[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 16-17, 1984

«« Previous Meeting October 23-24, 1983
Next Meeting »» October 21-22, 1984

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics met at the AIP Woodbury Facility in the afternoon of 16 March, at Howard Johnson's Conference Center in Plainview, L.I., in the evening of 16 March, and at the AIP Woodbury Facility in the morning of 17 March 1984. 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, H. H. Barschall, (APS), R. P. Bauman (AAPT), J. M. Bennett (OSA), R. T. Beyer (ASA), P. B. Boyce (AAS), M. Dresselhaus (ASA), C. B. Duke (AVS), L. L. Elliott (ASA), A. P. French (AAPT), R. M. Grant (ex officio), W. W. Havens, Jr. (APS), H. W. Koch (ex officio), N. F. Lane (APS), D. Lazarus (APS), T. E. Madey (AVS), J. P. Meyer (AAPT), M. H. Mueller (ACA), J. A. Purdy (AAPM), J. W. Quinn (OSA), M. Strasberg (ASA), J. A. Thornton (AVS), J. M. Wilson (AAPT), K. F. Wissbrun (SOR)

Members Absent: F. B. McDonald (APS), E. C. McIrvine (MAL), G. E. Pake (APS), R. W. Schmitt (MAL), R. R. Shannon (OSA), H. F. Weaver (AAS), A. E. Wright (AAPM)

Nonvoting Participants: R. E. Alley, Jr. (AAPT), D. A. Berry (AAPT), F. H. Fisher (ASA), B. H. Goodfriend (ASA), A. U. Landolt (AAS), D. W. Martin (ASA), R. F. Sears (AAPT), E. N. Sickafus (AVS), E. S. Sternick (AAPM), H. Voss (AAPT)

Guests: R. Rowe – The Faxon Company (16 March), R. Sinclair – National Science Foundation (16 March), R. Geballe – Chairman, Committee for Public Policy

AIP Staff: H. W. Koch, Director; R. M. Grant, Secretary; G. F. Gilbert, Treasurer; R. H. Marks, Associate Director for Publishing; L. Slack, Associate Director for Educational Services; L. T. Merrill, Assistant to the Director; N. A. Davis, Assistant to the Secretary

1. Convene – Roll Call

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ramsey at 1:30 p.m.

  1. Introduction of New Members

    Ramsey welcomed the new members present: Neal F. Lane (APS), Jean M. Bennett (OSA), Anthony P. French (AAPT), Joe P. Meyer (AAPT), James A. Purdy (AAPM), Charles B. Duke (AVS), and John A. Thornton (AVS).

2. Secretary's Report

  1. Minutes of October 1983 Meeting

    The draft minutes, distributed to members of the Governing Board prior to the meeting, were approved by acclamation, with the noting of one typographical error.

  2. Report on Constitutional Amendments; Ratification

    Grant reviewed the status of the constitutional amendments which were submitted to the nine Member Societies for approval following the March 1983 Governing Board meeting. Article IX, regarding revision of dues, was ADOPTED with eight YES votes and one NO vote (ACA). Article XII, regarding the size of the Executive Committee, was unanimously approved.

    The following motion was thus made by Lazarus, seconded by Bauman, and unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that the Governing Board ratify the Constitutional Amendments authorized by action of the Member Societies.

    [The revised Constitution and Bylaws appear in the 1984 edition of the Handbook for Member Society Officers.]

3. Report of Annual Meeting of Corporation

Ramsey reported that the annual meeting, required by New York State law, had been held at 12:45 p.m., preceding the meeting of the Governing Board. Reports made at that meeting, including acceptance of Governing Board members elected by Member Societies, were approved.

4. Report of Nominating Committee

Bauman, Chairman of the Nominating Committee, reported the recommendations of the Committee (contained in Attachment C, attached herewith).

  1. Chairman and Secretary of the Governing Board

    (Ramsey and Grant left the room during this proceeding, which was chaired Koch.)

    The following motion was made by Bauman, seconded by Madey, and unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that Norman F. Ramsey be elected Chairman of the Governing Board for 1984-85.

    The following motion was made by Bauman, seconded by Madey, and unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that Roderick M. Grant be elected Secretary of the Governing Board for 1984-85.

  2. Member-at-Large of the Governing Board

    The following action was unanimously CARRIED, on recommendation of the Nominating Committee.

    MOVED that John A. Armstrong be elected Member-at-Large of the Governing Board for a two-year term.

  3. Report of Nominating Committee

    On recommendation of the Nominating Committee, the following motion was made by Bauman, and was CARRIED unanimously.

    MOVED that the report of the Nominating Committee be accepted as presented.

    The composition of the Executive Committee will be Beyer, Grant (non-voting), Havens, Koch (non-voting), Lazarus, Madey, Ramsey, Shannon, Wilson, and Wright.

  4. Chairpersons of Committees

    Ramsey appointed Bauman chairman of the newly formed Committee on Educational Policy and appointed other chairpersons as suggested in the report of the Nominating Committee.

  5. Changes in AIP Committee Membership

    Grant made the following motion, which was seconded by Bauman and unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that the Chairman of the Governing Board be authorized to name persons to AIP committees in the interim between meetings of the Governing Board.

5. Report of Assembly of Society Officers – R. Geballe

Geballe reported that the sessions were interesting, lively, and informative. He reviewed the topics and speakers.

He noted that the Assembly had adopted a resolution suggesting that the proposal of Chairman Ramsey regarding the establishment of a physics foundation be pursued further.

6. Report of Chairman

  1. Proposed Physics Foundation

    Ramsey confined his report to discussion of the proposed physics foundation, as other items would be covered in the course of the agenda. He pointed out the needs for funds by both AIP and the Member Societies, thus the need for the effort to secure funds, and the possible benefit to all participants of pooling these efforts. In such a pooled effort we could obtain advice from professional fund raising organizations to see what would be the best way to approach potential donors. There appears to be a real need for a general fund on which to draw, but this can be a disadvantage in fund raising, as foundations like proposals with specific ideas. He thought donors generally prefer to contribute year by year for specific projects rather than to an endowment fund.

    Clark noted that the Committee on Fiscal Policy had recommended that a committee on investments and fund raising be set up. The Committee on Finances, which was established last year, has focused very well on investments. He suggested bringing in a consultant who could advise on the idea of a Physics Foundation and its potential. From that we could ascertain whether it is advisable to pursue this concept.

    Ramsey thought this a good suggestion. The Committee on Finances (Investments) does not want to deal with fund raising.

    The following motion was made by Bauman, but was not seconded and was withdrawn after further discussion.

    MOVED that the Executive Committee be encouraged to develop a detailed plan with the understanding that a consultant be brought in.

    Lazarus asked if it was necessary to allocate a sum for hiring a consultant. Koch said if the amount would be over $10,000, it would come to the Executive Committee.

    Duke felt that the above motion was premature and that advice from experts should be sought and obtained before developing a detailed plan.

    The following motion was then made by Duke, with the wording discussed and modified, seconded by Bauman, and CARRIED with two abstensions.

    MOVED that the Governing Board commission the Executive Committee to hire outside consultants to study the fund raising capabilities for projects of interest to AIP and its Member Societies and to present the Governing Board with at least two alternatives for discussion at the next meeting of the Governing Board.

    Thornton asked if this consultant would review fund raising in the context of a foundation or in terms of alternate sources of funding for AIP. Duke interpreted the action to mean that this would be a market survey, with the establishment of a foundation a possible derivative of the study.

7. Concept of Policy Committees and Subcommittees Advisory to the Board

Koch noted that the Committee on Committees had recommended that committees should report to the Governing Board. He compared the 1975 committee structure with the proposed 1984 revised structure (given in Attachment A*). The Nominating Committee has had problems in maintaining full representation of the Societies on committees. The new concept of policy committees is that they are made up mostly of Society representatives, with an array of subcommittees under the policy committee umbrella. Under the proposed structure, the Nominating Committee would not be required to make appointments for the subcommittees which would be composed largely of selected specialists.

Duke said that the diagram doesn't specify the interaction of the committees with AIP staff. Koch said that a staff liaison, identified for every committee, couples the involvement of the committee with AIP staff. This has been working effectively, e.g. with the subcommittees of the Committee on Publishing Policy.

Koch suggested that the following committees be constituted next year as subcommittees under the new Committee on Educational Policy: Corporate Associates, Manpower, Physics Today, Public Education and Information, and Science Writing Awards.

Quinn asked for a clarification of the link between subcommittees and policy committees. He wondered if all reports would be filtered through the parent policy committees. Koch thought they would. Quinn then asked how, with the revised system, one determines the composition of the parent committees. Koch thought if there were changes they should be brought to the Governing Board or the Executive Committee. AIP staff or a committee can make proposals.

Wilson felt there was merit in specifying the composition of the committees, and that it would be beneficial to have this written down. Ramsey also thought it would be helpful to note this.

Grant replied that the composition of the committees is detailed in the Secretary's letter of instructions to the Nominating Committee. Many are codified by the 1975 report of the Committee on Committees and others by the specific Board motion which established the committee.

Duke asked that the committee structure and how the committees are to be appointed by the Board be described in more detail at the October Governing Board meeting.

Ramsey said the Executive Committee could discuss whether we should do this differently from the past.

Madey said that many people don't understand the distinction between the Publication Board and the Committee on Publishing Policy. Koch said that the Publication Board is composed only of journal editors. It serves editorial interests whereas the Committee on Publishing Policy serves publishing interests. Barschall noted that the Publication Board has never reported to the Governing Board, but rather to the Committee on Publishing Policy. Making it a subcommittee of this parent committee would clarify its position.

8. Reports of Advisory Committees

  1. Committee on Public Policy

    Geballe read the draft of the public statement on free dissemination of scientific information (Attachment F). This resolution was the result of a committee meeting in October, and subsequent discussions were carried out by mail.

    The statement was recommended by a majority of the Committee for adoption by the Governing Board. Madey seconded the motion. Following extensive discussion, reported below, the resolution was ADOPTED, with one NO vote and one abstension.

    Duke asked if there was an issue of concern to AIP at stake here. Ramsey said there was one, according to information supplied by Park. Legislation under discussion in Washington could have an effect on publishing activities of AIP and its Member Societies.

    Strasberg said that this resolution would only convince some people in Washington that they should classify more information. They already know that the scientific community is opposed to regulation. It is important to convince them by a detailed exposition of the negative effects of classification. If you can point to the history of specific items where science was held up because of classified information, it would be more effective. Geballe agreed, but said that this was not something you could put in a resolution.

    Quinn noted that the Export Control Regulations Act already exists. He thinks the onus should be on the politicians and the Defense Department to prove that these restrictions would aid the country.

    Lane said that everyone agrees that the issue is serious and timing is critical. However, when he was the chairman of the APS POPA, he spoke against issuing a resolution, as there may be a more effective way. A carefully worded letter by the president or chairman could be more effective and could convey more. There are many "important" issues, but he wondered if it is effective to issue resolutions.

    Lazarus suggested that a resolution should be accompanied by a transmittal letter from Ramsey.

    Lane asked Geballe if this would be consistent with the objective of the Committee. Geballe said it would be.

    Madey felt that Park and Geballe seem well versed in this matter and proposed that Ramsey work with them in preparing a letter of transmittal.

  2. Physics History
  3. Manpower
  4. Public Education and Information
  5. Publishing Policy
  6. Publication Board

Koch noted the reports of these committees, included with the agenda materials.

9. Policy Issues and Assignments to Advisory Committees

  1. Committee on Publishing Policy

    1. Co-sponsorship of Journals and Meetings

      Koch discussed the question of co-sponsorship of unaffiliated (ad hoc) physics and astronomy conferences. The International Conference on Physics of Semi-Conductors will take place in the summer of 1984. The International Conference on Magnetism will be held in the summer of 1985. Regarding the latter, he noted Attachment B*, an exchange of letters among J. F. Dillon, Jr. (Secretary of the Conference), J. T. Scott, and himself, regarding their suggestion that AIP assume fiscal responsibility for the Conference.

      Koch said this brings up a general class of problem with this type of conference. Management feels uneasy about becoming a co-sponsor without the approval of the Governing Board. It would be entirely different with a Member Society or an Affiliated Society, which would be a clean arrangement. This matter was referred to the Executive Committee in February. On the basis of their negative reaction, he wrote an explanation of our unwillingness to be the sponsor. In response to a question from Elliott, he explained that the conference proceedings are to be published by Elsevier in spite of a better package offer by AIP.

      On the other hand, the people involved in running such conferences often need help. He suggested that AIP might consider a new category of organizations that we could be involved with through a contract, and suggested developing clear procedures for handling such ad hoc conferences. This topic will be discussed at the next meeting of the Committee on Publishing Policy.

      Madey noted that the Constitution is specific on services to Member and Affiliated Societies. He is concerned about dealing with non-affiliated organizations and that the Executive Committee or Governing Board should make these decisions. Koch said this was his precisely his point: we need to systematize the procedures for handling the requests.

    2. Publication of AIP-owned Documents by Societies – Directory of Physics and Astronomy Staff Members

      Marks said that the cost of producing this directory has been high, therefore the selling price per copy has also been high because of the small circulation. In a recent survey of buyers, Burton's response was a suggestion to publish the Directory as a part of BAPS, thereby increasing substantially the size of the print run. If APS accepts the proposal (outlined in Attachment G), we would make a similar offer to other Societies, which would reduce the selling price per copy.

      In response to Bauman's question, Marks said that the plan is to mail the Directory in September. AIP must know by June if other Societies are interested.

      Koch noted that the Committee on Publishing Policy approved Alternative I. If the Governing Board approves the proposal, it is in line for approval by the APS Council at their April meeting.

      The following motion was made by Duke, seconded by Bauman, and unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that the Governing Board approve the plan described as Alternate I in the 24 February 1984 memo from Marks to Koch. Under this plan, about 36,000 copies of the DPASM would be printed, 34,000 of which would be bound in as a special insert in BAPS for APS members. The remaining copies would be sold to libraries and members of other societies.

      Havens said that APS currently plans to issue an APS directory one year, and the AIP directory the next year.

    3. Page Charge Reductions

      Koch reported that in December the Executive Committee, on the basis of a recommendation from the Committee on Publishing Policy, had authorized the reduction of page charges for AIP-owned journals by $20.00 per page. Since then, he has been asked by Member Societies why we took this step. His response has been that this action is part of a long-range plan begun several years ago to increase subscription prices, and then to cut page charges.

      Dresselhaus asked if there had been a decrease in subscriptions as a result of price increases. Koch said they did not decrease as much as expected. Gilbert said the actual average decline in non-member subscriptions was between 3 and 4%. Member subscriptions have decreased between 9 and 10%. The member decrease does not have as much effect on net income as the non-member decrease.

    4. Management of Electronic Bulletin Board

      Koch said that AIP staff, with the Committee on Publishing Policy, will develop plans for an electronic bulletin board that could be managed by AIP and made available to members of Member Societies. Any developments along these lines should be consistent with plans of the Member Societies.

      Boyce said that there are problems if this develops as a series of small individual setups. This should be looked at by the task force.

  2. Committee on Educational Policy

    Slack said that the current concern for science education has underscored the importance of our educational efforts as well as those conducted with and by the Member Societies. The concern is for AIP to carry out the things it does best. He thinks the Committee on Educational Policy will provide the focus for this. It also will include an examination of existing programs, as well as suggestions for new ones.

    1. Quantitative Evaluation of Educational Services

      Slack noted that some of these programs are more easily evaluated than others. Some types of quantitative evaluations would cost more than the service itself. Attachment D* gives three examples of evaluations:

      1. Memo from Citrynell to Havens giving data obtained by telephone regarding the Placement Center at the November 1983 APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting;
      2. Letter from J. Mernit (Producer of "Innovation" on WNET/13), congratulating Kaison on the AIP videotape on forensic science.
      3. Letter from R. A. Cox (National Center for Atmospheric Research), commending Weart and Warnow for their professional assistance and site report which motivated the initiation of a records program this year.

      He also noted that the use of the Niels Bohr Library and History Center had increased sixfold in the last ten years.

      Havens said that since it costs several thousand dollars to set up the Placement Center, it is very valuable to have the information supplied by Citrynell.

10. Tentative Plans for Development of Function Planning

  1. Report of Task Force on AIP-Society Relations

    Koch said that in response to any question of the need for this task force, he would refer to Attachment E* – AIP Bylaws, as of 1941. He noted that the Constitution, Bylaws, and Memorandum of Agreement have changed very little since AIP was founded. The Memorandum of Agreement is geared mostly to publishing services. There is a need to develop a memorandum in order to systemize other AIP services. The Task Force is reviewing AIP's role, procedures, governances, services, Memorandum of Agreement, Constitution, and Bylaws. The purpose of this review is to identify ways of strengthening AIP's purpose of providing support to its Member and Affiliated Societies in the areas of governance, publishing, fiscal and administrative, educational and information services. The plan is to develop a five-year development Plan for review by the Executive Committee in September, and approval by the Governing Board in October.

    Boyce asked what Koch envisioned as the relationship of the Task Force with the Committee on Society Services. Koch said that this Committee is a watchdog on services that AIP is presently supplying, but is not intended as a longrange planning committee.

  2. Update of Electronic Communication Development Plan

    Merrill reported on the purpose, study approach, and activities of the Electronic Communications Task Force from October 1983 to the present and answered questions regarding software and uses of various equipment. These include the following:

    1. Word Processing. A pilot project, using seven Data General terminals with their software, has been implemented in the Director's Office in Woodbury and has been largely successful in helping to develop plans for office automation.
    2. Electronic Mail. AIP is part of the APS division of Telemail, with 50 users. Most of its use is at the upper management level. We have purchased 12 Hayes smart modems which make Telemail accessible from the Data General equipment. We now have software that connects the IBM PC's with the Data General. 90% of AIP organization is on a fully compatible, editable communication network, in some cases via Telemail.
    3. Electronic Transmission of Abstracts. Merrill explained the current pilot project for a forthcoming ACA meeting. There are two mailboxes: a public mailbox (to transmit) and a private mailbox (to receive manuscripts at AIP). A package of instructions giving special codes and directions for submitting camera ready copy for abstracts was distributed.

    The Task Force will evaluate the pilot project on office automation done with the Data General software to determine if it should remain on the MV8000 or if a stand-alone mini-computer would be advisable. They will also look into potential on-line services and are looking at several data base providers for possible services.

    Quinn said he would urge development of electronic conferencing as a service. The OSA could not afford this on their own.

    Lazarus recommended that the Task Force consider the direction to proceed with Telenet and that AIP distribute the information they compile. In response to the discussion, it was suggested that Koch send a list of people now on the network with the monthly letter.

  3. Development Plan for AIP Journals or Information Services

    Marks referred to Attachment G*, a 13 March memo from him to Koch. AIP management feels that, as all six AIP journals will have been reviewed by the end of 1984, it is an appropriate time to conduct an overall review of the AIP journal program. He noted that most of the AIP income is from the journals. AIP's concerns are related to journal circulation. Graphs showing cumulative subscription data (included in Attachment G*) show a continuing decline in number of subscriptions. RSI has declined the most. Marks itemized problems and policy issues that should first be studied, as given in the memo. He suggested that AIP might consider having a journal editorial board with possible appointment of an editor-in-chief. This would help to give an overall direction to the journal program. He suggests referring these matters to the Committee on Publishing Policy, which could delegate some of them to the Subcommittee on Journals.

    (The meeting recessed at 5:30 p.m. and resumed at Howard Johnson's Conference Center, following dinner at 7:45 p.m.)

    Ramsey introduced the evening speakers. As Marcel Bardon could not be present, he had asked Rolf Sinclair to take his place.

11. The Problems of U. S. Physicists Doing Research in Europe – Rolf Sinclair, Physics Research Directorate, National Science Foundation

Sinclair discussed collaborative research in the U. S. and other countries. In providing funding, the NSF must determine pragmatically what is good for U.S. science: what is to be done, where it is to be done, how it should be funded, and when. After these priorities are determined, the next step is not unanimity, but consensus. When determining funding for larger facilities, the decisions move from scientific to political decisions. The matter of facilities is a crucial question; this should be determined by scientists.

The governments of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have been led into cooperative efforts in some cases; he noted the efforts of the APS and articles in PT in this regard. Science agencies, particularly the NSF, should respond to the scientific community; it is not appropriate for such an agency to initiate efforts. The best ideas will be ones that challenge the government to respond.

Strasberg asked Sinclair how he viewed the question of export controls. Sinclair said that the government is not consistent here. NSF's aim is to strengthen science. We should have a sharp division between what we want to share and what we don't want to share. In response to Strasberg's question, Sinclair said that the NSF had not felt the impact in this area. When the NSF gives money to the universities, it is then up to the schools to use their own guidelines regarding academic freedom.

Boyce noted that one problem is that when scientists come up with an idea involving large magnitudes of funds, NSF cannot respond without political involvement. The scientific community has to interest itself at an early stage.

Lane asked how easy it would be today for a young person to go to NSF and obtain money for work abroad. Sinclair said that there is not now a portable post-doc fellowship. This program went under when the Education Division went under and has not been restored. Ramsey noted that NATO fellowships are still available.

12. Global Access to Information: Issues and Opportunities – Richard R. Rowe, President, The Faxon Company

Rowe discussed the revolution in information through history, three major events being: 1) Advent of writing, 2) Invention of movable type, and 3) Introduction of binary methods of storage and electronic methods of dissemination.

The conversion of all information to digital forms makes feasible extraordinary methods of distribution. Basic technology for this third revolution is in existence and much of it is in the marketplace. The systems will be friendly, with voice and touch control. Hard copy will be generated on demand. With these developments, technology is not the issue; the issue is the ability to relate to one another.

The technology is of secondary importance to the sociological changes:

  1. The velocity of change is rapidly increasing.
  2. Information technology will shift the emphasis in society from goods to services.
  3. Information's perceived value will increase. As its value increases, so will its cost; the cost of generating it will increase greatly.

There is now a strong shift from disinterested research, and a significant increase in publishing, with the trend toward more specialized publications.

Faxon, a 103-year old firm, is in the business of information management to users; it gets the money back to the source and enables purchasing and claims to be expedited. It does business with about 25,000 publishers, and about 200,000 journals, focusing on scientific and technical information. Its typical client is a library purchasing service.

(The meeting recessed at 8:45 p.m., followed by a reception and informal discussion. It resumed at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, 17 March.)

13. Annual Report for 1983 and Authorization to Publish in Physics Today

Koch noted the draft annual report contained in Attachment H, which he is required to provide to all members. The audited financial report will be forthcoming soon.

The following motion was made by Duke, seconded by Elliot, and unanimously CARRIED.

MOVED that the annual report of the Institute for 1983 be accepted and authorization be given to publish it in Physics Today.

14. Proposed Bylaw on Revision of Member Assessment Charge

Grant discussed the rationale for this proposed addition to the bylaws, following the ratification of the constitutional amendments. Ramsey noted that the amount is considerably less than inflation since it was last changed.

Lazarus noted that two-thirds of the full membership is required to pass a bylaw. There were not yet two-thirds of the Board present. The issue was deferred until later in the meeting to allow for the required number.

Duke noted that AIP presently has a large annual surplus. Koch repeated that this surplus has resulted from the long-range plan to raise subscription prices, thus generating enough income so that reserves could be replenished and page charges reduced. Applying the dues income to PT is a means of helping decrease the deficit in PT and would help to free up the money to apply it to educational services.

Lazarus added that if we paid for PT out of the publishing surplus, we would be in danger of losing our second class mailing permit. Duke asked what is essential for the post office. Marks said we have to prove we have payment specified for PT .

Ramsey added that there are two considerations here: 1) the formal allocation, and 2) this increase would enable AIP to do needed projects that we can't do at present. The surplus income is vital for the reserves.

Grant said that a bylaw stating the dues is necessary, regardless of the amount, as the amended Constitution now requires that there be one.

Havens asked for the question.

Ramsey noted that a two-thirds vote of the full Board membership is required to adopt, alter, or amend a bylaw.

Strasberg noted that there are barely more than two-thirds of the entire Board present. If the bylaw were not passed, would it be appropriate to ask that it be submitted to a mail ballot. Ramsey said that it could be; Grant added that a unanimous vote by those present is required to authorize a mail ballot.

Quinn then moved that the question be called. Havens seconded it. The vote was unanimous on calling the question.

The bylaw, as proposed, then was unanimously ADOPTED. It reads as follows:

"The amount of dues to be paid to the Institute by each Member and Associate Member Society as required by Article IX of the Constitution shall be Two Dollars ($2.00) multiplied by the number of its members as certified in the previous year according to Article VI of the Constitution."

(The meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m. to allow for taking of the official photo of the 1984-85 Governing Board, and resumed at 10:50 a.m.)

15. Status of AIP's New Computer System

  1. Accounting

    Dolowich noted the major improvements in the accounting system in the last year. The MV8000, purchased in August of 1983, is being used for Accounting. The UNIVAC is still being utilized for the 1983 records, and is being run in parallel with the Data General. The auditors are coming to the Institute in April.

    There are not many accounting packages available for the Data General, as they have only 5% of the market. The M & O package that was purchased had problems of compatibility with the MV8000 which were discovered only in operation. The M & O package purchased for Accounts Payable could not be delivered on time, so it was cancelled. A package developed by Computer Applications was tried and rejected. A Data General package is now being reviewed to determine its capability. Any package that AIP would purchase would have to be modified for our needs.

    Payroll is switching from ADP (a batch system) to Managistics in April. This system will utilize the IBM PC's as input.

    Accounts Receivable, already computerized on the UNIVAC, will be rewritten for the Data General. The collection effort is excellent. Advertising and Exhibits billing were recently transferred to the publication sales unit, and a program will be written to computerize this for the Data General. They are now looking for a package for Fixed Assets. They are looking toward computerizing prorations and will work on the non-publishing prorations by midyear.

    Havens asked when the audit report could be expected. Dolowich estimated that it would be available by the end of June.

    Havens asked about the Societies' use of the accounting package. Dolowich said not much had been done here as yet. Havens agreed that until the subscription fulfillment system is up and running, it would be better not to offer this service.

    Boyce was concerned about timing of the audit and closing of the books and wondered if it would always be this late.

    Dolowich said that they expect to speed up the prorations. Societies now get quarterly variance statements, whereas they formerly only received an annual one. The next one should be out in April.

  2. Subscription Fulfillment

    Dolowich said that the project is now in the detail design stage, and major areas of the detail design are complete. Cash processing, which had been a major roadblock, is now complete. The timetable is slower than expected and hoped, but things are steadily advancing. One setback was that one AZTECH analyst left; however, the remaining one is very good.

    The programming phase should take about 5-6 months. It has already begun in some areas. The testing phase will not be easy for the staff, who will try to debug everything before it is in operation.

    The UNIVAC, which will be needed until the AZTECH system is fully operational, was purchased recently for $100,000 (two-thirds of the annual rental fee). The maintenance contract for the UNIVAC is $4,000 per month.

    The auditors and the Audit Committee have always talked about a backup site in case of hardware problems. On the basis of their suggestions, Dolowich is close to completing arrangements with Data General to use a computer at the Data General facility nearby for backup. He considers this plan to be an excellent solution.

    Quinn asked the earliest and latest date for implementation. Dolowich said that December 1984 would be the earliest. He could not give a latest date. AZTECH is a reliable vendor, and things are moving forward.

  3. Schedules for Implementation

    Discussed under 15A. and 15B.

  4. Prospects for Statistical Analysis of Files

    Dolowich said there are many security levels in this system. Manpower will have many uses for the information to be available in the new system. The possibilities for statistical analysis will also be useful for Marketing.

16. Financial Report

  1. Estimated 1983 Financial Statement

    Gilbert reviewed the statement of revenue and expense for 1983 (estimated) and 1982 (actual) contained in Attachment H* (copy attached herewith). The books for 1983 are now under audit.

    Subscription revenue for 1982 was $7,557,612 and for 1983 it is estimated at $9,395,845, largely reflecting a subscription price increase of 25%. Only publications mailed by the end of January can be reported as 1983 subscription revenue.

    Net investment income increased from $805,285 (1982 actual) to $846,557 (1983 estimated). This is from short term investments, which is monitored on a daily basis. The bulk of this is from deferred subscription income. In response to Boyce's question, Gilbert explained that deferred subscription income is part of the working capital. This is invested in an excellent cash management plan handled by Bankers Trust. It is independent of the publishing reserves.

    The total revenue for 1983 is estimated at $16,633,433 while the total expense is estimated at $13,855,600, resulting in an estimated 1983 net revenue of $2,777,833.

    Gilbert reported that the Executive Committee had not yet adopted a statement on our goals concerning adequacy of reserves. There is a consensus among sister organizations that the following goals be set for reserve funds:

    Building FundShould at least equal the accumulated depreciation of the original cost.
    Equipment FundShould at least equal the accumulated depreciation of the original cost of existing equipment.
    Publication FundShould equal one year's publishing expense.

    Duke asked why a balance sheet was not distributed. Gilbert said that Dolowich had elected to use his key people at this time to work on the conversion of accounting rather than on preparation of a balance sheet.

  2. Financial Handling Charge for 1985

    Gilbert said that the AIP Constitution provides that Member Societies pay to the Institute a financial handling charge, not to exceed 1%, on the monetary value of business done on their behalf. This charge must be fixed annually by the Governing Board.

    The following motion, on recommendation of the Executive Committee, was unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that the financial handling charge for 1985 be fixed at five-eighths of one percent of business done on behalf of Member Societies.

  3. Status Report of Investments Made with Designated Funds

    Gilbert said that designated funds (the auditors' terminology for reserve funds) are under management by investment managers and are monitored by the Investment Committee. He reviewed the percentages established by the Executive Committee in December 1983 for the distribution of the 1983 year-end excess balance (over $200,000) in the General Fund: Building Fund: 25%; Equipment Fund: 25%; Publication Fund: 50%. The total amount in these designated funds will be $6,775,000.

    Gilbert noted Attachment L (a 20 January report to the members of the AIP Investment Committee, giving the status of AIP's investments). He reviewed the four-way distribution of funds:

    1. First Manhattan Co. In a recently published New York Times survey of investment results, this firm was No.2. They are a conservative firm and are handling the funds in a professional manner.
    2. Avatar Associates. This firm gives a report of their portfolio strategy every month. They can get in and out of the market very fast to take advantage of current conditions. With the recent downturn in the market, they have switched mainly to cash equivalents from equities.
    3. Drexel Burnham Lambert. This firm has shown an excellent performance in our arbitrage account during this period. The annual yield of the account is about 29% to date, if annualized. The problem with this type of investment is the degree of risk.
    4. No-Load Mutual Funds. The Committee decided that it is best for the present to leave the funds in our Cash Management Account, as the yield could not be improved by changing to aggressive no-load mutual funds at this time.

    Bauman asked if Member Societies can piggyback on these investments.

    Gilbert said that though the Institute will not advise Societies on investments, it could arrange interviews with investment firms if desired.

  4. Status of New York City Real Estate Tax Exemption

    Gilbert noted Attachment I* (attached herewith), which gives a summary of the history and the stipulation of settlement with the NYC Tax Commission. The stipulation, whereby AIP will give several concessions (to be negotiated yearly), has been signed. AIP will receive the refund of $470,000 for which we had filed the petition, possibly by June. The matter of interest has not yet been discussed, on the advice of our attorney. Gilbert has filed a request for exemption for this year; it must be filed by 15 March. This money will be refunded to the resident Societies and to AIP, with the Societies probably getting about $85,000. The Executive Committee will make recommendations on what to do with the refund when it is received.

    Since 1980 we have paid $18,000 in legal fees on this matter. These fees have been absorbed by the Institute. The attorney said the remaining costs would not exceed $25,000.

  5. Consequences of Changing AIP's Accounting Period from a Calendar Year to a 1 July-30 June Fiscal Year

    An evaluation of this recommendation, giving advantages and disadvantages, was given in Attachment J*. Gilbert clarified that the recommended shift resulted from a discussion in the executive session of the Audit Committee with Touche Ross concerning the Audit Committee's desire to expedite the annual audit report. The information given in this attachment is the consensus of Dolowich, Marks, and Gilbert. Gilbert said Dolowich, not he, is the liaison with Touche Ross; as head of accounting operations, Dolowich sets the timetable and has concerns with priorities. A change in the fiscal year would have a dramatic effect on the publishing operation.

    Barschall, a member of the Audit Committee, noted that there is a long delay, although less delay recently, between the closing of the books and the audit report. Touche Ross cannot do their audit until after the end of March because of their work with for-profit companies. APS shifted to a fiscal year for this reason. The purpose of the suggestion was to speed up the audit.

    Gilbert said that the partner who reported this to Barschall is no longer assigned to our account. Our dealings are with one partner and are negotiable.

17. Gemant Bequest: Award to be Established

Slack reported that the Gemant estate is estimated at $140,000, after the expenses of closing the estate are deducted. He noted, reading from the minutes, that the Governing Board in 1969 approved an award according to Gemant's specifications. He stated the recent recommendation of the Executive Committee. This then was unanimously APPROVED by the Governing Board.

MOVED that the Committee on Educational Policy take the assignment of developing a proposal for structuring the Gemant award.

18. Resolution to Honor IEEE on Its 100th Anniversary

Slack noted Attachment J: a resolution to honor IEEE on its 100th anniversary and stated that the Executive Committee had approved this resolution. On this recommendation, the following action was unanimously CARRIED.

MOVED that the following resolution be approved by the Governing Board.

"The American Institute of Physics extends its greetings and felicitations to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

For a century the Institute and the societies that united to form it have been ever attentive to the entire spectrum of scientific knowledge and to its applications for the benefit of the public whom its members serve.

It has been responsive to the needs of its members and to the public at large through its education programs, its publications, indeed through imaginative use of all media. It has given leadership and assistance to its members by holding before them the need for continued effort in expanding the knowledge and understanding of electrical and electronic phenomena, setting thereby high standards not only for its own members but for the entire engineering and scientific communities.

Therefore, the American Institute of Physics congratulates the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers on the occasion of its first centennial celebration and wishes it continued success enroute to its second."

19. Other Business

  1. AAPT Resolution Concerning SI Units

    French, who had given a report on this at the Assembly, noted materials that were distributed in Attachment K. He particularly noted Exhibit 1. A copy of the letter from Huntley to Bauman was sent to Thomas of ASTM, who has responded that their decision on this was not final; the deadline is December 1984. IEEE had already gone this route (as noted in Exhibit 6) AAPT will submit its resolution to IEEE. Geballe's memo to the CPP supported bringing this matter to the Governing Board. French added that it would also seem to be desirable for individual Societies to take a stand .

    Bauman said that it was important that the physics community make it clear that we are concerned about this matter and that the CPP study it further. He then made the following motion, which Beyer seconded.

    MOVED that this resolution be referred to the CPP for study and that the Chairman of the CPP indicate our concern to the ASTM and the IEE.

    Considerable discussion ensued.

    Barschall expressed concern about considering this as a matter of public policy. Although in sympathy with the position, he thinks the Governing Board is not the proper body to be concerned about units. He thought an issue could not be acted upon unless recommended by the CPP. Geballe said this had been referred to the CPP for reference to the Governing Board. CPP members have already been asked to communicate this to their Member Societies.

    Strasberg asked if AIP has representatives on any of the concerned committees. Beyer said the ASA has representatives on two ISO committees. Strasberg felt that the best route would be to send letters to representatives of groups that will be voting on this. Koch said that Wolfe is or has been on several committees which are concerned with the matter; Wolfe's May 1983 letter is part of Attachment K. Koch said that IUPAP is an international commission that is concerned with units in physics. H. Richard Cohen is our representative on that body.

    Strasberg requested an explanation for the need for this resolution. Bauman said that physicists who have to explain this to students are more concerned about the issue than people who are requesting this change. Havens said that this proposed change would create a problem in trying to describe it to elementary physics classes. He thinks we should give support to people working on this issue.

    Lazarus then offered the following amendment:

    The Governing Board of the AIP is concerned about the proposed changes in units of fundamental dynamical quantities which, as shown in Paragraph 3.4.4, would not be reflective of the basic physics involved, and moves that this expression of concern, along with the AAPT resolution be referred to the CPP for consideration and that they indicate our concern to the ASTM and the IEEE.

    Ramsey felt that this was a stronger motion than the first one.

    Wilson asked for the question.

    The vote on the amendment was CARRIED, with several no votes.

    Boyce asked why, if the Governing Board is concerned, the motion directs the CPP to make the contact, and that it more rightly should be the Chairman of the Governing Board.

    Lazarus noted that this is not really a public statement. Koch said, that following this logic, it would be the Chairman of the Governing Board who would convey this to the proper parties.

    Lazarus then offered a second amendment. The intent would be to give the Chairman of the Governing Board latitude to distribute it.

    That the resolution and the concern as expressed in Amendment 1 be communicated by the Chairman of the Governing Board, rather than the Chairman of the CPP, to the appropriate parties.

    This amendment was seconded by Mueller and CARRIED, with three abstentions.

    Madey suggested dropping the word "fundamental" from the motion; this change was accepted by Lazarus.

    The final motion, given below as amended and revised, was seconded by French, and CARRIED, with five abstentions.

    RESOLVED that the Governing Board express its concern that changes in the units of dynamical quantities, as proposed in Paragraph 3.4.4 of ASTM document E-380 "Standards for Metric Practice" would not be reflective of the basic physics involved, and that this concern, along with an AAPT resolution on this matter, be communicated, as appropriate, by the Chairman of the Governing Board.

20. Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Governing Board will be in St. Louis, MO, in conjunction with the 1984 meeting of the Corporate Associates. Dates are as follows: Governing Board: 6:00 p.m. 21 October - 6:00 p.m. 22 October. Corporate Associates: 23-24 October (reception evening of 22 October).

It is proposed to hold the 1984 spring meeting of the Governing Board on 15-16 March, preceded by an Assembly of Society Officers, beginning at noon on 14 March.

21. Executive Session

The staff was excused for the executive session at 12:10 p.m. This is reported in the official minutes only.

22. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m., followed by lunch.

«« Previous Meeting October 23-24, 1983
Next Meeting »» October 21-22, 1984