[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

October 19-20, 1986

1. Convene and Roll Call

The AIP Governing Board convened at 7:50 p.m. at the Somerset Hilton Hotel, Somerset, NJ. For clarity in presentation with reference to the printed agenda, events are not necessarily recorded here in the exact sequence in which they occurred.

Members Present
H. F. Frauenfelder (Chairman), O. L. Anderson, H. H. Barschall, R. T. Beyer, P. B. Boyce, R. B. Clark, F. H. Fisher, R. M. Grant (Secretary), W. W. Havens, Jr., D. F. Holcomb, H. W. Koch (Executive Director), A. U. Landolt, N. F. Lane, D. Lazarus, H. Lustig, M. H. Mueller, J. S. Murday, C. K. N. Patel (20 Oct.), E. N. Sickafus, A. F. Spilhaus, Jr., M. Strasberg, N. Suntharalingam, M. Walt, K. F. Wissbrun.

Members Absent
P. M. Bell, J. M. Bennett, E. M. Conwell, C. B. Duke, A. P. French, R. G. Greenler, M. K. Hudson, J. A. Purdy, J. W. Quinn, F. D. Smith, G. H. Vineyard, J. M. Wilson.

Member Society Officers Present
I. Dyer (ASA), H. Voss (AAPT), R. Resnick (AAPT).

Guests
Sidney Abrahams (Chairman, Committee on Publishing Policy), Kenneth W. Ford (Executive Director-elect) (20 Oct.), Joe P. Meyer (Chairman, Committee on Educational Policy), Gordon E. Pike (MRS)

AIP Staff
Gerald F. Gilbert, Treasurer; Robert H. Marks, Director of Publishing; Lewis Slack, Director of Educational Programs; Nathalie A. Davis, Assistant to the Secretary; Bernard Dolowich, Controller; Lawrence T. Merrill, Assistant to the Director; Paul A. Parisi, Manager, Special Projects

  1. Minutes of the 14-15 March 1986 Meeting

    The minutes of the March 1986 meeting of the Governing Board were approved as distributed.

2. Resolution of Appreciation in Memory of J. A. Burton

Slack read the proposed resolution of appreciation in memory of J. A. Burton. The resolution was approved as read, and is given herewith. It will be sent to his family.

Be it resolved that at its meeting on 19 October 1986, the Governing Board of AIP notes and sadly records the death on 31 August 1986 of Joseph A. Burton.

Dr. Burton was a member of the AIP Governing Board for 15 years, for twelve of these, as a member of its Executive Committee. His tenure on the Board was characterized by his assiduous attention to detail on matters coming before it and by his ever-watchful devotion to the interests of The American Physical Society, which he served as Treasurer during this period.

His impact has been widely felt throughout the physics community.

He will be missed.

3. Report of the Chairman

  1. Report of ad hoc Committee on CEO Search

    1. Recommendation of the Executive Committee

      The AIP staff was excused for a brief executive session during consideration of the report and recommendation of the ad hoc Search Committee. Havens outlined the procedures used by the Search Committee, and subsequently by the Executive Committee. He then presented Kenneth W. Ford as nominee for this position. (The Governing Board had received information on Ford's candidacy prior to the meeting.) After a brief discussion, the AIP staff was invited to rejoin the meeting.

    2. Selection of CEO

      The following motion was made by Havens, Chairman of the ad hoc Committee, seconded by Sickafus, and unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that Kenneth W. Ford be named to the position of Executive Director of AIP, effective at the close of the Governing Board meeting on 28 March 1987, his employment by AIP to commence on 1 March 1987.

      Holcomb suggested that Ford speak to the Governing Board on his concept of AIP. Frauenfelder concurred that a brief statement from Ford would be appropriate toward the end of the meeting.

  2. Actions of Executive Committee since March 1986

    Frauenfelder referred to the prepared report which had been distributed with the Agenda.

  3. Report on ACS Statement

    Frauenfelder reported that AIP was asked to sign a statement in support of basic research and funding thereof as prepared by the ACS and distributed to scientific societies for solicitation of signatures. It was impossible in the short time available (five days) to act, as AIP policy adopted in 1983 by the Governing Board sets procedures for consideration of such issues.

    Frauenfelder asked if the Executive Committee should have the ability to act on this type of communication in extraordinary circumstances. Koch thought this was an appropriate issue for the CPP and Governing Board to consider in the future.

  4. Report on October Executive Committee Meeting

    Frauenfelder noted that one topic discussed in the just concluded Executive Committee concerned the question of types of societal membership in AIP. This will come up in connection with the MRS request later in the meeting.

  5. Ad Hoc Committee on International Relations

    Lustig questioned forming such a committee without giving it guidance. He thought it would be better first to find out what the Societies are doing and whether there is a need for this.

    Frauenfelder agreed that input from each Society would be useful; he has named a representative from each Society to the ad hoc committee. He preferred not to be too specific at first in terms of their assignment. Suggestions were solicited from the CPP as well as the Societies. Their immediate charge is to report in February 1986. He has been surprised at how much international contact exists already.

  6. Society Responses to Space Needs Questions

    Frauenfelder said the responses he had received from the Societies did not give a clear direction.

    Havens said it is clear from these responses that AIP has to make its own decision. There are very few indications of commitments of a long-range nature from the Societies. The Committee, which had been awaiting these responses, will now give further consideration to the topic.

4. Report of the Secretary

  1. Society Approvals of Revised Constitution

    Grant said that eight of the (then) nine Societies have notified the Secretary's Office of their acceptance of the revisions to the Constitution, so it is now officially adopted.

  2. Approval of Revised Bylaws

    Grant said that one year ago the proposed revised Bylaws were approved, subject to approval of the revised Constitution. A vote on the Bylaws requires a two-thirds vote of the Governing Board if taken during a meeting. Later in the meeting, when it was determined that there would not be two-thirds of the members present at any point, Grant proposed that the bylaws be submitted for a mail ballot.

    Accordingly, the following motion was made by Mueller, seconded by Lazarus, and unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that a mail ballot of the Governing Board be taken asking for approval of the revised AIP Bylaws, which revisions had been discussed previously at the October 1985 Governing Board meeting.

  3. Articles of Incorporation

    Grant reported that the revisions of the Articles of Incorporation are now in the process of being prepared for submission to the state, having been approved at the Corporation Meeting in March 1986.

  4. Confirmation of Telephone Ballot on Republication of Abstracts

    Grant reported that a mail ballot on this was sent following the March Governing Board meeting; it was approved and it would be appropriate to confirm this approval.

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

    MOVED that the mail ballot giving approval to compensation for the republication of abstracts in any medium be confirmed.

  5. July Membership Reports from Societies

    Grant noted the 15 September 1986 memo from Davis to Gilbert, giving membership reports from all Societies. On the basis of these reports, there will be no change in representation in next year's Governing Board.

    Gilbert said that in discussions with the IRS auditor, he was asked the total number of members in AIP. The figures he compiled show approximately 90,000 unduplicated members.

5. Report of ad hoc Committee on Space Needs

  1. Summary of AIP Real Estate Involvements
  2. Approval of Proposed Landauer Study

    Havens said the question is whether AIP headquarters should remain in New York City at 335 East 45th Street. If AIP is to grow and to continue in New York City, at a single site, it will have to construct a larger building on this site. We now need a reliable estimate of costs for and during construction of a new building. AIP management has been asked to determine this. They have obtained a proposal from Landauer Associates for this study, at a cost of $35-45,000. Landauer did an excellent, valuable survey for AIP several years ago.

    Havens made the following motion, which Sickafus seconded, and which was unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that the AIP Governing Board authorize the expenditure of up to $40,000 for a space needs study as proposed in a 10 June 1986 letter from Landauer Associates to Gilbert.

    Frauenfelder said he hoped this study would give us a solid background of information with which to work.

    Havens noted that there is a time limitation to the value of this report, as real estate values were rapidly changing.

    Wissbrun noted that there are two parts to the study, and asked if it would be better to do the two studies concurrently. Gilbert said Landauer recommended doing them consecutively.

The meeting was recessed for the evening at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 a.m., 20 October.

6. Introduction to 1986 AIP Long Range Plans – Planning Structures and General Assumptions

Koch said that AIP has made considerable progress in this direction since 1974. He reminded the Board that in 1974, Seitz, then Chairman of the Governing Board, submitted a report which the Board ultimately rejected. In 1977 the concept of Function Planning was developed, which approached the Institute in terms of eight functions. The annual report is structured in terms of these functions, as products and services. He proposes that a Policy Plan be reviewed and approved in March of each year, and that an annual Operations Plan be developed and approved in October coincident with the annual budgeting process. He is encouraging committees to meet earlier so their reports can be included in the Operations Plan.

Koch then reviewed some general assumptions used in preparing the Policy Plan, Operations Plan, and Status Report volumes:

  1. No major changes in advertising, gifts, and subscriptions; AIP's financial situation is and will remain quite healthy.
  2. Continuing federal support for scientific efforts.
  3. Continuing improvement in technical services; these could include compact discs, optical discs, an online physics community, automatic page makeup.
  4. Continuing financial and administrative health.

He anticipates that an increasing number of physics-related societies will be interested in joining AIP. We will need expanded publishing services and capability. There is a need for building space expansions.

He then turned to the development plans, as they relate to the long range plans. A development plan for educational services was produced in 1983. Slack is now working on a new plan with the managers of the divisions in this branch.

In contrast to the previous function plans, the long range plans categorize AIP in terms of three basic missions: I. Administrative and Financial Services; II. Publishing Services; III. Educational Services.

7. Review of Operations

  1. Mission I – Administrative and Financial Services

    Gilbert discussed these services as outlined below.

    1. Staffing and Management

      Gilbert reviewed these programs and the activities that they encompass. They are work-related operations and not dependent on the other two missions.

      Fisher asked for clarification of Gilbert's statement that it is possible to reduce work in educational services and reduce proportionately work in administrative and financial services without negatively affecting the Institute's finances.

      Koch commented that the referenced statement (in Long Range Plan Part B) should be phrased in positive terms. We in fact will be increasing the effort in educational services, public affairs, and international affairs.

    2. Status of IRS Audits

      Gilbert reported that the IRS informed us they were going to perform two audits. The first audit covers our Form 990 (Information Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax) and our Form 990-T (Unrelated Business Income Tax Return) for calendar year 1983. This audit was completed during the summer. In October, the IRS informed us that these returns would be accepted as filed and that our 501(c)(3) tax status remains in effect. The second audit covers the 1983 payroll. One day has been spent on this audit, with no information as to when the agent will return.

    3. Audit Committee

      Mueller, Chairman of the Committee, gave the report of their 7 October meeting with representatives of Touche Ross and AIP Management. In their report, the auditors made several recommendations which were handled as follows:

      1. A separate bad debt expense account has been established.
      2. The procedure for pricing supplies inventory has been changed so that they are now expensed by including the amount within the accounting costs, which then will be prorated back to the divisions.
      3. A written policy for depreciating fixed assets has been developed and approval will be requested at this meeting.
      4. A special ledger is being developed by Accounting to record activity in the investment accounts.

      The Committee reached the following conclusions:

      1. The Committee recommends that the 1985 audit by Touche Ross & Co. be accepted.
      2. The Committee recommends that Touche Ross & Co. be retained for the 1986 audit.
      3. The Committee and the auditors are satisfied that the management is being responsive to the auditors' recommendations concerning the Institute's system of internal accounting controls.
      4. The committee recommends that management request the auditors to issue their Letter of Recommendation as soon as possible upon completion of the audit. This will make it possible for the Audit Committee to meet at an earlier date which will aid in implementing recommendations.

      The recommendations of the Committee, placed in the form of a motion, were unanimously CARRIED, after separation of item 2.

      A separate motion for Item 2 was unanimously CARRIED:

      MOVED that Touche Ross & Co. be retained for the 1986 audit and that AIP management negotiate the fee with them.

      Frauenfelder noted that there has been some discussion regarding remaining with one of the "big eight" auditing firms.

      Mueller said the committee discussed this. If the auditors submit their letter of recommendation earlier, it will give the Committee more time to consider this.

      Gilbert said there is considerable turnover within Touche Ross and a different partner is assigned to our account every several years. With the funds from many Societies and heavy fiduciary responsibilities, it is useful for AIP to employ a big firm.

    4. Committee of Society Treasurers

      Gilbert reported on the 2 September meeting of this committee, since Smith, the Chairman, could not be present and his report had not been received. The committee discussed current problems with liability insurance, feasibility of state sales tax exemption for Member Societies, accounting operations, subscription fulfillment developments, and the status of IRS audits at AIP. They also discussed the goals for designated funds and passed a motion recommending adoption of these goals by the Governing Board. They exchanged data regarding Society investment programs and received data on AIP's activity in this area.

    5. Financial Statements – Six Months Ended 30 June 1986

      Gilbert reviewed major items in these statements as distributed at the beginning of the meeting (included herewith as Appendix A). Total operating revenue in 1986 was $9,419,457, compared to $9,713,868 in 1985. Subscription income dropped from $6,504,069 in 1985 to $6,187,345 in 1986. The decrease in reported subscription income largely is the result of the fact that subscription income is held in abeyance until the issues are published. The journals are expected to be on target shortly.

      Publishing Expense is up $400,000 in 1986, for two principal reasons: 1) an increase in published pages in 1986, mainly in APL and JCP, and 2) the pre-run expense for the Buyers' Guide is included in 1986 figures but was not included in 1985 figures. Investment income increased about $150,000 in 1986 over 1985. The bottom line reports a Net Revenue of $1,400,000 in 1986 compared to about $2,000,000 in 1985. Net revenue of $2,400,000 is budgeted for 1986. We will have a windfall in investment income, since we realized a profit of about $825,000 from liquidation of the Avatar Associates and Fidelity Magellan Fund accounts.

      He then reviewed the Balance Sheet, noting that it is presented in a fund accounting format with assets and liabilities assigned to the following groupings: Operating Fund; Property, Plant and Equipment Fund; and Restricted Funds. Cash in the Operating Fund in the amount of $13,536,620, which is mainly from Deferred Income and Deferred Subscription Income, represents the funds in our cash management account. Cash in the Restricted Funds in the amount of $308,248 represents short-term cash investments in the Special Purpose Funds investment account. Accounts Receivable, in the amount of $1,304,374, consists mainly of the following: 1) regular accounts receivable covering page charges, advertising sales and reprint sales, and 2) DOE and FIZ contracts, Soviet royalties, and grants. Property, Plant and Equipment, in the amount of $7,038,211, represents the book value of our plant, property, and equipment (original cost less accumulated depreciation). Long-term investments, in the amount of $9,086,448, are marketable securities.

      The equity of our Total Assets, amounting to $33,040,485, is vested in two parties: 1) outside creditors represented by Total Liabilities, and 2) Total Fund Balances.

      He noted under Fund Balances the Unrestricted Funds Designated for Special Purposes. After this distribution, as recommended by the Executive Committee, these Funds amount to $11,639,273, as of 30 June 1986.

    6. Establishment of Goals for Designated Funds

      Gilbert reviewed his memo to the Governing Board, which explains the rationale for establishing goals for designated funds. The Institute currently has the following designated funds on its books: Building Fund, Equipment Fund, Publication Fund, and Educational Programs Fund. Following the auditors request the Executive Committee has recommended that the Governing Board establish approved goals for these individual funds. Our total goals would be $22 million; the total designated funds as of June 1986 are $11.6 million.

      In response to Walt's inquiry, Gilbert said there was not a policy to build up a reserve of undesignated funds. Ordinarily in the case of not-for-profit organizations, funds are very specific. The Board can alter the balances in these accounts at any time. The reason for these policies is historical: the IRS a few years ago took a close look at this and thought there was a need for more specific designations.

      Sickafus asked about depreciation in regard to software. Dolowich said the current subscription fulfillment software is depreciated. Software for the new system is being expensed.

      The following motion was referred from the Executive Committee and was unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that the Governing Board adopt the following policies for setting goals for AIP Designated Funds:

      1. Building Fund. This fund should cover the accumulated depreciation of the cost of the building(s) and improvements plus 8% to provide for inflationary costs.
      2. Equipment Fund. This fund should cover the accumulated depreciation of the cost of equipment plus 8% to provide for inflationary costs.
      3. Educational Programs Fund. This fund should cover the current budgetary expense for educational programs.
      4. Publication Fund. This fund should cover the current budgetary expense of publishing operations.

    7. Investment Advisory Committee

      Gilbert referred to his memo which provided information on this Committee, on its recommendations which had been approved by the Executive Committee during the year, and on the schedule of investments of Institute funds as of 30 September 1986. [This memo is attached as Appendix B.]

      At Mueller's request, Gilbert reported that the return on the Fidelity Magellan Fund was 40% and on Avatar, 30% prior to their propitious liquidation in September.

      Barschall asked why we withdrew from these accounts. Gilbert said the Committee felt it did not want funds with an aggressive company like Avatar nor with an aggressive mutual fund in the present economy.

      In response to Walt's question, Gilbert explained that First Manhattan is a very reliable, conservative company; it is not concerned about the short-term nature of the stock market. Resource Capital Advisers also has an excellent record. It is a small firm and selective in the clients it accepts.

      Clark said he was impressed with the success of this committee and made the following motion, which was seconded by Boyce and unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that the Governing Board express its appreciation to the Investment Advisory Committee for the excellent work they have been doing on behalf of the Institute.

      Gilbert identified the members of the Committee: Krumhansl (Chairman), Weaver, and Sears.

    8. Status of Subscription Fulfillment System

      Dolowich distributed a memo which outlined the status of AZTECH involvement in the subscription fulfillment project as of October 1986. The project has been fully programmed since February 1986 except for the selectron query module. It can be fully tested without this module. The aim is to limit AZTECH's involvement in the future of the project. They are completing only the features which are somewhat comparable to the UNIVAC. We will finish other areas ourselves after the system is operational. They are paid 50% of the agreed cost when they start testing a module; when testing is completed they are paid the balance. We get a 90-day warranty on any items they test. He feels comfortable with the projected dates given by AZTECH; they will not receive additional money if there are delays. AIP staff will be testing and running the system parallel with the UNIVAC as soon as the warranty period is over. A test of cash processing will be run within the next two months. A separate area devoted to testing has been set up in Woodbury. Testing and training of subscription fulfillment personnel involved with this system will continue to be done there.

      The organization of the Fulfillment Division, which will be reflected in the 1987 budget, is planned as follows:

      1. Cashiering. The NCR cash processors are the backbone of this area. The procedure will enable us to deposit cash first and process it later.
      2. File maintenance and correspondence. This area will represent approximately 65% of the division's cost.
      3. Selection division. They will be maintaining control files, selecting labels for journals, and directing the billing and submitted special requests.
      4. Clerical division. This will accommodate Society special processing.

      Gudes (AIP consultant on this project) called attention to the fact that the AZTECH software was handling journal selections inefficiently. This has helped us suggest modifications to improve it.

      Havens asked if the system would be used for the APS billing in March 1987. Dolowich thought it would not be but the files can be converted at any time when the system is ready to receive them.

      The question of what we do with AZTECH after the 90-day warranty is now being considered. AZTECH will not maintain their staff without a written arrangement with AIP.

      Walt asked what kind of documentation we now have from AZTECH, and whether we could locate a problem if one arises within the system.

      Dolowich said a lot of the design has been done by AIP. We have significant hard copy documentation of the design from AZTECH. It takes a programmer awhile to become familiar with the operations. One reason for the delays was that AZTECH initially had used narrative reporting rather than flow charts.

  2. Mission II – Publishing Services

    1. Overview

      Abraham, Chairman of the Committee on Publishing Policy, reviewed the role of this committee and of its six subcommittees which deal with specialized issues. Each of the latter meets prior to meetings of the parent committee so recommendations for action can be referred promptly.

    2. Books

      Abrahams noted the developing books program, which is making good progress in a number of areas: Tomash books (historical), Conference Proceedings (now totaling 151), reprint books, translation books, and original monographs. There is concern over the competition that conference proceedings are getting from the commercial sector. Consideration is being given to the creation of a high-level advisory board which might help to attract additional material.

    3. Electronic Publishing

      Several items are of special interest in this area:

      Pi-NET and Pi-MAIL. These are important first steps toward the goal of electronic publishing.

      Merrill said that his report to the subcommittee on Pi-NET will contain a proposal to continue the project for another year. Hardware and software needs of the system are being reviewed. 50% of the Pi-NET users have logged on more than five times. He is working with AAS and AGU to put their material on the system. Standing purchase orders for institutional accounts are being promoted. Some international inquiries have been received. He also reported that Pi-MAIL has over 100 registered users to date.

      Automatic page makeup. Abrahams noted that Seybold has been asked to sharpen a request for proposal to add this capability. Four suppliers have made bids. Marks added that this is a long-term project.

      Optical discs. Abrahams said that developments are being watched carefully in terms of a vehicle for back journals, current issues, and abstracts.

    4. Approval of New Journal on Computers in Physics

      Marks reviewed the distributed material regarding this new journal. The initial proposal sent to the Executive Committee included a three-year projected budget, which has now been extended to five years. The income and expenses are treated conservatively, resulting in the estimate that it will take five years for the journal to show a positive net income. It is planned to start the journal as a bimonthly with a l0,000-copy print run, and to become a monthly in the third year, with an increase in the print run to 20,000 copies by the fifth year.

      He projects that expenditures needed in 1986 and 1987 to launch the journal in January 1988 (staff, design and production, marketing and promotion, consulting services, and contingencies) will total $325,000.

      Voss, Chairman of the Task Force which studied this concept and recommended the creation of the journal/magazine, is now chairing a Search Committee to find an editor-in-chief. A letter will be sent through the office of the Director of Publishing to solicit names of candidates for this position. An appointment by January 1987 is the target.

      The identification of the right editor is the critical element in the success of this project. The initial plan is that it not be a full-time job. It is proposed to have various "associate" editors for different sections (magazine section, computational physics, pedagogical physics starting with upper level undergraduate physics, and experimental physics) and would have a managing editor; the mechanical part would be run from the Institute.

      In response to comments by Lazarus and Havens concerning the working title editor-in-chief, Voss said the plan has been to name an Editor as the intellectual leader of the activity and to have "associate" editors who would oversee selection of articles for the individual sections.

      After comments from various society representatives about coverage of their disciplines in the journal, Frauenfelder commented that this journal provides a means to build bridges between the sciences; he thinks it will expand and cover a wide range of areas. There can be subtitles to make clear that it has a broad base.

      Marks said authorization is needed for the expenditure to be included in the 1987 budget.

      Sickafus made the following motion, which was seconded by Boyce, and unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that the expenditure of up to $325,000 during the year 1987 be authorized as startup funds for the new journal/magazine Journal of Computers in Physics, as outlined in Marks' memo of 2 October 1986.

    5. Approval of Japanese Literature Program Proposal

      Koch reviewed the background of this proposal, which requires Governing Board approval before it can be submitted. He noted that at present AIP has 19 journals in its Soviet translation program, a journal of selected articles from Chinese physics journals, and Chinese Physics-Lasers, published jointly with OSA. The Japanese now have many journals published in English, but they are not widely known. Congress has requested that the NBS assume a $1 million per year program to disseminate Japanese scientific and engineering literature in the U. S. AIP staff have had discussions with NBS and have proposed a program to them, consisting of the following components:

      1. Marketing of Japanese English-language journals in the U.S. (This would require a $76,000 subsidy per year from NBS.)
      2. Cover-to-cover translation of selected journals; two are presently contemplated. (This would require a $200,000 subsidy per year from NBS.)
      3. Publishing a Japanese physics translation journal containing English-language translations of articles selected from Japanese-language journals, along the lines of Parity.

      Parisi reviewed the names of the journals presently contemplated for complete translation. Boyce asked if the Journal of the Astronomical Society of Japan had been considered. Marks said staff were working with Kinokuniya to get samples of their physics publications. They will be glad to consider journals covering astronomy and geophysics which appear on this list.

      Marks said the breakeven point will be influenced by how much we can reduce the cost. They are trying to find Japanese-speaking physicists in the U.S. who would be willing to work on this program.

      Clark asked if this would involve additional staff and space.

      Marks said in order to keep the publishing operation viable we will need more space. This has long-term ramifications but has not been explored as yet.

      Lazarus noted that this had not yet been discussed by the Committee on Publishing Policy and thought they should receive a report on it.

      Koch said the proposal could be presented in draft form to the NBS, subject to approval by CPP.

      The following motion was made by Havens, seconded by Beyer, and unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that approval be given to submit to the National Bureau of Standards a proposal for funds to publish, in English, translations of journals from Japanese physics literature, and to market English-language journals from Japan in the United States, subject to concurrence by the Committee on Publishing Policy.

    6. Recommendations of Committee

      Abrahams reported (for information only) the following recommendations of the committee, all of which were subsequently approved by the Executive Committee or the Governing Board: 1) prices for AIP journals for 1987; 2) creation of new computer journal; 3) acceptance of review of RSI review committee; 4) encouraging American authors to publish in RSI; 5) appointment of editor in nuclear and particle fields for RSI; 6) providing copies of GPAA free to physicists in developing countries who are members of AIP Societies .

  3. Mission III – Educational Services

    1. Purpose and Scope of Committee on Educational Policy

      Meyer noted that action by the Governing Board is needed on the statement of purpose and scope as formulated by Holcomb and the committee and reviewed by the Executive Committee. The statement was distributed to those present (included herewith as Appendix C).

      The following recommendation of the Executive Committee was APPROVED.

      MOVED that the statement of Purpose and Scope of the Committee on Educational Policy be approved as distributed.

    2. Overview
    3. History of CEP

      Meyer, Chairman of the Committee, reported. In addition to adoption of a statement of purpose and scope, the committee has developed a structure. A lot was accomplished at their meeting of 3 October. There are four subcommittees which recently met or will soon meet. The Subcommittee on Manpower has recommended a change of its name to Education and Employment Statistics. He reviewed the topics on which the division has been working. Policy for the Gemant Award has been formulated and will be considered for approval later in the meeting. He gave a brief overview of the policy statement for the Meggers Award. A Senior Education Fellow position has been proposed. About 12 people have been mentioned or recommended for this position. Manpower gave reports on foreign teaching assistants and high school physics teaching. There are about 19,000 high school physics teachers, but nearly 80% of high school physics teaching is part-time. The Visiting Scientist Program in Physics is getting under way. Letters went out in September to 538 institutions which offer bachelors degrees in physics and to 161 possible visitors. Responses to date include 30-50 inquiries from interested colleges and about 30 respondents who would be glad to make visits.

    4. Physics Today

      Slack said that this advisory committee had met in the previous week. They suggested exploring ways in which more Society information could be included. They praised the Washington coverage. They suggested investigating mechanisms for making the news more timely. They expressed interest in international coverage.

      Marks noted the financial limitations of this publication, with the $2.00 membership dues set aside for PT. The committee would like more articles, more use of color, and a European office. They suggested an increase in the membership dues to $4.00, which could help in terms of coverage, upgrading the staff, etc. He pointed out that this takes a long time to achieve. It will be presented at a later time.

    5. Report on Physics Olympiad

      Meyer reported that the Physics Olympiad was a great success. U. S. contestants won three bronze medals. Resnick added that the U. S. team finished seventh overall, the best ever first showing for a country. The CEP has recommended continuing support for this activity next year.

      Lazarus noted that every participant had additional supplemental education and all were way beyond the normal high school training. Meyer said that the eastern bloc students are held back in order to be entered in the competition, and take college work while still in high school.

      Resnick said the true purpose is to stimulate interest in and awareness of physics throughout the U. S. Many teachers have approached him on how to prepare their students.

      Beyer said the committee had circulated the list of finalists at the training camp to American colleges. He spoke with a student at Brown who had been at the camp; his enthusiasm was very high.

      Wissbrun asked how much publicity the program received. Meyer said it was well publicized in the media. There was a two-minute sequence on Cable News Network.

      Ford, who was involved in the program, said the publicity was satisfying in some respects. There was a lot of local coverage, but less in the national papers than we would have liked. AIP's Office of Public Information sent out about 1,000 press releases.

      Frauenfelder said he would not worry too much about publicity, rather try to make it continue and do well.

      1. Recommendation on Physics Olympiad from Executive Committee

        Grant read the action of the Executive Committee at its September meeting, thanking Wilson for his fine efforts in organizing the 1986 Olympiad. He then reported the recommendation of the Executive Committee, and the following motion was unanimously CARRIED.

        MOVED that AIP act as sponsor for the 1987 Physics Olympiad.

        Lustig said Wilson did a fine job of administering participation in the 1986 Physics Olympiad, and other physics organizations provided help and money, in an ad hoc way. What are the plans to get this on a firmer footing, and how much money is involved?

        Ford said that the people involved in the 1986 effort have agreed informally that there should be a small steering committee of sponsoring organizations, now numbering five. AAPT would have primary management responsibility in 1987. Every contributing organization would be invited to send a representative to this advisory board that might meet once a year. Money raised in 1986 was $40,000 and money spent was $20,000. The tentative budget for 1987 is $50,000. It is hoped that a steering committee will meet in the next few weeks. An attempt will be made to obtain corporate sponsorship by five organizations contributing $10,000 each, with the guarantee of backup support from the Societies if needed.

        Frauenfelder said we should allow flexibility for development by AIP and AAPT. We can make the next step and see how things work.

        Koch said he understood that AAPT had committed to being the overall sponsor and coordinating the activity for another year and that Wilson had indicated it would be appropriate for AIP to take over the administration after next year.

    6. Recommendations of Committee on Educational Policy

      1. Science Writing Awards

        Meyer said it has been suggested that AIP be the sponsor of these awards, which had been supported previously by corporate funds. The proposal before the Governing Board adds an additional award for books written for young people. He recommends on behalf of the CEP that we approve these writing awards, with AIP sponsorship to be included in the 1987 budget.

        Barschall asked if it is necessary to award all three prizes every year.

        Boyce, who is on one of the judging committees, said there are over 20 entries each year, so there is plenty of material.

        Frauenfelder thought the prize does not have to be given if there is no worthy book submitted.

        The following recommendation of the CEP was unanimously CARRIED.

        MOVED that AIP sponsorship of three science writing awards to be presented annually, with support for these awards coming from AIP funds, be approved.

The meeting recessed at 12:05 for lunch and reconvened at 1:20.

8. Review of Policies

  1. Mission I – Administrative and Financial Services

    1. Currently-accepted Policies

      Gilbert read the currently accepted policies as stated in the Long Range Plan, Part A, page 6.

    2. Proposed Policies

      Gilbert read these, as proposed in the Long Range Plan, Part A. The following engendered discussion:

      Page 7, Item 4. a.: "The Institute shall request resident Member Societies to administer Society personnel policies consistent with AIP personnel policies."

      In response to Lustig's question, Koch said this referred to the question of working hours and vacation days. We need to monitor this more effectively. We supply paychecks to the ASA, ACA, AAPM, and AVS personnel. Some problems have been encountered. Some Society staff members do not observe AIP hours. He read a proposed statement regarding hours for resident Society staffs. The statement was discussed, but no action was taken at this time.

      Anderson commented said these do not sound like policies of the Institute, but rather operational policies. He wonders if the Governing Board should properly consider these.

      After some discussion, Koch said perhaps it would be appropriate to take some like this out of this heading and put them elsewhere in the document.

  2. Mission II – Publishing Services

    1. Currently-accepted Policies

      Marks noted and reviewed the currently-accepted policies.

    2. Proposed Policies

      1. Terms for AIP-Owned Journal Editors

        Lazarus, noting the recommendation from the Executive Committee, made the following motion, which was seconded by Murday, and unanimously CARRIED.

        MOVED that AIP adopt the following policy:
        That editors for AIP-owned archival journals be appointed for renewable five-year terms, with a search committee to be appointed one year prior to the end of the term.

      2. Copyright Protection

        Proposed Policy 4. c., which deals with copyright protection for authors, Societies, and/or AIP (text given below in motion). Marks said this is something we regularly do, but it has not been stated. Koch thought it was useful to have it stated.

        The following motion was made by Holcomb, seconded by Fisher, and unanimously CARRIED.

        MOVED that AIP adopt the following policy: "Protect by copyright the proprietary interests of all parties (authors, Societies and/or AIP) in publications. In most cases, this protection will require a transfer of copyright from authors to Societies to AIP."

      3. Liability Insurance

        (The first part of the discussion took place at the beginning of the meeting and is reported here for continuity.)

        Walt, noting the notice of cancellation of the Institute's Liability Insurance policy, asked what is being done to seek coverage.

        Gilbert said this was discussed at the recent meeting of the Committee of Society Treasurers. Other CESSE organizations are having similar experiences. The Association of American Publishers and CESSE have made surveys and are seeking to find carriers that would consider them as a separate group. He is awaiting quotations. He has checked with societies who have gone the self-insurance route. We are, by default, self-insured.

        Koch read the proposed policy regarding AIP's insuring editors and referees for later discussion.

        (The following discussion took place later in the meeting.)

        Marks read the following proposed policy:
        Proposed Policy 4. d.: "Provide liability protection to editors and referees of AIP publications."

        Gilbert said there are two types of liability insurance: 1) Directors and officers coverage. 2) Publishing, covering editors and referees. Many organizations have separate policies. Ours had been in one policy. Our carrier recently had said we would have to get separate policies.

        After lengthy discussion, Lazarus said that the important thing is to go on record as supporting the idea of liability insurance; legal counsel then can review it.

        Grant said the proposed statement obliges us to have self-insurance. He feels we should have a clean statement for reference in the minutes, and that legal advice should then be obtained in order to draft an acceptable document covering these areas.

        Spilhaus said a policy should cover all people operating under the aegis of the Institute.

        Slack said it should be clear that the protection is during the course of individuals' performing duties on behalf of AIP.

        The following motion, as read by Koch, was made by Lane, reworded in discussion, seconded by Boyce, and unanimously CARRIED.

        MOVED that the Institute shall provide liability insurance to directors, officers, staff, committee members, editors, and referees in the course of discharging their duties on behalf of AIP.

        Frauenfelder said it is understood that this will be entered under Currently-accepted Policies in the Policy Plan.

      4. Compensation for Sale or Resale of Copyright Publications

        Marks read Proposed Policy 4. e.: "Receive compensation for the sale or resale of all copyrighted publications, including journal article abstracts and indexes, as appropriate."

        The following note of explanation was given below this statement, as follows:

        "This policy is an enlargement of the statement passed by the Governing Board on 15 March 1985 which read:

        'It is Governing Board policy that AIP is to receive compensation for the re-publication of its abstracts in any medium. Management is requested to carry out this policy by negotiating with users of these abstracts on terms consistent with existing contracts and policies, and to investigate the feasibility of entering into litigation where necessary to accomplish these goals.'

        The financial base for all AIP operations comes from the publications it owns. AIP must, as Societies must, control the financial disposition of its publications. In some cases, as appropriate, this may mean giving away certain publications in the best interests of the physics community generally."

        Lazarus said that in the past we have given permission for reprint without compensation. Does this require us to request compensation?

        Spilhaus said that the proposed policy drops the phrase "in any medium."

        Lazarus said that since there is a change suggested, this should be discussed by the Committee on Publishing Policy.

        The item was then referred to the Committee on Publishing Policy, without action by the Governing Board.

  3. Mission III – Educational Services

    1. Currently-accepted Policies

      Slack reviewed the currently-accepted policies given in the Long Range Plan, Part A. He pointed out that in addition to setting policy, these are necessary statements for IRS audits, but some have not been written down previously.

      Gilbert and Marks, in response to a question from Holcomb, clarified the point that support of Educational Programs Division was obtained from additional funds generated by AIP's own journals.

      Clark moved the adoption of the following statement of policy. The motion was seconded by Landolt and unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that AIP adopt the following policy:
      "Make available funds generated by AIP-owned journals and publications to support AIP educational programs operated for public good and in the best interests of the physics community."

      Slack then said that it is important to state that Public Information is a matter of policy for AIP.

      After discussion of the proposed policy, and some clarification of terms, Holcomb moved the adoption of the following statement of policy. Clark seconded the motion, which was unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that AIP adopt the following policy:
      "Establish and maintain programs that disseminate information about physics to the general public as well as to the greater scientific community."

      Finally, Slack turned to the proposed statement of policy relating to SPS and the Center for History of Physics. Having this as an explicit statement recognizes the importance of these two areas, both to the physics community and to the public.

      In response to questions from Boyce and Lazarus, Koch said that he wants it to be recognized that these divisions are not entities separate from the Institute. At the present time they are operated as parts of the Institute; these are unique units, and substantial monies and fund raising are involved.

      After further study and revision, Wissbrun moved adoption of the following statement as a policy. It was seconded by Mueller and unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that AIP adopt the following policy:
      "Maintain and operate as educational units within AIP a Society of Physics Students and a Center for History of Physics."

    2. Proposed Policies

      Slack said two items are in progress, but not ready for adoption at the present time: a policy statement on mailing lists and a policy statement on placement services.

  4. Action Items re Policies

    1. Mission I
    2. Mission II
    3. Mission III

      Meyer reported on educational items for action.

      1. Gemant Award Statement of Policy

        Meyer said this statement of policy has been recommended by the Executive Committee on recommendation from the CEP.

        Grant reported that if approved the size of the award, as specified by the Executive Committee, would be $5,000 to an individual and $3,000 to an institution, with $2,000 budgeted for administration of the award.

        After discussion, the following recommendation from the Executive Committee was unanimously CARRIED.

        MOVED that the statement of policy establishing the Andrew Gemant Award be adopted.

        Frauenfelder said he is instructed to appoint a committee to name the first Gemant Award winner. He said that he would do so soon, adding that it is important to set the tone for the award in choosing the first awardee.

      2. Meggers Award Statement of Policy

        Slack introduced the recommended statement of policy, which includes an excerpt of a letter to Waterfall from Meggers stating the latters' rationale in donating his collection to the Institute. There are components to the Meggers Award: 1) a biennial, competitive project award, and 2) an Educational Programs research and development award.

        The following recommendation from the Executive Committee was unanimously CARRIED.

        MOVED that the statement of policy establishing the Meggers Award be adopted.

9. Status of Development Plans

  1. Publishing Development Plan
  2. SPS Development Plan
  3. Personnel Administration Plan

    Koch noted that it is a big job to finalize the concept of this long range plan. In the foregoing discussions the development plans have been alluded to in some detail. Work has begun on the production of a new educational services development plan. It will include the SPS long range plan produced in December 1985; he wants to include their thinking. A new Publishing Development Plan will begin in early 1987. AIP staff will see what improvements need to be made in the Personnel Administration Plan. APS is working with AIP's Personnel Manager.

10. Planning for 1987 Joint IUPAP-AIP Corporate Associates Meeting

Koch reviewed preliminary plans for this meeting. Havens is the chairman of the organizing committee. Funds were solicited from the Corporate Associates but the response was not nearly as good as with a comparable solicitation in 1972. The registration fee will be $100, which will be applied to cover expenses. The program plans look very good.

11. Classes of Membership in AIP

  1. MRS Application for Associate Member Society Status

    Koch reminded the Governing Board that the Materials Research Society has submitted an application for AIP Associate Member Society status, but with several conditions included. The Governing Board at its March meeting discussed this application, and invited them to send a representative to this meeting.

    Pike, the current MRS President, was present through the discussion of this item, and began by thanking the Governing Board for inviting him. He reviewed the history of the MRS and of its interaction with AIP. It was founded by a group who thought they would benefit from an interdisciplinary approach. Their first meeting was in 1973. The organization has grown rapidly since 1979; it now has about 4,500 members. The Journal of Materials Research has been started within the last year, with AIP as publisher, and Duke is its Editor. They have meetings, publish a newsletter, offer short courses, and have an awards program. Their headquarters office is in Pittsburgh, and is staffed by nine full-time employees.

    In 1983 the MRS became an affiliated society of AIP. In addition to publishing, they use AIP services for their equipment shows and placement services. Their MRS Council decided they would like to have a closer affiliation with AIP, but in doing so they felt it important to specify three conditions:

    1. They want AIP services to be provided to them on the same conditions as that of a Member Society (no surcharge).
    2. They want one voting representative on the Governing Board so as to be able to participate and to share information.
    3. They want to be able to affiliate with other societies; they are deliberately an interdisciplinary organization and do not want to be identified principally as a physics society.

    Lazarus said AIP is not allowed to be only a publishing house for its Member Societies. There must be a division between publishing and its other obligations. We could not by charter or according to the IRS do what the MRS requests. They cannot get privileges without being a Member Society. The 15% surcharge is not designed as a penalty.

    Pike said the principal objection is the perception of a close affiliation to physics; they want to avoid that, but they want exchange of ideas.

    Clark said this seems to be a matter of semantics. It is not a problem for the AIP Member Societies.

    Pike responded that the data he was shown and which he shared with the MRS Council indicates that many Member Societies have a minority of physicists. This was not a dissuading factor. Their members feel that they should reach out to all disciplines, and therefore they should not identify principally with physics.

    Anderson said the MRS has a problem in logic. Having a voting member of the Governing Board would make more of a tie than the title. It is impossible to have both sides.

    Lazarus said the category of Associate Member Society is almost archaic. He does not know why the MRS is reluctant to become a member. AIP is a society of societies, not individual members. Holcomb added that the MRS members would not be members.

    Pike said this has received considerable discussion, including that of Dresselhaus, formerly on the AIP Governing Board. He thinks their Council would not be swayed by these comments.

    Suntharalingam pointed out that there are clear policies for Member Society requirements. The MRS comes from outside AIP requesting a change of rules. He finds it difficult to entertain this request.

    Frauenfelder said AIP would have to change its rules and its Constitution. We are reluctant to do this due to the IRS and to potential future societies. We could run into serious difficulties on both fronts. We would like to do the best we can for physics and we realize the importance of the MRS for the future. PT costs more than the member assessment charge. Other societies would subsidize the MRS. It would split the Institute. We are now at an impasse that cannot easily be broken.

    Grant said the issue of a representative on the Governing Board is a constitutional matter, since the revision of 1977 eliminated this privilege. The surcharge is part of AIP's operating rules and is amendable by the Governing Board.

    Fisher thought the sense of the group was that we would welcome a request for full membership but cannot accept their conditions for associate member society status.

    Frauenfelder thought no vote was necessary. The materials field problems are general ones, but AIP has its own problems, and by the Constitution and past history cannot modify some things.

    Pike would like to have the Governing Board encourage the MRS to participate more in an informal way.

  2. Revised Guidelines for Classes of Membership

    Grant said he had worked with the previous document on this subject, which had been approved by the Governing Board in October 1975. The revisions presented in draft form here are consistent with the present rules; no substantive changes are proposed.

    Spilhaus noted an inconsistency: the term "overhead charge" should be changed to "surcharge". Grant agreed that this should be changed.

12. Other Business

  1. Comments by Executive Director-Elect Kenneth W. Ford

    Frauenfelder invited Ford, who was present for the 20 October portion of the meeting, to make a statement.

    Ford said he sees AIP as a service organization, serving first the Member Societies and then individual physicists and the general public. This does not mean it is passive; there is a need for leadership. There are two categories: the customers and the general public. This broad range means that the leadership from the director should be channeled through the Governing Board. He thinks he is fortunate to come on board at this time of health for AIP. He is not a believer in growth for its own sake; the goal is to help the growth happen for needed reasons. His background is in education, and his paramount interest is in education. But the publishing program of the Institute is foremost: everything else is contingent on a well-run publishing program. He is excited by the prospects in education for the future, i.e. the concept of a Senior Education Fellow. It is worth remembering that AIP has more potential to realize these educational efforts than only a single society and can take a leadership role. One issue that will come up is whether the net income should be augmented by contracts and gifts and grants. He now anticipates watching and learning for the next five months.

13. Future Meetings

The scheduled future meetings is as follows:

  1. Briefing for Chief Elected Officers of Societies:
    Thurs. a.m., 26 March 1987.
  2. Symposium for Assembly of Society Officers:
    Thurs. p.m., Fri. a.m., 26-27 March 1987.
  3. Spring Governing Board Meeting:
    Fri. p.m., Sat. a.m., 27-28 March 1987.
  4. Fall Governing Board Meeting:
    Mon. p.m., Tues., 28-29 September 1987.

14. Executive Session

AIP staff were excused from the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Frauenfelder thanked everyone for their clear presentations.

The executive session is reported in the official minutes only.

15. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.