, such as Press Relations, Placement, and Manpower Statistics, are available now. He would like to see that those services are equally available to all Societies on the same footing at the same price. He would feel uneasy if he thought he was getting them through the subsidy of APS. He would like to have OSA treated as an equal with APS and that includes paying for these services on an equal basis.

Young commented that all the American Crystallographic Association is interested in is a permanent address and good services, but it is not concerned with the location. Beyer stated that the Acoustical Society would have also preferred to take the most economical course. The economic concerns are paramount. ASA members would like to be able to take advantage of low production costs that Metaxas provides. The ASA headquarters are in the same building as the AIP headquarters. The Society would certainly favor whatever economies can be had.

Morse concluded the discussion by stating that he would ask the new committee to have a preliminary report by the fall Board meeting and would like to see this Board reach a decision within a year.

6. Installation of New Computer Facilities

Morse stated it was now in order for the Governing Board to consider the approval of the installation of the new computer in the headquarters building. Koch observed that the staff does not have enough information on the expected cost to put the proposal in concrete terms at this time. Millman added that the cost of installing the computer on a temporary but safe basis is likely to be closer to $40,000 than to $200,000 which was previously contemplated if it were accompanied by various rearrangements in the headquarters building. The following motion was introduced by Havens and passed without dissent:

MOVED that the Executive Committee be authorized to expend the funds necessary to install the new computer in the headquarters building.

7. Report of Nominating Committee

Quinn, Chairman of the Nominating Committee, distributed copies of his report (copy attached as Exhibit B) and commented on the excellent responses the Committee had received to requests for suggestions for nominees from the Member Society Presidents and the AIP management. In reviewing the operating procedures, he called attention to the fact that, under the new committee structure, the standing committees all report to the Board, which is in contrast to the past when only the Executive Committee and Publication Board reported to the Governing Board. He also noted that the Nominating Committee felt it was desirable to have nominations for the various subcommittees rather than wait for the new relevant committee chairmen to do so since it would mean that it will not be done until the end of the year. After answering a few questions, Quinn introduced the following motion which was passed without dissent and with thanks to the Nominating Committee:

MOVED that the recommendations labeled A through G on Page 1 of the Report of the Nominating Committee be approved as operating procedures for future nominating committees.

Quinn suggested that the Governing Board next consider the approval of the nominations and he went over the roster. He noted that, because of the large number of nominees in this first year of the new committee structure, the Committee did not find it feasible to check in advance with the nominees to find out whether they are willing to serve. Accordingly, it is anticipated that there may be some refusals. It is intended that appropriate replacements will be found by the Chairman of the Board and the Director. It is expected that, because of the number of anticipated changes in the roster, a revised list of committee memberships will be distributed as an appendix to the minutes of a future Executive Committee meeting. The following motion was then made and passed:

MOVED that the roster of nominations submitted by the Nominating Committee be approved, and that the Chairman of the Board and the Director be authorized to make any necessary changes in the interim between meetings of the Governing Board.

8. Annual Report for 1975

Koch referred to the draft of the annual report which had been distributed to Board members prior to the meeting and stated that it is required by New York State law to present such a report to the complete membership. The report that the Board approves, incorporating comments and changes suggested at this meeting, will appear in Physics Today which goes to all members. A few suggestions for modifications were made by Frenkiel, Havens, Quinn, Young, and others, which were noted by Koch and will be incorporated in the final version of the report. Koch then introduced the following motion which was passed without dissent:

MOVED that the Annual Report for 1975 be adopted, with the modifications suggested by Board members, as the report of the Board to members, and that the staff be authorized to publish it in some form in Physics Today.

Copies of the Annual Report for 1975 will be sent to all Board members following publication.

9. Financial Matters

  1. Financial Report for 1975

    Gilbert distributed a highly abbreviated comparative summary statement of income and expense for calendar years 1975 and 1974 (copy attached as exhibit F). He called attention to the estimated net income of $456,000 for 1975 and emphasized that this unusually high net income is the result of the erratic performance of the Soviet translation journals over a two-year period. In 1974, AIP netted only $24 from the Soviet journals due to an unexpected increase in the frequency of issue and the number of pages published in two of these journals during the year. In addition, a significantly larger portion of administrative expense was prorated to the Soviet journals because of the heavy involvement of AIP management in copyright and contract negotiations with the Soviets. In 1975, there was a substantial increase in subscription prices and 1,500 fewer pages were published than in 1974. AIP also negotiated a very favorable production cost with Plenum Publishing Corporation, one of our suppliers. Gilbert pointed out that in 1976 we expect to realize only about $100,000 in net income from the Soviet journals because of the introduction of four new journals which generally are expected to operate at a loss until the subscriptions are built up. He noted that it is extremely difficult to budget for the Soviet journals because we have to publish all the pages they publish and do not know in advance, when subscription prices are set, what the total number of pages will be for the year. With our closer liaison, our guesstimates will be better.

    He remarked that AIP prepares a highly abbreviated statement which is historical in format. If we used gross figures, the total income for 1975 would be about $7,500,000. A combined statement, which would include activities for member organizations, would total about $14,500,000.

    Gilbert called attention to the suspension of the publication of the Chinese journal because it was not economically viable. He stated that a reserve will be established for the variances connected with Quoted Prices which will be settled with the Societies in May or June.

    Gilbert stated that a copy of the auditor's report for 1975 will be sent to Member Society Secretaries and Treasurers as soon as it is available.

    Franken suggested that it might be desirable in the future to have two additional columns for gross figures.

  2. Financial Handling Charge for 1977

    Gilbert stated that the AIP Bylaws require that the Societies pay a financial handling charge not to exceed 1% of the monetary value of business done on behalf of the Member Societies. This financial handling charge is fixed annually by the Governing Board, and was set at 5/8 of 1% for calendar year 1976. At its meeting on 26 March the Executive Committee recommended that it be set again at 5/8 of 1% for 1977. The following motion was made and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the financial handling charge for 1977 be set at five-eighths of one per cent (0.625%).

The meeting was adjourned for luncheon at 12:25 p.m. and reconvened at 1:25 p.m.

10. Reports by Various Committee Representatives

In preparation for the operation of the new committee structure, Koch felt it would be useful to give the Board a feeling of the operation of the AIP committees under the old system. Accordingly, he had the staff prepare an analysis of committee activities during the past year, copies of which he distributed (copy attached as Exhibit F) and also arranged to have representatives from four committees make brief oral presentations to the Board. With the change in procedure, there will have to be some changes which we have not quite thought through. We will undoubtedly have to revise our mechanism for keeping the Board informed.

Morse added that it is obvious that we cannot have more than a dozen oral reports at one Board meeting. Depending upon the degree of activity and timeliness, we can decide whether a committee report should be made as an oral presentation or be limited to the written form. Koch then introduced the first speaker, Francois Frenkiel, reporting for the Publication Board.

  1. Publication Board

    Frenkiel reported that the Publication Board met in March. It was pleased to hear that a new manual for copy editors has been prepared, and it decided that the AIP Style Manual should be revised. The length of terms for editors was discussed. There was some sentiment that three years might be too short and that a five-year term would be more satisfactory.

    The Publication Board discussed the desirability of having some applied physics review articles in Reviews of Modern Physics, in responding to a suggestion from APS that applied physics should receive increased attention. The question was raised as to how the editors can help in public relations. Frenkiel's feeling is that editors will help if AIP takes the initiative and asks specific questions of them.

    The relative emphasis of secondary publication versus primary publication was discussed. It was felt there is perhaps a little too much emphasis on secondary publication and some misunderstandings have resulted from it. In general, Frenkiel found the recent meeting of the Publication Board more active and more interesting than previous meetings. Publications are more and more on time, he said.

  2. Publishing Policy Committee

    Quinn next reported on some activities of the Publishing Policy Committee. Although this Committee had previously recommended that editors be appointed for three-year terms, he expected that the Committee will reconsider this in view of the reservations of some members of the Publication Board. Issues for the new Committee are:

    1. The proliferating requests that masthead of certain AIP journals indicate that the Journal is published in cooperation with some Member Society or division of APS
    2. The simultaneous publication of selected Soviet articles in the translated Uspekhi and in RMP
    3. A proposal from the Editor of APL to establish a series of review article supplements on applied physics in JAP
    4. The question of establishing AIP and Member Societies posture toward issues raised by the new copyright bill, if it is passed by Congress. In this connection, three Corporate Associates have asked for clarification of the "fair use" policy.

    Brady remarked that clarification is going to be decided by the courts and it will take many years.

    Flanagan suggested that the results of the study on computer-controlled photo typesetting might affect future plans for AIP space consolidation and may be of interest to the committee assigned to look for a building.

  3. Fiscal Policy Committee

    Burton reported that the Fiscal Policy Committee met on 22 May 1975. The topics discussed were 1975 Quoted Price variations, journal storage charges, dues and subscription fulfillment costs, and investment policies. The Committee adopted quoted prices for 1976. The Committee also had a session in conjunction with the Assembly of Society Officers on 2 October 1975 in Washington. It discussed new techniques for cash management, experiences with Quoted Prices, and budgeting and fiscal procedures used by Member Societies. A presentation on investment policies was given by a vice president of Bankers Trust Company. It is proposed that at the next meeting, which will probably be held in late May or early June, the Committee will discuss the format of the financial reports and the question of how accumulated income should be distributed to our reserves.

  4. Ad Hoc Committee on Review of Scientific Instruments

    Anderson reported on the results of the study of the Ad Hoc Committee on RSI. The written report is still in draft form. The problem investigated is that the number of manuscripts received and published has declined by about 30% over the last ten years. Subscriptions and advertising income have also declined. It was found that declines in manuscripts and subscriptions are general for most AIP journals. Citations in Chemical Abstracts were studied and out of 1,000 journals, RSI ranked 181st. The impact factor ratio of citations to number of papers showed RSI first with 2.6 citations per paper.

    The Review Committee feels that RSI is a good journal and fulfills an important role. It can only speculate as to why RSI has lost ground. Possible causes may be: some advertising income has been taken over by PT; page charge policies, increased subscription rates, and the proliferation of commercial journals. The Committee recommends a vote of confidence to the Editor and his editorial board. It feels that, by a more aggressive editorial policy, one could raise the level of utility and financial success of the journal. The Committee also recommends that there should be appointed an associate editor so that we have a way of making a smooth transition to a new editor, should that need arise. There could be more involvement on the part of the Editor and his board in improving the quality of the articles.

    The Committee also had some concern about the archival aspects, of RSI, namely that the articles are not well enough documented from the point of view of indexing and abstracts. In order to increase prestige and visibility, an attempt should be made to publish outstanding articles yearly. The Committee raised the question whether a citation study for other journals would also be desirable.

    Koch commented that the report will be reviewed by the Publishing Policy Committee. The useful parts of the study can serve as a model. He raised the question whether there should be a review of other AIP journals every five years in a way similar to the one just conducted for RSI.

11. Interaction with Member Society Committees

Koch reported that, as the result of an exchange of letters between him and Burton last year, we now have a number of AIP officers involved in APS committees. He expressed the wish that other Societies would follow the lead of APS in involving AIP staff members in their programs when it is relevant.

12. Anticipated Copyright Changes Affecting AIP

Marks reported that the House of Representatives is now considering a copyright bill passed by the Senate and the final form is still uncertain. In the meantime AIP has received three requests from Corporate Associates who get our journals at nonmember rates and pay page charges. They are very much interested in the effect of the new copyright regulations on their internal photocopying. We hope we can come up with a policy for the physics journals in the AIP family.

13. APS Bicentennial Volume

Koch displayed a copy of the bicentennial volume originally proposed by W. A. Fowler, entitled "Selected Papers of Great American Physicists." It is expected to be available for sale by the time of the Washington APS meeting in April. The price will be $3.50.

14. Insurance Coverage for Board and Committee Members

Gilbert reported that AIP has increased its Business Travel Accident Insurance covering Board and committee members traveling on Institute business from $50,000 to $100,000 maximum.

Morse reported that AIP is considering professional liability insurance coverage for Board and committee members because of the possibility of law suits against officers of nonprofit organizations and the need for adequate coverage. This insurance is now being made available. It covers publishers' liability insurance and protects the leadership of the organization against suits by disgruntled individual members adversely affected by some policy decision. We filed an application two weeks ago but have not received a response.

15. Future Meetings

  1. Executive Committee

    Morse announced that the next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held in Washington, at the time of the APS meeting, on Monday, 26 April, starting with breakfast at 7:30.a.m.

    The Executive Committee meeting after that will be on Tuesday, 29 June, at the offices of the Institute.

  2. Governing Board

    After some discussion, it was agreed that a first choice for dates of the next Governing Board meeting are 8 or 9 October. If, for some reason, a meeting cannot be scheduled for either of those dates, the second choice was 29 or 30 October.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.