[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, 1982

«« Previous Meeting October 16-17, 1981
Next Meeting »» October 29-30, 1982

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics met at the AIP Woodbury Offices in the evening of Friday, 26 March, and the morning of Saturday, 27 March, 1982. For clarity in presentation with reference to the printed agenda, events recorded here are not necessarily in the same chronological order in which they occurred.

Members Present: N. F. Ramsey – Chairman, K. M. Baird (OSA), R. P. Bauman (AAPT), P. B. Boyce (AAS), J. A. Burton (APS), R. B. Clark (AAPT), M. Dresselhaus (APS), J. P. Glusker (MAL), M. Goldhaber (APS), W. W. Havens (APS), W. H. Kelly (AAPT), H. W. Koch (ex officio), J. W. Layman (AAPT), D. Lazarus (APS) , R. P. Madden (OSA), T. E, Madey (AVS) , M. H. Mueller (ACA), J. W. Quinn (OSA), E. A. G. Shaw (ASA), M. Strasberg (ASA), J. L. Vossen (AVS), K. F. Wissbrun (SOR)

Absent: R. T. Beyer (ASA), R. E. Marshak (APS), Yih-Ho Pao (MAL), H. F. Weaver (AAS), A. E. Wright (AAPM)

Nonvoting Participants: R. M. Grant (AAPT), T. C. Ingoldsby (AAPT), D. L. Moché (AAPT) A. A. Strassenburg (AAPT), H. Voss (AAPT)

AIP Staff: H. W. Koch, Director; G. F. Gilbert, Treasurer; R. H. Marks, Associate Director for Publishing; L. Slack, Associate Director for Educational Services and Interim Secretary; B. Dolowich, Controller, for Items 10.c., d., and f.; L. T. Nerrill, Assistant to the Director; N. A. Davis, Assistant to the Secretary

1. Convene – Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Ramsey, following dinner.

  1. Introduction of New Members

    Ramsey welcomed the new members present: Baird (OSA), Dresselhaus (APS), Layman (AAPT), Madey (AVS), and Wissbrun (SOR).

  2. Resolution in Memory of John C. Johnson

    Ramsey noted the death of the AIP Secretary, Dr. John C. Johnson, on 20 February 1982. He distributed and read a resolution in Dr. Johnson's memory passed by the Executive Committee which was to be sent to his family.

    There was unanimous vote to approve this resolution:

    John C. Johnson gave of himself to physics in many ways, as researcher, teacher, administrator, society officer. His death leaves a void in the leadership of the physics community that AIP serves. Especially do we, his colleagues on the Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics, feel this loss. His ability and his willingness both to face difficult problems squarely and to deal with them with wisdom and statesmanship worked to the benefit of all. We remember and miss him for his never failing consideration for others and his quite but unflagging optimism that enriched those whose lives and work he touched.

2. Minutes of Governing Board Meeting of 16-17 October 1981

The minutes were presented by the Interim Secretary Slack for approval. Following minor typographical corrections noted by Boyce, the minutes were approved by voice vote.

3. Report of Chairman

Ramsey stated that most of the items which he would normally report on at this time appear elsewhere on the agenda and in the absence of objection would be dealt with then.

4. Report of the Annual Meeting of the Corporation

Slack reported that the meeting had been convened at 4:00 p.m. that afternoon. Since it had convened early (the originally scheduled time for the meeting being 4:45 p.m.) it was not adjourned until 4:47 p.m. in order that the two absent proxies might have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

5. Report of Nominating Committees and Elections

  1. Standing Nominating Committee

    Ramsey summarized the actions of the Nominating Committee. Boyce commented that he felt the Committee may have strayed far afield from their charge and questioned whether recommendations for revamping committees, proposing changes in committee structure, and raising and lowering number of committee members are appropriate actions for this Committee. Suntharalingam commented that the Constitution states only that the Nominating Committee is to prepare slates. Strasberg felt that there was nothing wrong with the Nominating Committee's making suggestions where they see problems.

    Ramsey suggested the Governing Board might ask the Executive Committee to develop recommendations and guidelines to the Nominating Committee at the September meeting of the Executive Committee for presentation at the fall meeting. He suggested combining these recommendations with other guidelines and noted that these and other matters may usefully be considered by the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws as well.

    Havens recalled that in 1975 a Committee on Committees was appointed to consider various aspects of AIP committees. Its report has been followed since, not without some difficulties. The current Nominating Committee had discussed various points and wished to bring to the attention of the Governing Board the way they thought the committees should be handled.

    Shaw, as Chairman of the Nominating Committee, distributed his written report and recommendations of the Committee which supplement Agenda Attachment B. The Committee met on 16 February at AIP Headquarters; he expressed appreciation to all members for their efforts. He noted certain changes in the slate which are incorporated in the copy attached to the official minutes: p.l: Committee on Society Services: add Quintin C. Johnson (ACA); p.2, Corporate Associates Committee: T. McIrvine should be Edward C. McIrvine; p.2, Corporate Associates: delete R. A. Sparks. He noted that the chairmen of the committees are named by the Chairman of the Board; the Nominating Committee only made recommendations. The Governing Board votes only on the committee members. He said that all of the nominees (with the exception of a very few Governing Board members), have been contacted and their willingness to serve has been ascertained. (A copy of the report is attached.)

    Lazarus noted that on the Committee on Publishing Policy, Stanley G. Brown, the new Chairman of the Publication Board, should be ex officio on this Committee rather than H. H. Barschall, the current chairman of the Publication Board. He felt, however, that Barschall was very valuable and should be retained on this Committee.

    Boyce noted that both the Nominating Committee and the Executive Committee thought that the Committee on Electronic Publishing should be a subcommittee of the Committee on Publishing Policy.

    The following motion was made by Lazarus, and seconded by Clark.

    MOVED that the Committee on Electronic Publishing be a subcommittee of the Committee on Publishing Policy.

    Ramsey said that in view of the concern over the possibility of overlapping responsibilities, the motion might better be held for a later discussion. Koch agreed that it would be better to discuss this the next day, when issues will have been raised which have direct bearing on it.

    The following motion was made by Lazarus, seconded by Kelly, and carried with one no vote:

    MOVED that the previous motion made by Lazarus be tabled until the next day.

    Glusker noted that in the Committee on Society Services, Steinfink is an ACA member, not an SOR member. Wissbrun offered to contact his Society on this matter.

    The following motion was made by Wissbrun, seconded by Bauman, and unanimously carried.

    MOVED that the Chairman make the appointment of the SOR member of the Committee on Society Services after the President of the Society has been consulted.

    The following motion was made by Shaw, seconded by Bauman, and unanimously carried.

    MOVED that the Chairman make the appointment for the additional member of the Committee on Publishing Policy.

    Shaw noted that it was the recommendation of the Nominating Committee that the "judging committees" be subcommittees of the: Committee on Public Education and Information and the members be appointed by that Committee.

    The following motion was made by Bauman, seconded by Boyce, and carried unanimously.

    MOVED that the Governing Board accept the recommendation of the Nominating Committee that the "judging committees" be treated as subcommittees of the Committee on Public Education and Information and, in future, be appointed by that Committee.

    Boyce expressed strong reservations about changing the Executive Committee as drastically as proposed. He felt that in the first year of service on the Governing Board, one has no knowledge of the issues to bring to the Executive Committee. He noted that he will not serve a third year, but is stating this in general principles.

    Shaw summarized the discussion of this matter within the Nominating Committee as contained in his supplemental report, and read the paragraph dealing with Executive Committee nominations and balance of representation. He noted that the Nominating Committee would understand that the Governing Board might want to make changes.

    Boyce reiterated that he was sympathetic to the problems of the Nominating Committee but felt that continuity is more valuable for keeping AIP together and more important than the immediate concerns of time sharing. Strassenburg, however, felt that the Executive Committee as proposed would be capable of conducting the affairs of AIP adequately.

    Havens noted that he recognized the principles put forward by Boyce, but felt the Committee did the best job possible.

    Burton noted that it was the consensus of the Executive Committee in the 25 March meeting that members of the Committee during the preceding year be urged by the Chairman to attend the next meeting in order to benefit from their familiarity with prior discussions on the new computer.

    Ramsey said that this is being done. He noted both sides of the question and said this might be a matter for the Executive Committee itself to consider and would eventually be made easier if the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws came up with a slightly larger Executive Committee.

    Shaw noted that the Nominating Committee proposed three, not four, members on the Audit Committee, with the terms staggered to allow for continuity. He also noted that there was a strong feeling that the Member-at-Large of the Governing Board should be chosen to give representation from industry; Schmitt was selected for this reason.

    The following motion was made by Shaw, seconded by Havens and Kelly, and passed by a show of hands, with one abstension (Boyce).

    MOVED that the Governing Board approve the recommendations of the Nominating Committee, with the changes noted above, omitting the Committee on Electronic Publishing and the "Judging Committees."

  2. Special Nominating Committee

    Ramsey stated that originally the matter of nominations for a replacement for Dr. Johnson as AIP Secretary was referred to the Nominating Committee. Shaw, after conferring with the other members of this Committee, replied stating their reasons for feeling they should not make a nomination for this position and giving some useful thoughts on the matter. A Special Nominating Committee was appointed by Ramsey, consisting of Boyce, Burton, Koch, and Strassenburg, with himself as Chairman. This Committee met at AIP Headquarters on 18 March.

    Ramsey reported that the Committee brought up several names and unanimously agreed to nominate Roderick M. Grant (AAPT) for this position. Grant left the room during the discussion. The Committee felt it important that the Secretary should have his primary affiliation with a Society other than APS. Grant has expressed his willingness to serve. This nomination was discussed at the Executive Committee; that body concurred. No other names were proposed.

    Ramsey made what was considered to be a motion to name Grant Secretary. It was seconded by Burton and unanimously approved by a show of hands. The term will start 1 June.

    Ramsey also reported that the Executive Committee recommended that this appointment be an annual one, with special consideration to be given after five years before election then. He also noted that although the Constitution states that officers serving without compensation shall be elected annually, this has not always been done in the past. Koch commented that in APS, the President, Secretary, and Treasurer are elected annually. Before leaving the room, Ramsey said that it would be more in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution if an election is carried out every year.

    The following motion was made by Burton, seconded by Havens, and carried unanimously.

    MOVED that Norman F. Ramsey be elected Chairman of the Governing Board for 1982-83.

6. Report of U. S. Steel Foundation – AIP Science Writing Award Committee

Slack reported that last year's Committee met and selected Marsha Bartusiak as the recipient of this award for her article "The Ultimate Timepiece" in the May 1981 issue of Discover, the Newsmagazine of Science. Copies of this periodical are available at AIP. The award will be made during the April meeting of APS.

7. Reports of Publication Board and Advisory Committees

  1. Publication Board

    Marks reported that the Pub Board met on 22-23 March. The new Chairman of the Board is Stanley G. Brown (editor of Physical Review D and Physical Review Letters) who took office following the meeting. At the meeting they welcomed the two new editors of The Physics of Fluids: Ribe and Acrivos, who replace Frenkiel who has retired as editor. Ramsey had come to the meeting in order to present certificates of appreciation to Frenkiel, the founding editor, and to his assistant Betty Grisamore, for their 24 years of service.

    Koch reported on the ad hoc Committee which had been appointed to consider the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS). This Committee recommended forming two committees: 1) a PACS Advisory Board which would be named after Koch communicates with Society presidents to ascertain their choice for representatives on the Board and who would assist the member of the AIP staff responsible for continuously updating the scheme, and 2) an oversight committee which would annually examine the recommendations of the PACS Board and the staff and give endorsement for a new edition of the scheme that may be proposed. Koch thanked this Committee, particularly Brown, the Chairman.

    Koch mentioned that the Board had recommended that when editors and staff reach age 70, consideration should be given to their replacements. Willard Stout, the editor of Journal of Chemical Physics, has just turned 70. Koch, in consultation with others, has named a Search Committee, with William Klemperer as Chairman, to find a replacement. Other members are William Carl Lineberger, Frank H. Sillinger, Robert G. Parr, and Richard N. Zare. He noted that Stout will be difficult to replace.

  2. Committee on Publishing Policy

    Marks said the minutes of their recent meeting have not been approved as yet, so they were not distributed. It was recommended at this meeting that AIP publish microfiche editions of the six AIP archival journals. The Executive Committee approved this recommendation and issuance will start in 1983. The results of the upgrade of ATEX from Release 2 to Release 3 are being considered. 10 of the 12 keyboards are now operating on Release 3, with completion expected by the next meeting. The next thing to be considered is whether to add the CPU for that system, in order to provide even greater flexibility and backup.

  3. Advisory Committee on Corporate Associates

    Merrill distributed the report of the 15 March meeting of this Committee. The meeting was chaired by Clogston, the new Chairman. The Committee suggested that promotion material do more to bring out advantages of Corporate Associate membership. Possible services that AIP could provide as part of the Corporate Associates program were discussed, including continuing education courses on video tape and royalty-free license for copying.

    Arrangements for the 1982 meeting were discussed; the Sandia Laboratories were recommended as the site. There was discussion in the Committee which led to approval of eliminating the policy of complimentary journal subscriptions presently offered to corporate members. This action was taken as an alternative to increasing dues even though the present dues structure has been in effect since 1962.

    The Committee recommended that a Governing Board member be a liaison member of this Committee and that the Governing Board make the selection.

    The following motions were made by Clark, seconded by Bauman, and carried unanimously.

    MOVED that there be a liaison member from the Governing Board on the Advisory Committee on Corporate Associates.

    MOVED that this term be for one year.

    MOVED that Kelly be the liaison member from the Governing Board on this Committee.

    Bauman noted that the question of royalty-free license had come up before and asked what a total figure might be. Koch said the copyright fees are $1.00-$1.50 per article; a number of years ago an estimate was made for Bell Labs, and the figure was $10,000. Ramsey noted that when it has been proposed previously, the Corporate Associates didn't think their savings would be worth the effort. Burton suggested raising it with them again.

  4. Committee on Public Education and Information

    Slack noted that Bauman reported on this Committee orally at the October 1981 Governing Board meeting. The written report by Chairman Wheeler is included in Agenda Attachment C. d.

    Glusker asked about the children's science writing award referred to in the report. Slack said that it had not been pursued, but he thought it should be. Bauman noted that the discussion had been on awards for a younger age group, but teenage awards might be easier to establish. Slack said that in any event it would not be easy to pursue this with U. S. Steel as a third award.

  5. Committee on the History of Physics

    Slack referred to the written report of the January meeting of this Committee (Attachment C.e.). He noted that the development of the solid state physics history project is well underway both here and abroad. Solicitations have brought endowments for the Center to over $1/4 million.

8. Summary of Assembly Discussions in Areas of Direct Relevance to AIP

Ramsey briefly reviewed the presentations of the Assembly program and commented on their relation to continuing concerns of AIP.

(The meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m. and resumed at the AIP Woodbury facility on 27 March at 8:30 a.m.)

9. Policy for Development of Information Services

  1. Introduction (includes Items 9b. and 9c.)

    Koch introduced this topic with a handout which showed examples of issues proposed for Governing Board consideration during March-October 1982, as follows:

    1. Marketing of foreign journal literature.
      1. Institute of Physics journal literature. This comes to a substantial amount: $2.2 million gross, with AIP getting a commission of about 17%. The IOP is pleased with this service and want to retain this arrangement. It needs to be reexamined periodically.
      2. North Holland. They propose that we market Physics Letters A & B and Physics Letters to Society members at a preferential rate of $75.00 per year. Noting that North Holland is a for-profit company, Lazarus wondered if this would destroy our 50l(c)(3) status. Koch thought it would not; however, the long-term implications of the issue need to be carefully considered. There are pros and cons; Koch thinks it would be wrong to do this, but there are other opinions. In any event, the Board will receive staff recommendations so that they can act.
      3. Chinese physics journals in English. There appears to be a trend toward production in China of journals in English. An important question is whether AIP should, after the NSF grant ends, get involved in the marketing of these journals in the U.S.
      4. Soviet journals. The Soviets apparently value our service and prefer not to translate their own journals. This is a substantial income for AIP.
      5. Conference Proceedings of the Israel Physical Society. This is a possibility.

      His purpose in mentioning these items is so that the Governing Board can be aware of them and consider whether it wants to move more in this direction.

    2. Marketing of abstracts and titles journals. We think of these as secondary services along with others such as directories, journal indexes, and the graduate programs book. The trend is for more of these to go to on-line services; we will want to be prepared to experiment.

      1. Proposal from the ISI to design Current Concepts in Physics. The fact that the physics literature is more concentrated than that of the other sciences makes such an effort easier. We have considered this, but whether we should contract with the ISI is something to be examined very closely.
      2. Proposal for printing sections of Physics Briefs in the U.S. We think it would be desirable. Should we provide tape service? Should we provide royalty-free permission to the Societies to make copies of relevant pages once a month? Bauman asked about the status of Physics Briefs and Physics Abstracts. Koch said there are now no discussions, as Physics Abstracts doesn't want to consider the same kind of arrangement as we have with Physics Briefs. He thinks there is a drift toward making one publication, and it is probably inevitable. It would take a $2 million investment, but we shouldn't make this investment here.

    3. Publication Agreements
      1. Sale of abstracts tape to FIZ for Physics Briefs.
      2. Sale of DOE abstracts tape.
      3. Proposed licensing of AIP software for abstracts tape to North Holland. Marks noted this could be very fruitful but requires a very close look.
      4. Proposed publication of Physics Briefs by AIP. Physics Briefs is interested in this. Koch noted Marks’ letter concerning this in Agenda Attachment E.b.
      5. Proposed cooperation with Research Libraries Group on Optical Discs. This group is located at Stanford; it is the largest (26) group of universities sharing card cataloging literature. They would like to put our publications on optical disc and make them available as single articles; investment on our part would not be required. It is up to the Societies to decide whether they want to negotiate with RLG individually or want AIP to do this on behalf of the Societies.
      6. Copyright law. There are a number of lawsuits in this area now; there will be more and more concern with compliance with the law by users of videotapes, copying machines, and recorders. Eastman Kodak and New England Bell are concerned with issuing instructions for compliance to go with machines they sell.

    Koch then referred to page 2 of the above-mentioned handout, "Proposed Principles to be Used in Development of AIP Information Services." Points were made as follows:

    1. Identify those services which are of advantage to us and those which are not, with special attention to guarding against losing control of the database.
    2. Focus on core literature and core sciences.
    3. Maintain control of the production, pricing, and economic distribution.

    Koch sees the need for the development of a five-year plan to provide a mechanism for examination and to develop principles which should be followed, allowing for continual update.

    He then showed a series of slides as background for discussion of handling secondary services.

    Then followed a lively general discussion on the terms of reference of the structure of the proposed committee and of its relation to the Committee on Publishing Policy. Much of the discussion dealt with the latter item, taking note of the expectation that although the proposed group would concern itself with detailed publishing matters, including both present and future technology and practice (so would naturally be formed as a subcommittee to the Committee on Publishing Policy), its purview would be larger than the title implies and would of necessity cover a much broader scope than publishing policy alone, so would be conceived as a separate committee reporting directly to the Board.

    Ramsey observed that there was clearly a need to resolve the terms of reference and the status of the proposed committee; both expertise and policy experience are called for.

    The following motion was made by Bauman, seconded by Vossen, and carried unanimously.

    MOVED that the matter of the Committee (subcommittee) on Electronic Publishing and five-year plan (for publishing services) be referred to the Committee on Publishing Policy.

  1. Microfiche Editions

    Marks reported that the Publishing Policy Committee had recommended and then the Executive Committee had approved the offering of subscriptions to the six AIP archival journals on microfiche at the same cost as the hard copy. This has been resisted in the past because many physicists don't want to read in fiche because of the quality, yet libraries are greatly interested. Wissbrun said that the Chemical Society has journals in fiche and stated that its experience agreed that librarians love fiche, but readers don't. Marks said that tests had been made of fiche when the copy was produced by typewriter and the quality was poor. With photocomposition, the quality will be better. The financial risk in doing this is very slight. APS has decided to start offering this at the same time as hard copy. Boyce said that the AAS has been offering fiche for many years and has been successful; they will ask AIP to market it for them.

    Dresselhaus noted that the foreign community is interested in the journals but wants to assure fast distribution, and wondered if fiche will be offered in fast form. Marks said we can do this but it remains a mystery why, if people want it fast they won't pay for airmail. Koch said he had had a conversation with the librarian at MIT who told him that their library doesn't allow the subscription copies to go to users; rather, they supply copies from fiche as they are needed. Accordingly, they are interested in the AIP plan.

    Lazarus said that if there were an appreciable falloff in subscriptions, this could be self-destructive. Burton noted that APS is proceeding with this on a yearly basis; Marks agreed that it could be turned off easily if desired.

    Marks said that the Publishing Policy Committee also felt that since it will be a while before the optical discs can compete in price and quality it was useful to go ahead with offering fiche.

  2. Statistics on Payments from Copyright Clearance Center

    Koch noted the recent data from the CCC in Attachment E.e. He noted that they are now collecting $1/2 million per year. The magnitude should be greater; it needs to be continually watched. He sees no alternative to this kind of system, but AIP should make sure that various aspects of the membership don't receive an undue financial burden. AIP has a unique situation in that we don't want members to be burdened by using the CCC, but we do want institutions to pay for use for sale. It is important that such problems be studied by the appropriate committee.

    Shaw asked if there was any estimate of the fraction this copying reported to the CCC represents of the total amount of copying. Koch said that it is low by a factor of 5. He doesn't see how we can develop a philosophy without first seeing how well the CCC works.

    Dresselhaus stated that when she was on the IEEE Board, their rationale was to protect the journals from being copied. She said that their statistics show that journal subscriptions do not seem to have fallen off appreciably because of photocopying and asked what our plans and criteria are for evaluating the effectiveness of the CCC activity.

    Koch said that in fact AIP's subscriptions are going down. European countries are greatly concerned about photocopying and with the plans for the optical disc system.

    Ramsey emphasized the difference in approach between APS and AIP: whereas APS was not charging, AIP and other Societies were. The APS Executive Committee had felt there is the need for continuing consideration of the matter.

    In response to a question by Lazarus, Gilbert said the only staff expense in our association with CCC is Koch's attendance at meetings; it is not a major expense. Koch participates because he thinks it necessary to be involved in decisions on protecting copyright material. Layman agreed that we would have to be involved in any case.

    Boyce added that if only to maintain a hold on the market, the point should be made through the CCC that we do own the material.

    Shaw said he supports this philosophy because the exercise of property is an important point in the law. The problem with doing nothing about ownership could be that after a long period of time one might find that ownership has eroded.

    Koch said that the mechanisms alternative to CCC have become so onerous; Bell Labs and Exxon are encountering problems in dealing with bilateral contracting and reporting. Koch added that it was mainly industry who pay copying fees. Very little comes from universities because of exceptions for fair use and interlibrary loans.

  3. Tabled Motion on Copyright Fees and Recommendations

    Lazarus distributed a handout, his letter of 27 January 1982 to Marks. He stated that his thesis was that AIP should not work through the CCC. The whole copyright law is aimed at the question of protecting the equity of publishers. He thinks AIP has no property rights at all in primary literature. Page charges cover 50% and the balance of payment is subscriptions, so the Institute is fully compensated. He sees the Institute as the agent for the promulgation of the results of research, and he sees the author as the de facto copyright owner. The notice inside the covers of AIP journals is vague. He sees the issue as whether we are right in letting the CCC collect money. He felt we should decide whether we are promulgating research or we are protecting commercial publishers.

    When Lazarus proposed that rather than act on his tabled motion (held over from the October 1981 Governing Board meeting), the matter be referred back to the Publishing Policy Committee, Ramsey noted that the tabled motion had been brought up as required, and some action was required before a substitute motion could be voted on.

    The following alternate motion was thus made by Lazarus, seconded by Koch, and unanimously carried.

    MOVED that a new motion be substituted for the tabled motion.

    The Governing Board then discussed the proposed substituted motion, which would refer the matter back to the Publishing Policy Committee. Goldhaber asked if this would be reported back from the Publishing Policy Committee, as a recommendation was needed. Ramsey said that it would be reported to the Executive Committee and to the Board

    In response to Lazarus' request for opinions from other Societies:

    1. Layman said that AAPT had voted not to have charges on their publications, made on the basis of their desire to minimize inconvenience to the individual users.
    2. Madey said that although the AVS does not want to inhibit the copy of individual articles by individual researchers, they recognize a need to keep their foot in the door for future needs.
    3. Mueller said that the ACA wants to disseminate its literature as easily as possible; he noted further, however, that it has no AIP journals.
    4. Shaw said that the ASA has the same interests as the other societies; it is interested in maximum dissemination of scientific information. He doesn't know of any detailed position by the ASA Council, but he finds personally disturbing the fact that the expressions are personal and are not qualified legal opinions.
    5. Dresselhaus, speaking as a user affected by the issue, said that at MIT, the library has instructed the professors that copying of journals for a large class is illegal. The professor can make a copy, give the reference; students can then copy it individually. She would like to see a definition of fair use promulgated.
    6. Quinn said he thinks Lazarus misrepresents the use of the law because he thinks there is a uniform desire to exempt scientists from copying fees. Copyright transfer is a separate issue. Without CCC you would have a dreadful situation, with no way for publishers to give permission to copy in any uniform way. Not having some mechanism for copying articles and collecting fees for doing so–even if one doesn't actually collect–would lead to total disarray. The copyright bill mandates that the publishers get together and decide this all in one mechanism. The other issue is not with the CCC; it is whether we want to give our literature away or not.
    7. Strasberg agreed that there seem to be two issues: 1) individual copying, and 2) bulk copying for sale. He said Lazarus is apparently only concerned with limited copying.

    Ramsey noted that one year ago when the Publishing Policy Committee recommended that the copying fee be dropped to zero, the Executive Committee did not approve the recommendation.

    Grant said that the Publishing Policy Committee is now considering a statement on copyright and has asked Member Societies to consider if this statement is satisfactory to them.

    The following substitute motion was made by Lazarus at the beginning of the extensive discussion, seconded by Koch, and passed unanimously.

    MOVED that the matter of the use of Copyright Clearance Center fees be referred back to the Committee on Publishing Policy.

10. Status of Proposals for AIP Computer System

  1. Analysis of Subscription Fulfillment Expense for Calendar Year 1980

    Gilbert referred to Attachment F.a. and noted the distribution: 54% of the expense was borne by Member Societies, 47% by AIP and 3% by the Institute of Physics.

  2. Notice from AAPT on Member Dues Billing and Subscription Fulfillment

    Koch said that it is to be noted for the record that AAPT plans to take responsibility for its member subscription fulfillment, and that discussions were being planned with AAPT to consider the implications of this move.

    Lazarus noted that AIP has furnished many services from which the Societies have benefited, which are not directly paid for except through the $1.00 member charge. He thought there was a need to restructure finances so that the Societies pay for all the services they use on an actuarily sound basis. This development adds to the impetus for restructuring the finances of AIP and the need to consider the method of calculating charges for services. Ramsey said that the most obvious of the problems the change gives rise to was how the subscriptions to Physics Today would be handled.

    Koch noted that the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws will look at the issue of the minimum obligation of a Member Society.

    Havens noted that before computerization, all Societies maintained their own membership files, but then it became more economical to do it collectively for all the Societies. Gilbert clarified that AIP had done fulfillment originally for AAPT, then for a brief period Buchta handled it. When he died, AIP took it over again.

  3. Up-date on Status of Accounting

    Dolowich reported that the Accounting System Improvement Plan is proceeding according to schedule. Pubs and Reprints and Advertising have been computerized and the detail records concerning these are up to date. Collection efforts are proceeding efficiently. In Fixed Assets, the problem concerning detail records has been solved.

    In the Personnel area, these procedures have been computerized. The Institute is now using an ADP package to do this function. Accounts Payable has changed their payment schedule from twice a week to once a week.

    Accounting will be working with Touche Ross starting 29 March to complete the audit. In the next three months they will be working on preparation of quarterly statements and on monthly departmental statements.

    Ramsey commented that the lack of questions concerning this area is a compliment, and the applause confirmed this.

  4. Status of Request for Proposals and Responses

and

  1. Up-date on Status of Proposed New Computer

    Dolowich said he would like to discuss these two items together. The RFP was prepared by the AIP staff group in November 1981 and sent originally to seven vendors and later sent additionally to seven more vendors. The deadline was extended from 1 January to 1 February due to the need for interaction with the staff.

    Only three viable quotes were received from fixed price vendors of software with experience in subscription fulfillment. These were Aztech (District of Columbia), which would use Data General hardware; Digital Systems Iiouse (Illinois) which would use Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC) hardware; and Donald Grenier (New York) which would also use DEC equipment. The staff reviewed the return information to see how it conformed to the request; Dolowich, Auliano, and Crone went to the vendors for further consultations. The hardware involved is essentially identical; both offer 32-byte machines, each of the CPU's having 2 megabytes of main memory, 1 tape drive, 2 letter-quality printers, 2 high-speed printers, and 15 terminals.

    The more difficult part of the picture is the software analysis. The staff looked at what the vendors had done in the past with subscription fulfillment and got work plans from all three. One important factor was how much interaction they would have with the AIP group. Staff is satisfied that all three vendors can do the job, but they are still evaluating other criteria in the proposal.

    A summary of the present status was sent on 19 March to the Computer Needs Committee and it is hoped to complete the recommendations to the Committee by 10 April as to which of the vendors is most appropriate.

    Bauman asked what kinds of moneys are being talked about. Dolowich answered that the Executive Committee had authorized the spending of not more than $700,000. Ramsey mentioned that the staff recommendation goes first to the ad hoc Committee on Computer Needs, and then to the Executive Committee. Dolowich said all the plans discussed included software.

    Lazarus expressed concern over the low number of returns and wondered if the RFP was sufficiently detailed and explicit. Dolowich said that not many companies wanted to quote with a fixed price proposal, which was one of the constraints the staff was given. Others wanted to do a paid study before proceeding, which staff was instructed not to authorize. He said, however, in response to Havens' question, that it was not unusual to request a fixed price proposal. Another factor is that ours is a custom job since our subscription fulfillment is different than most outfits.

    Kelly said that some companies may come in with a higher price due to these constraints. Havens asked what was the approximate magnitude of the cost of a study. Dolowich said that for this Digital had wanted $41,000, but after several days' study at AIP, they wanted $100,000.

    Software maintenance costs will be nominal: under $15,000 per year. The hardware cost is close for all three: between $375,000 and $410,000.

  1. Involvement of the Computer Needs Committee

    On Ramsey's request, Quinn outlined what he saw as the terms of the Committee appointment. The first available date on which they can next meet is 30 April. He referred to point 9 of the Committee's report of 7 October 1981, which suggested that the Governing Board might want to give consideration to AIP's contract with the Member Societies in cases where there is substantial investment involved. This has not been done, and he is nervous about a major purchase with such loose contracts between AIP and the Member Societies.

    Burton expressed concern that the whole recommendation would be essentially frozen before the Committee gets a chance to look at it. He asked if the Committee will have a chance to see the proposals and responses before a decision is made. He thinks the involvement of the Committee to date has not been great.

    Quinn said these matters are covered in his letter of 3 March 1982 (in Attachment F.e.). His Committee are not computer experts or subscription fulfillment experts.

    Ramsey asked if they are getting the information in time to evaluate it. Quinn said they have not yet gotten all they need. He noted that AIP wants a new computer and software, and that he realizes that Management is aware of the need to do this expeditiously. The purpose of the Committee is to protect the Governing Board from a bad purchase. The Committee doesn't have to approve or disapprove of the issue in a one-day meeting. He thinks it is quite conceivable that a member of the Committee might want to talk with a vendor himself. It takes time to grind through the volume of material which will be distributed, and he sees no reason to rush.

    Dolowich pointed out that there has been a need for a considerable number of conversations with the vendors. Without this, they couldn't have good information and reporting. Only by now has the information become reasonably complete. The report will be made available in great detail to the Committee well before meeting. Ramsey reiterated the need for as much information as soon as possible.

    In response to a question by Kelly, Dolowich said he thought the bids are good for 90 days. Marks added if they want the business, they will hold the price; the main concern is to get a good analysis of the bids. Koch thought we should explore the possibility of an extension even now.

    Boyce said he is worried about the small number of responses. He wondered why Selip Management isn't involved. He thought there are a number of items the Governing Board should be concerned about.

    Ingoldsby said that Selip had indicated to him that they did submit a fixed price bid. They think they could do it for less but they wanted to do a paid study. Dolowich said the fixed price proposal was the route decided on, and he thought, without having their letter in front of him, that their proposal did not conform to the request. Ramsey suggested that he look at the letter to confirm this.

    Bauman suggested that at this time it might be appropriate for the Governing Board to re-express a feeling of confidence in the Committee in this matter and made the following motion, which was seconded by Burton, and carried.

    MOVED that the Governing Board re-express its feeling of confidence in the judgment of the ad hoc Committee on Computer Needs.

    Quinn said he will write to the presidents of all the Member Societies before 30 April to ask what their intentions are with respect to the computer system.

    Dresselhaus said, in relation to the fixed price proposal aspect, that she thinks a small amount for a study is not unreasonable.

    Quinn wondered about the implications to other Societies if one withdrew before the computer is fully depreciated. Havens said he did not see how APS could give a guarantee with greater lead time than their present contract. He asked what difference this would make to AIP.

    Marks answered that because of the magnitude of AIP's present program (19 Soviet journals, Institute of Physics journals and Physics Today), the risk is minimal. As a publisher, AIP needs the kind of rapid access to subscription data the new system provides. The software isbasic and is, in any case, needed for AIP. As usual, with more participants, you spread the workload and lower the unit cost; but anything is cheaper than the monster (UNIVAC) now in use.

    Havens said the Societies should know this.

    Marks said further that regarding the fixed price proposal consideration, AIP's fulfillment system isunique. All these companies need to be educated about AIP as a big part of their time spent in the proposal study. Fulfillment systems are generally bad; there is no good one in the industry now. Our new system would be a state of the art system, as we are a pioneer inthis area. Even AAPT's small system is a forward step. He noted that IEEE is not happy with their system, although itis better than our present one. None of the system features are that new, but the AIP project would be the first one with all these features combined into one system.

11. Annual Report for 1981 and Authorization to Publish in Physics Today

Koch noted the draft of the annual report in Attachment G and asked if there were any substantive comments. There were none.

The following motion was made by Lazarus, seconded by Kelly, and unanimously carried.

MOVED that the Governing Board approve the Annual Report of the Director and authorize itspublication inPhysics Today.

12. AIP Constitution, Bylaws, and Memorandum of Agreement

References to changes to be considered by the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws were made throughout the meeting.

  1. Request from American Geophysical Union

    Slack reported that a request had been received from the AGU inquiring about our interest and expressing interest in becoming a member (they are now an affiliated society). The Executive Committee in its 25 February meeting authorized Ramsey to send a letter expressing our interest and Slack, as Interim Secretary, to request more information about their publications, tax status, etc. No response has been received as yet. The AGU has a membership of about 16,000; their Society is about 75 years old. It acts as the National Committee of the U.S. of the International Union for Geodesy and Geophysics. Its chief publication is the Journal of Geophysical Research.

    Shaw asked the implication of the percentage of membership who are physicists. Slack said that this was a factor in our lack of interest in another society's request for membership. The current guidelines specify that there should be 25% overlap with the existing Member Societies. He noted that if the present guidelines for admission were followed strictly, only three of the present Member Societies would satisfy this criterion.

    Clark asked what the timetable would be. Ramsey replied that theirs is the next move, so no action can be taken yet. Slack said that he understood it would be their intent to have us supply membership services.

    Shaw noted that this would be quite significant for Physics Today. Slack said we would lose money in PT, but Ramsey thought that this group would help bring in more advertising revenue.

  2. Letter to Society Presidents re Voluntary Contribution

    Koch gave a status report of the responses to his letter sent to the Society Presidents. He read the letter received from APS, which contained a check for $31,660 as a voluntary contribution.

    A letter had been received from Gent, the president of SOR, which stated that they did not choose to make a voluntary contribution at this time. The AAS acknowledged receipt of his letter and noted that their Council meets on 5 June at which time they will consider the request. Layman said the AAPT will consider the request.

    Lazarus commented on the absurdity of specifying a fixed dollar amount per member in the Constitution itself. Vossen said that the same thing applies to the handling charge; there should be no financial numbers in the constitution and bylaws. Ramsey said that these matters are to be considered by the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws; the $1.00 amount means far less now with inflation than it did a number of years ago. Slack noted that the dollar figure originally proposed in 1954 was adopted in 1968 as an alternative to the previous provision of 10% of dues collected for the Societies.

13. Financial Report for 1981

Gilbert distributed the estimated financial statements for calendar year 1981 (copy attached) and reviewed the items therein. He noted that Touche Ross completed the preliminary audit in December of 1981. It is the first time that this had been achieved and was possible due to the level of staff preparedness. Touche Ross is scheduled to come to AIP the first week in April to finish the audit by the end of April, in accordance with the goals of the Audit Committee. This balance sheet included comparative statements for 1980 and 1981. Gilbert highlighted the major items: a) Under assets, the large increase in the balance from $13 million (1980) to $18 million (1981) resulted from the 50-60% price increases in journals and to more rapid processing with consequent large sums of cash and short term cash equivalents. b) Accounts receivable have attained a stability. c) The general fund represents accumulated income; the temporary deficit of $264,000 has been wiped out.

Under Statements of Revenue and Expense, he noted the $6 million from subscriptions is somewhat of an anomaly. That the figure is up from last year is mainly due to getting caught up in the translation journals in 1981. Voluntary page charges are up due to the larger number of honored pages. Back number and microfilm sales are up considerably.

Investment income has doubled due to the improved cash management plan with Bankers Trust and to the high interest rates. The $17,608 paid to the Societies was interest on nonmember subscription income.

The total revenue figure is $12,296,406. There is an excess of revenue over expense of $506,983. These figures are for AIP only, not for the operations of the Member Societies.

  1. Financial Handling Charge for 1983

    Gilbert stated that the AIP Bylaws provide that Member Societies pay to the Institute a financial handling charge, not to exceed one per cent, on the monetary value of business done on their behalf, this to be fixed each year by the Governing Board. Last year that percentage was fixed at five-eighths of one percent for 1981. The staff recommended and the Executive Committee voted to recommend to the Governing Board that the charge again be fixed at five-eighths of one per cent for 1983.

    The following motion was made by Burton, seconded by Kelly, and passed without dissent.

    MOVED that the financial handling charge for 1983 be fixed at five-eighths of one per cent.

14. Legal Issues

Koch noted that these items were for information only, contained in Attachment I.

  1. New York City Real Estate Tax

    Koch called attention to Attachment I.a. which gave information on AIP's filing of Article 78 proceedings to appeal the adverse determination of the Tax Commission to the courts. Strasberg asked what the cost for this legislation would be. Gilbert said the initial quote for filing and for the initial hearing was about $5000. AIP is closely watching similar suits already filed.

It was decided not to discuss the following items because of lack of time:

  • 14b. Concern about IRS Attention to Unrelated Business Income (Data given in Attachment I.b.)
  • 14c. Professional Liability of Directors (Data given in Attachment I.c.)
  • 15. AIP Personnel Policies
  • 15a. Organizational Diagram (Data given in Attachment J.a.)
  • 15b. National Labor Relations Board Rulings (Data given in Attachment J.b.)

16. Other Business

  1. Nonmember Subscriptions

    Gilbert distributed a handout showing the number of nonmember subscriptions as of 28 February in 1981 and 1982 (copy attached). These figures show the impact of the subscription price increases. Gilbert pointed out that the return in AIP journals is excellent: 85% by the end of February, which was the highest figure in memory. Approximately the same figure holds true for the individual Society publications. Orders are still coming and gracing was phased out at the end of February so more returns can now be expected from this. 75% of the nonmember subscriptions come from booksellers and agents; their renewals can be expected now. Accordingly, it is fairly safe to say that the price increase resulted in little decrease for 1982.

17. Next Meeting

Ramsey stated that the next Governing Board meeting would be held on 29-30 October 1982 in New York City. He called attention to the fact that the Corporate Associates meeting will be held at a separate time this year, on 14-15 October at Sandia National Labs, Albuquerque, NM.

The date of the next Executive Committee meeting will follow the meeting of the ad hoc Committee on Computer Needs, to act on their recommendations. (Note: Subsequent to the meeting, it was decided not to have a meeting of the Committee on Computer Needs until further information was received, so the meeting which had been tentatively scheduled for 14 May was cancelled.)

Other meetings of the Executive Committee are scheduled for 17 June in New York City, 10-12 September 1982 in Woods Hole, and the afternoon of 29 October preceding the Governing Board meeting.

Strasberg asked what the policy of the Governing Board was in regard to expenses of members who attend the Corporate Associates meetings. Koch said the Board had agreed not to pay the expenses of the Governing Board members to attend these meetings.

18. Adjournment

Ramsey said there was no time for an executive session but he hoped one could be held following the next Governing Board meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m., followed by the taking of the annual picture of the Governing Board and lunch.

«« Previous Meeting October 16-17, 1981
Next Meeting »» October 29-30, 1982