Executive Committee of the American Institute of Physics
Minutes of Meeting
Executive Committee Members Present: Philip M. Morse – Chairman, Robert T. Beyer, W. A. Fowler, L. W. Fredrick, W. W. Havens, Jr., H. W. Koch, Melba Phillips, Jarus W. Quinn
Board Property Committee Members Present: Robert T. Beyer – Chairman, Peter T. Demos, L. W. Fredrick, W. W. Havens, Jr., E. R. Piore, and Philip m. Morse, H. W. Koch, Sidney Millman (ex officio)
Non-Voting Participants: R. D. Burbank (ACA), J. S. Laughlin (AAPM), J. E. Goldman (MAL)
Guests: Members of the APS Building Committee: J. A. Burton – Chairman, E. Baranger, W. W. Havens, Jr., George Pake, E. R. Piore, and Norman Ramsey; also Michael Newman, Assistant to Fowler, incoming President of APS
AIP Staff Present: H. W. Koch, Director; Sidney Millman, Secretary; G. F. Gilbert, Treasurer; Lewis Slack, Associate Director for General Activities; R. H. Marks, Associate Director for Publishing; Dorothy M. Lasky, Assistant to the Director; Mary M. Johnson, Assistant to the Secretary
Chairman of the Executive Committee Morse called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
1. Minutes
The draft minutes of the December 15, 1975, Executive Committee meeting were approved with two corrections which are included in the final minutes.
2. Status Report of the Board Property Committee
Chairman Morse turned the chair over to Beyer, Chairman of the Board Property Committee, for discussion of this item.
Koch called attention to the packets which had been distributed just prior to the meeting and pointed out that the need for serious consideration of a change in AIP location is affected by two imperatives: (1) Our lease at 800 Second Avenue will expire at the end of October 1976, and (2) we have committed ourselves to acquiring a new computer and need to decide on where it is to be located and when it can be delivered. He reviewed the considerations pointing to the need for a new building. We have grown in size, having more than doubled since the last time we occupied a new building complex, and we are quite fragmented. Moreover, our operation is very labor-intensive and we must get computers even more involved than at present in order to achieve substantial reductions in costs. The AIP management has been looking at a building in Lake Success, Nassau County, where property costs are much lower than in Manhattan and where the cost and quality of labor are more favorable. Moreover, operating double or triple shifts for some of our activities in New York City is not feasible, whereas at the Lake Success building with the availability of parking space such operation is feasible. There are not many buildings of the size we need available in New York whereas there are many on Long Island. The distance from airports of the Levitt Building at Lake Success, from the point of view of Governing Board members and Society officers who merely come to AIP to attend Board and committee meetings, is about the same as our present building. The financing is extremely attractive if it is purchasable for 2.5 to 2.8 million dollars since a 1.5 million dollar mortgage at 5 1/2% can be transferred. The amount of annual cost that we foresee, $450,000 to $500,000, is very comparable to the present cost of our 45th Street building plus the rented spaces in Manhattan.
Since the last meeting of the Board Property Committee on January 14, we have had some studies made by Landauer Associates, real estate consultants, which are reported later in these minutes. We have visited an alternate building on Madison Avenue and 32nd Street which was the subject of an article in The New York Times on January 24. It is a 12-story building which our real estate broker, William Weinbaum, feels we could purchase for about 1.3 million dollars. It is the evening shift operation that we are concerned about and this, of course, is not feasible on Madison Avenue any more than on East 45th Street. Our payroll now is 3.3 million dollars and any reduction in that is an important thing to try to achieve. Koch made reference to a letter addressed to the Governing Board which was written by some AIP staff members claiming to represent the employees of AIP, imploring the Board members to keep AIP in New York City. Management does not know who this committee is, one person or several people, and does not intend to respond. Supervisory personnel have been kept informed on the latest developments in our space studies. He mentioned that, on February 1, APS formed a Building Committee to study the effect of an AIP move on the APS operations and to advise the APS Council. All the members of this APS Committee attended this meeting as noted on Page 1 of these minutes. Koch concluded his remarks by pointing out that there are two sets of issues: (1) Where can we locate and consolidate to overcome expensive production and computer operations, and (2) Where do the Member Societies want to have their headquarters.
Morse agreed that AIP has got to get its publication staff together and close to the computer. This does not mean that there are other activities of AIP and APS which could not be separated from that group. In answer to a question on what personnel loss might be anticipated in a move to Lake Success, Marks said that he expects to keep the key people in the Publications Division but that there might be a large turnover in other areas for a year or so. Koch added that, in the Data Processing Division, we expect to lose one programmer out of 7 or 8, one of the 4 computer operators, and 6 of the 8 keyboarders. Key supervisors would stay.
Marks then reported on a more detailed study done by the architect on the potential housing of the AIP staff in the Levitt Building. On the ground floor we would have the computer and the production staff, including the keyboard people of both the Publishing and Subscription Fulfillment personnel. The first floor would have Reception, Personnel Officer, copy editors, Accounting, and Office Services. The second floor would have the General Activities Branch, Library, Board Room, and AIP Executive Offices as well as Member Society offices. In this layout we would be able to achieve a much greater degree of efficiency in one building and would probably need fewer people. Based on a 5-year look, this building appears to be quite adequate. Beyond that, the zoning is such as to permit us to build an additional building on the property.
Gilbert then discussed the oral report given the day before to AIP management and Morse by Landauer Associates. It covered three topics: (1) an engineering study, (2) an appraisal of the Levitt property, and (3) general comments. In this oral report they concentrated on those areas which need attention. The general construction and maintenance are good but the roof will need repairs in the near future. The exterior painting needs immediate attention. The entrance steps are in poor condition and there is a condensation problem. The air flow system needs balancing. There are no problems in the electrical system, in fact if anything, it is overdesigned. The alarm system is not connected with the local fire facility. There is only one elevator. The required corrective work and non-essential work would come to $50,000 to $70,000. The fountains cause many problems and Landauer recommends removing them and converting the atrium to a multiple-service floor. Air conditioning is satisfactory up to 85°F. The outside plaza is shared by three buildings, the Levitt Building, the New York Medical Association, and a commercial building. Landauer appraised the value of the building at between 3 and 3.25 million dollars. They also commented that apparently no money was spared in the construction of the building and it is a high energy cost building at this time but action can be taken to correct that. They also called our attention to a nearby, although less accessible by public transportation, building on New Hyde Park Road. It contains about 56,000 square feet and will be ready for occupancy soon. It will not have any interior partitions and would cost about 3.2 million dollars.
Ramsey thought that it would be highly desirable to obtain figures on the cheapest reasonable arrangement we could have, with the production even further out on Long Island. This would be a useful lower limit to have available, even if we do not really adopt it. Piore observed that all present seemed to agree that the right thing to do is to get all the production staff together in one place, but thought that we have to have space for growth. The Lake Success building will apparently accommodate the present AIP staff but does not provide room for growth. Marks replied that the possibility for running that building on 3 shifts does provide for future growth. Goldman noted, however, that that does not take care of growth in the History of Physics activity for example. Phillips also agreed that that is one activity which is going to grow. Marks reminded the group that production involves 90% of our staff and a future expansion of the remaining 10% does not require an unusual amount of space. Beyer added that the Levitt Building is comparable to what we presently have but we would not have to operate 4 lunchrooms and 4 reception areas as we now do and, of course, if we continue to maintain the present building in addition, there would be considerable room for expansion.
Ramsey asked whether the Lake Success building isn't too plush for a building that would be used only for production. Koch replied that we would not be paying for that. Even though the Madison Avenue building does not have this objectionable feature and provides all the space we would need for many years, it is still no solution for us, since we would not want to bring the Stony Brook operation into New York.
Havens observed that the sentiment seemed to be emerging that production should all be in one place and that other activities such as the library, Public Relations, and Placement should be in a headquarters building. We still have to decide what constitutes "production" and what should go with the headquarters location. Beyer was worried about what the retention of the headquarters building will do to our total costs. Quinn raised the question whether it would be to our advantage to buy composition outside of AIP. This would cause a radical contraction of our composition staff. He thought one ought to look into that. Burton replied that the Metaxas operation at Stony Brook is a magnificent one and cannot be duplicated outside of AIP. Morse thought that the Board Property Committee has to see about getting some additional answers about costs and about the division of manpower if one separates "production" from headquarters and how these would bear on the question of the desirability of the Lake Success building.
Fowler stated that he would like to know what are the future plans for the Center for the History of Physics. How would these be affected by this move? He would like to see some analysis of how it is going to be involved in this move other than just saying "Here is some space they can have." Moreover, he also thought that a more well-defined breakdown of what constitutes "production" is necessary. Some APS members have come to him and voiced objections to APS and AIP having too flossy a place. Many Societies are being pressed by their membership to set up Washington offices. Maybe that should be given some consideration. Piore pointed out that the city of Washington has now begun to tax the real estate of non-profit organizations. Goldman said the consensus appears to be that we really must keep the New York property and he thought that it might be possible to find a tax-exempt tenant for the part we do not need for ourselves. Ramsey thought it is important to have costs of various options for comparison purposes, balancing costs with loss of personnel.
Referring to the comparison figures supplied in the packet on the annual operating costs of various combinations of buildings relative to the current cost for the four AIP locations, Burton noted two apparent omissions that he wanted clarified: (1) In calculating the carrying cost of the Lake Success building, no reference was made to a second mortgage beyond the 1.5 million dollar first mortgage, and (2) In calculating the cost of occupying both our headquarters location and the Lake Success building, no account was taken in the figure of $291,000 for the headquarters building of the investment income the AIP would have derived from the money it would have realized from the sale of the headquarters property. Koch agreed that these corrections should be included as the staff develops more precise figures on the operating costs of the various options. Burton thought that we might also compare these figures with the cost of leasing appropriate production space someplace on Long Island and appropriate headquarters space in Manhattan. He concluded by stating that the APS Building Committee will keep in close touch with the AIP Board Property Committee in order to come up with a recommendation on location changes that will be good for AIP and for APS.
Beyer recommended that, for the next Board Property Committee meeting on February 18, he be provided with such information as: (1) A breakdown between what constitutes "production" staff and "non-production" staff; (2) The number of people that would be kept in the headquarters building in this kind of split; (3) What the present and projected space needs of History of Physics, Public Relations, Placement, Advertising, and Society offices would be; (4) A realistic estimate as to what it would cost to maintain the building for such people and an estimate of left-over rental space in the building. He also would like information on what the net income would be if AIP rented out the headquarters building or sold it and rented needed space elsewhere. He asked for more precise calculations of the mortgage costs at Lake Success, specifically, what Prudential is offering in interest on mortgages. His Committee will also need comparable purchase/maintenance costs for 50,000 to 60,000 square feet with parking in other locations mentioned such as New Hyde Park, Route 110, further out to Riverhead, New Jersey, and Westchester.
3. Status of Computer Acquisition
Koch distributed copies of Martino's memorandum of January 29, 1976, and noted that it would cost about $200,000 for the modifications of our present building for a relatively permanent installation of the computer. When he communicated to UNIVAC our decision to postpone delivery of the computer until after June 15 (see Executive Committee meeting minutes of December 15, 1975), they quickly decreased their effort toward converting our programs and Martino is now concerned that insufficient progress is being made in computer program conversions. He would like UNIVAC to re-commit their original working team to the AIP conversion effort as soon as possible. Koch will write a strong letter to them although, he said, he could not blame them for having shifted their efforts to customers who exhibited greater urgency for early delivery.
4. Status of Investment Advisory Account
Gilbert explained that this is the portfolio which serves as a back-up for our reserve for depreciation of the building. As of December 31, 1975, the market value was approximately $596,000. As of January 26, it had appreciated by $41,000. The cost is about $550,000. At the present time, 65% of the account is invested in equities and 35% in bonds.
5. Notice of IRS Audit
Gilbert reported that AIP was informed by IRS of its intention to conduct an audit of our records for 1974. The audit will be made on March 1. This will be our third audit—the previous reviews covered 1970 and 1971—and we do not anticipate any problems.
6. NSF Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Gilbert noted that, at the December 15 meeting, he reported that AIP had submitted an indirect cost rate proposal of 20.1% to NSF. He now has received a letter from NSF accepting our proposal. This will be a final rate applicable to all new grants until we render a new proposal next fall.
7. NSF Proposal to Modify Existing Tech Physics Contract
Slack noted that AIP is a party to a contract with McGraw-Hill for the publication of the Tech Physics modules, providing for payment to AIP of about 20% of royalties with the remainder divided among the four institutions at which the modules were prepared. The funding for these modules was supplied by NSF and we have recently asked for a one-year extension of the grant at no additional cost. We have also forwarded to them McGraw-Hill's request for an amendment to their contract with the four institutions and AIP to clarify overseas distribution of the modules. NSF had at first wanted to propose other changes in the contract with McGraw-Hill and appeared to make these changes as a condition for the extension of our grant, but has since then backed away. It now looks as if we will be getting the grant extension signed.
8. Recognition of ACS 100th Anniversary
Slack noted that this year is the centennial of the American Chemical Society and thought it would be appropriate for AIP to prepare a letter or statement of congratulations. The following motion was passed:
MOVED that Slack prepare an appropriate illuminated scroll or certificate for presentation to the American Chemical Society.
(Subsequent to the meeting, the following text was prepared):
"The American Institute of Physics extends its greetings and felicitations to the American Chemical Society on the occasion of the celebration of its centennial. For the last century the Society has successfully focused the efforts of the chemistry community in furthering education, encouraging scholarly research, fostering its application and pioneering in the dissemination of its results and applications, this to the benefit of all. The Institute congratulates the Society and sends its good wishes for a second productive century of effort and progress for the good of the whole nation."
9. Election of Corporate Associates
Lasky reported that AIP has two more candidates for Corporate Associate membership, both at the rates appropriate for their categories: Allied Chemical Corporation ($500) and Academic Press, Inc. ($250). Academic Press was formerly a Corporate Associate so this would constitute a request for reinstatement. The following motion was passed without dissent:
MOVED that Allied Chemical Corporation and Academic Press, Inc., be elected Corporate Associates of the Institute.
10. Status of Amendments to AIP Constitution and Admission of AVS to Full Membership
Millman reported that the first of the two proposed amendments, the one submitted to Member Societies last March which would make the Secretary a member of the Governing Board and Executive Committee, has been approved by all but one of the Member Societies. This is sufficient for ratification. He suggested that the Secretary be officially recognized as a member of the Board and Executive Committee as of the end of this meeting. There were no objections. Millman added that he has learned unofficially that the American Association of Physics Teachers has voted against the amendment. Phillips confirmed this and said that the AIP Secretary will receive a letter to that effect, giving the reasons. Beyer suggested that the AAPT statement be recorded appropriately, perhaps in the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting following the receipt of the AAPT letter.
Millman next reported on the second amendment which would raise to 800 the number of individual members required for an organization to become a Member or Associate Member Society of the Institute, and would eliminate representation on the Governing Board by an Associate Member Society. This amendment, which was submitted for ratification last October, has been approved by the following five Member Societies: American Physical Society, Optical Society of America, Acoustical Society of America, Society of Rheology, and American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Phillips reported that AAPT has just also approved it, bringing the total to six. Millman noted that this is not sufficient to declare the amendment ratified.
Millman reported that the admission of the American Vacuum Society to full Member Society status has been approved by the following six Member Societies: American Physical Society, Optical Society of America, Acoustical Society of America, Society of Rheology, American Astronomical Society, and American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is now enough to elect AVS a Member Society. However, a formal election is required by the AIP Bylaws and this election cannot take place until six months after notice of the nomination was mailed, last October 7. He thought it would be desirable to set a date for the required special meeting of the Corporation and suggested that some time during the week of April 26, at the time of the Washington meeting of the APS, would be appropriate.
11. Status of Nominating Committee
Quinn, Chairman of the Nominating Committee, reported that his Committee is in the process of collecting suggestions for membership on the various AIP committees. He has contacted the Presidents of the Member Societies. In the reorganization of the committee structure, a number of subcommittees were established. The Nominating Committee plans to bring a recommendation to the Governing Board that the subcommittee memberships ought not to require approval by the Board, otherwise it gets too cumbersome. The Committee will also recommend that future nominating committees give some thought to continuity by continuing at least one-third of a committee each year.
12. Suggestions for Topics for Governing Board Meeting Agenda
Morse thought that discussion of the Board Property Committee report will take up most of the March Board meeting. This, and appointments to the numerous new committees, will provide for a full agenda.
13. Requests for Additions to APL and PF Mastheads
Koch reminded the group that, based on action taken by the Executive Committee at its meeting on September 8, 1975, AIP has added a statement to the mastheads of the Journal of Applied Physics and Applied Physics Letters indicating that these journals are published by AIP with the cooperation of the American Physical Society. We have now received a letter from Arthur Schawlow, Past President of OSA, pointing out that, inasmuch as APL has become a primary publication medium for specialists in the laser field, he would like us to add "… in cooperation with APS and OSA" to the masthead. Koch said the Institute has also received a letter from Francois Frenkiel, Editor of The Physics of Fluids, requesting that the masthead of that journal be modified to read "published by AIP in cooperation with the Division of Fluid Dynamics and Plasma Physics of the APS." He anticipated that additional requests along the same line may be received. Havens thought that this problem is getting complicated and should be given some thought. He suggested it be assigned to the AIP Publishing Policy Committee. There was general agreement with this point of view.
14. Next Meeting
It was agreed to have a joint meeting of the Board Property Committee and the Executive Committee on Friday, March 12.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.