June 23, 1978

Executive Committee of the American Institute of Physics

Minutes of Meeting

Members Present: P. M. Morse – Chairman, R. T. Beyer, L. M. Branscomb*, C. B. Duke, W. W. Havens, Jr., H. W. Koch, S. Millman, J. W. Quinn, A. A. Strassenburg

Nonvoting Participants: J. A. Burton (APS), S. C. Abrahams (ACA)

Guest: Harris Rosenberg of Wilke Davis Associates, AIP’s architect, for discussion of Item No. 6, Building Matters.

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

* arrived at 2:10 p.m.

Chairman Morse called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. and noted that there were two new members of the Executive Committee, Messrs. Branscomb and Duke, replacing Fowler and Fredrick.

1. Minutes

Upon motion made by Beyer, seconded by Havens, and passed without dissent, the draft minutes of the 31 March 1978 Executive Committee meeting were approved.

2. Corporate Associates

  1. Election of New Corporate Associates

    Lasky reported that during the end of 1977 and the spring of 1978, AIP approached 20 foreign companies to explore their interest in joining the AIP Corporate Associates. 140 letters were sent out this spring to domestic prospects. The following have applied since the last Executive Committee meeting for Corporate Associate membership for 1978:

    Battelle Memorial Institute $1,000
    Bell-Northern Research Ltd. 1,000
    Ing. C. Olivetti & C., S.p.A. 500
    Sony Industries 250
    Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson 1,000 pending receipt of dues

    The following have applied for membership as of 1979:

    AB Volvo $750 pending receipt of dues
    General Tire & Rubber Co. 500

    With the addition of those to be elected presently, AIP counts 97 Corporate Associates to date in 1978 against 92 in 1977. The corresponding gross dues will be $99,000 compared with $96,750 for 1977.

    Upon motion made by Havens and seconded by Strassenburg, the companies listed above were elected Corporate Associates of the Institute for the years specified.

  2. Plans for Fall Meeting

    Lasky reported that the Corporate Associates meeting is scheduled to be held on 28-29 September at Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio. The Governing Board will meet on 27 September, also in Columbus, either at the building that houses the Chemical Abstracts operations or at a hotel, starting at 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. It is hoped to include a tour of the Chemical Abstracts operations. With the exception of two talks still pending, the Corporate Associates program is pretty much completed although the organization of it is not. Millman added that the Assembly of Society Officers may take place in the evening of 27 September.

    Koch noted that, following up on a suggestion by Branscomb, it is proposed to schedule the Executive Committee meeting two or three weeks before the Board meeting, rather than the day preceding the meeting of the Governing Board.

3. Publishing Matters

  1. Status of Searches for RSI and JMP Editors

    Koch reported that the Search Committee for an RSI Editor, chaired by S. C. Abrahams, has identified a number of outstanding prospects. We have been actively pursuing the top candidate and are still negotiating with him, and expect to set a deadline as of the end of July for him to come to a decision on accepting the offer. He seems concerned about the fraction of his working time he would have to devote to The Review of Scientific Instruments Editorship.

    On the matter of an Editor for the Journal of Mathematical Physics, Koch noted that a search committee has been appointed consisting of:

    • Joel L. Lebowitz, Chairman
    • Peter G. Bergmann
    • Joseph L. Birman
    • Kenneth Case
    • Barry Simon
    • Daniel Zwanziger

    and that the committee has been active, but there is nothing specific to report as yet.

  2. Status of Implementation of New Copyright Law

    Koch reported that physicists are universally accepting the copyright transfer procedures. There are no longer any complaints or comments. Every manuscript is accompanied by the transfer acceptance, except of course, those from Government employees. There are two remaining issues: (1) Ford Motor Company, and (2) U.S. Government employees. He called attention to his letter of 19 June to W. Dale Compton, Vice President of Ford, which was written in response to Compton's letter of 24 May, and noted that we are not particularly happy with the agreement proposed by Ford but, for the time being, he would suggest that AIP accept their position with minor changes.

    The following motion was made by Havens, seconded by Beyer, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the AIP Director be given authority to sign the Ford Motor Company letter agreement on copyright if it is modified to his satisfaction.

    (Subsequent to the meeting, Ford approved the modifications suggested by Koch.)

    With respect to Government employees, there is no basic change, except that we should attempt, one agency at a time, to get the "foreign rights" provision provided to us, along the lines proposed in Koch’s draft letter of 23 June to Jordan Baruch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Quinn asked whether the implication in Koch’s letter to Baruch is that works of a Government contractor are works of the Government. Koch thought that we ought to go on the presumption that works of a contractor are not works of the Government. (In a subsequent discussion, Charles Lieb expressed agreement with this view unless specifically provided for in the contract.) He added that there is no plan at the present time for any footnote on a manuscript coming from a Government employee. The National Technical Information Service is going to pay no attention to that copyright notice. Duke asked who owns the copyright if there is no statement. Koch replied that, if it is not labeled, one will not know whether it is in the public domain or whether the author owns the copyright.

  3. Status of Negotiations with Fachinformationszentrum

    Koch stated that, under the proposed agreement with Fachinformationszentrum, AIP would supply a computer tape of abstracts twice a month containing approximately 20,000 abstracts – about 1/5 of the total. The English-language publication would be issued by the Physikalische Berichte once a month at less than $500. It would be owned by the Germans, and called something like "Physics Briefs" although the name has not yet been chosen. There would be "Physics Briefs – Abstracts" and "Physics Briefs – Tape."

    A contract is being developed by our copyright attorney, Charles Lieb, which will make clear the relationships and attempt to protect us against any lawsuits we must anticipate. It will be taken to Germany at the end of June by a member of the AIP staff. A. W. K. Metzner and John Auliano of our Publications Division will visit Karlsruhe on 4 and 5 July, and two of the Fachinformationszentrum staff are expected to come to AIP in August to finalize arrangements. The Germans will supply the abstracts to Euronet, and U.S. physics will now appear three months earlier in an abstract service. It is our goal to have it simultaneous with issuance of the journal. All we have done is to license the use of our tape to the Germans, and provide convenient access. Details of the contract will be brought back to the Executive Committee for approval. We will send a copy of what we think we ought to sign to every member of the Executive Committee and will subsequently ask by telephone for his vote. When the arrangements are completed and the approved letters of agreement are signed, AIP will issue a press release. Havens suggested that it be then written up in Physics Today.

  4. Proposed Agreement with National Technical Information Service

    Koch reported that, in accordance with the authorization given to him at the l April Governing Board meeting (Page 11, minutes of that meeting), he has written a letter to the Director of NTIS (copies previously distributed as an attachment to the agenda for the present meeting) outlining the conditions under which AIP will become the fill source for NTIS for AIP and Member Society journal article reprints and for providing reprint service to AIP customers of articles published in other journals handled by NTIS. Koch received the NTIS response and a modified agreement two days prior to this meeting. The principal modification, which seems satisfactory, is that NTIS will only accept orders for documents listed in the current Journal Article Copy Service directory at a price established by NTIS.

    The following motion was made by Havens, seconded by Beyer, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the Director be authorized to sign the modified letter agreement with NTIS to have AIP become the reprint supplier for NTIS for AIP and Member Society journal article reprints and for providing reprint service to AIP customers of articles published in other journals handled by NTIS.

  5. APS Review of UNIX and ATEX Systems

    Marks reported that the APS has set up a committee to review the performance of the two computer systems. They visited our Woodbury and New York facilities, as well as the APS UNIX facility at Brookhaven. We provided them with cost estimates which indicate that the ATEX computer system will cost less than the typewriter system, about $2.00 per page less. We expect that the September issue of the Journal of Applied Physics will be completely computer composed by ATEX. Burton added that the evaluation panel recommended continued tests on the UNIX system. Havens expressed his conviction that the potential saving using computer composition instead of typewriter composition is much greater than the $2.00 per page. He noted that there are many experiments still to be tried by APS over the next few months.

  6. OSA Proposal for Joint Publication with AIP of a Soviet Translation Book “The Technology of Astronomical Optics”

    Quinn reported that OSA has been under great pressure to go into the book publishing business. Recently under consideration is that OSA, jointly with AIP, publish the subject book and that AIP market it. He referred to correspondence with Marks and stated that the OSA Board is in complete agreement with Marks’s proposal. Havens noted that this step opens up the whole question of whether AIP should be in the book publishing business. Conference Proceedings, which it does publish, are really an adjunct to the conference and do not constitute the publication of books as normally considered. Quinn stated that there have been many attempts over the last 20 years to have this book published by commercial publishers but they have not been interested because the sales would be limited. We would expect that it would be a sell-out immediately. It makes sense for AIP to do it in view of its access to libraries. Havens said a commercial publisher has to have a sale of 50,000 copies before he will look at anything. He would not be interested in 1,500 copies at $10.00 each. Morse noted that this would not be an approval for AIP to publish a whole series of books.

    The following motion was made by Havens, seconded by Strassenburg, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that AIP be authorized to publish and market a translation of the Soviet “The Technology of Astronomical Optics” as outlined in Marks’s letter of 4 May 1978 to J. W. Quinn.

4. Fiscal Matters

  1. Proposal for Consolidation and Professional Management of AIP Special Purpose Funds

    Gilbert reported on a meeting the AIP Management Committee had with Mr. William Young, the Bankers Trust Company manager of our Investment Advisory Account, and he distributed copies of a letter from Young containing recommended action on six AIP special purpose funds.

    Concerning the Meggers Coin and Stamp Collection, the bank recommended that we consult three reputable stamp companies on the status of the market and desirability of selling the collection. Gilbert noted that Meggers had advised us to hold the collection until we needed the funds and then dispose of it through public auction on a commission basis. Our recommendation is to retain it and check on the valuation. Gilbert gave a brief history of the acquisition and original valuation of the collection, and noted Meggers’s interest in encouraging the teaching of physics in high schools. Millman added that when we do sell the collection, we could easily justify giving the interest on the money realized from the sale to Dion W. J. Shea to promote the distribution of booklets, for example, aimed at the high school audience.

    Turning to the endowment fund of the Center for History of Physics, Havens observed that one needs special purpose funds with a definite income where it is necessary to guarantee that certain money is available on a certain date. The endowment fund for the Center should not be different from the AIP Investment Advisory Account, and that is, with the aim of maximizing the over-all income. This endowment fund does not need the income now. Duke agreed that we ought to spell out to the bank whether AIP wants to achieve, for each of the funds, a specific running income or total return. AIP should have two different kinds of accounts, one for regular income and one for maximum return, and give the bank two separate sets of instructions. AIP must clearly articulate the two separate investment goals.

    The following motion was made by Havens, seconded by Duke, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the Treasurer be authorized to arrange with Bankers Trust Company the setting up of management of a number of special purpose funds according to various criteria.

  2. Status of Computerization of Accounting

    Gilbert reported that the monthly statements to Societies for May were issued by computer on 20 June; achieving the objective which was set up by our consultant, Robert J. Moynihan, as the best realistic goal at this time. As demands on our limited accounting staff decrease, the interval between the month-end and the time for issuance of statements will be shortened.

  3. Continuation of Services of Financial Systems Consultant

    Gilbert called attention to an attachment to the agenda which outlined the reasons for the Management's recommendation that the services of Moynihan be continued for another year. The cost is approximately $20,000. The following motion was passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the staff be authorized to retain the services of Robert J. Moynihan, Financial Systems Consultant, for another year at a cost of up to $20,000.

  4. Status of IRS’s Proposed Revocation of AIP’s 501(c)(3) Tax Status

    Koch reported that AIP had its conference in the IRS offices on 5 May, as previously scheduled. Our tax counsel, William J. Lehrfeld, Gilbert and Koch attended that meeting, but we have not yet heard the result. APS received a request on 20 June to have its conference on 26 June; but, at the request of APS, it was postponed to 13 July. Koch interprets the fact that AIP hasn't as yet heard the result of its conference optimistically; he infers that IRS is really thinking it through carefully. He noted that the AIP conference was conducted on a high level and he feels that the IRS conferee had an open mind when it was over. Koch feels that the conferee now has an understanding that it is a national issue which is at stake.

    Koch reported also that AIP has submitted to IRS a formal request for exemption from retroactive payment, in case the decision goes against us. This was deemed to be a desirable move regardless of the outcome of the conference.

The meeting was adjourned for luncheon at 12:45 and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.

  1. 1979 Quoted Prices – Amendment to the Motion Related to Additions and Modifications to the Accounting System (Quinn Motion) Reported in the Executive Committee Minutes of 8-9 September 1977 (pp. 5, 6)

    Quinn noted that a particular part of the subject motion asks AIP to provide a catalog of changes in quoted prices for formal approval by the Executive Committee. He thought this is unnecessarily cumbersome as long as one has a variance at the end of the year, and he introduced the following motion which was seconded by Duke and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the following paragraph replace Paragraph #1 of Quinn's motion related to Additions and Modifications to the Accounting System approved at the Executive Committee meeting of 8-9 September 1977, as reported on Pages 5 and 6 of those minutes:

    The Institute shall develop a set of quoted charges for services rendered or contracted on behalf of the Member Societies. These charges shall represent the actual cost to the Institute to the extent practical. Charges are also to be as uniform as possible. These charges are to be distributed to all Member Societies. An annual calculation of variances between quoted and actual charges shall be made. The net surplus income or deficit expense (variance) shall be settled with Societies.

  2. 1979 Page Charges and Subscription Prices for AIP Journals

    Marks stated that no changes are recommended in the AIP page charges for 1979. One change is recommended in journal subscription prices and that is for the Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics. He noted there has been a 25% increase in the number of pages it contains since the present price was set, and it may even be as high as 40% next year. He proposed an increase in the price of 16.3% which would bring it up from $245 to $285. That would make it our highest-priced Soviet translation journal, but the price per page would be about the same as for the others.

    Reprint prices have been held at the same rate for the past two years and the staff is now recommending that they be increased by 10%, effective January 1979. About 60% of the price represents our cost and we want to maintain that ratio.

    The following motion was made by Havens, seconded by Duke, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the subscription price of Soviet Physics Nuclear Physics be increased to $285, effective 1 January 1979.

    The following motion was made by Strassenburg, seconded by Havens, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that AIP reprint prices be increased by 10% effective 1 January 1979.

  3. Increase in 1979 Physics Today Advertising Rates

    Marks stated that, in the Information Exchange area, our rates are $5.00 per line for one-column ads, and $10.00 per line for two-column ads. We would like to increase these rates to $7.00 and $12.00, respectively. This would bring us into line with what Spectrum and Chemical & Engineering News are charging. The following motion was made by Quinn, seconded by Duke, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that advertising rates for the Information Exchange area of Physics Today be increased to $7.00 per line for one-column ads and $12.00 per line for two-column ads, effective 1 January 1979.

  4. Payment to APS of Interest on Short-Term Investments for 1977

    Gilbert distributed and read a memorandum entitled "Payment of APS Interest on Short-Term Investments for 1977." He noted that the calculated sum is about $27,000 and that J. A. Burton, in a memorandum, stated his agreement with the method of calculation and the result obtained. The following motion was made by Duke, seconded by Strassenburg, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that payment of $27,000, representing interest on short-term investments for 1977 to APS, be approved.

  5. Payment of OSA Interest on Short-Term Investments for 1975 and 1976 to Center for History of Physics

    Quinn reported that OSA has looked at the possibility of calculating interest on short-term investments and asked AIP that it be carried out in the same way for OSA as for APS. The amounts calculated in this manner are about $14,000 for 1975 and $14,000 for 1976. The OSA Executive Committee asked that the total be assigned to the AIP Center for History of Physics. The following motion was made by Quinn, seconded by Strassenburg, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that authorization be granted for the transfer of the $28,000 interest on short-term investments due to OSA for 1975 and 1976 from AIP retained earnings to AIP restricted earnings for the Center for History of Physics.

  6. Approval of Additional 1977 Computer Rental Costs to be Borne by AIP

    Gilbert called attention to the fact that the parallel computer systems (the 9300 and the 90/30) ran longer than anticipated. Due to numerous causes reported at previous meetings – some occasioned by the Woodbury move – the old 9300 computer was run until the end of May 1978, instead of being phased out during the spring of 1977. An additional expense of about $78,000 was incurred in 1977 and the AIP Management recommends that the Executive Committee authorize $78,000 to be charged against AIP General Expense for that year rather than being allocated to the cost of services involved. The remaining unit costs, to be charged to the Societies, will be very close to the quoted costs.

    The following motion was made by Duke, seconded by Strassenburg, and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the parallel cost for 1977 of rental and maintenance of equipment of the Data Processing Division, amounting to $78,000, be charged to AIP General Expense.

5. Proposal to Increase Cash in Lieu of Medal for Tate Award

Koch reported that he received a letter from S. A. Goudsmit, the Chairman of the Tate Award Committee, saying that the abolition of the gold medal would not provide enough money to increase the award appreciably. Apparently Branscomb had not known of Goudsmit’s wishes at the time the report was made to the Governing Board on 1 April. The following motion was made by Branscomb, seconded by Duke, and passed without dissent:

MOVED that the gold medal be retained as part of the John T. Tate Award.

6. Building Matters

  1. Status of Woodbury Operations

    Marks reported that the move of Composition and Editorial Mechanics from Stony Brook to Woodbury, as reported at the Executive Committee meeting on 31 March, was very smooth. The turnover of staff was minimal and we are satisfied with the labor market in the area.

    Gilbert reported that the Subscription Fulfillment Division moved on 19 May with only six out of 40 employees making the move, and 32 new employees hired and being trained. No major problems are anticipated. The Data Processing Division, including the 90/30 computer, was moved during the week-end of 10-11 June. The computer was operational on 12 June. A new data input staff was hired; recruiting for three vacant positions – two programmers and one computer operator – is in process.

    Marks discussed the current activities related to property maintenance. The most important needed item is the enlarging of the parking lot to provide for about 140 cars instead of the present 75. A new entrance road layout is also proposed, as well as enclosure of the entire eleven acres with a six-foot fence. The town highway had made provision for a short stretch of road into the property at an odd angle. Most of the dollars for the parking lot would go for asphalt and topping; lighting adds a little extra. A new zoning ordinance requires that, if an institution is operating with a special use permit, it is necessary to erect a picket fence. The cost is about $6.00 per foot. The whole package comes to $80,000.

    Marks noted also that the local bus company has indicated that, if we have this proposed new parking lot arrangement where the bus could be turned around, they would run it up to our property, even for only one or two people.

    Koch introduced Harris Rosenberg, the architect who has been involved in the Woodbury building renovation, who answered several questions.

    The following motion was made and passed without dissent:

    MOVED that the proposed improvements and additions to the AIP Woodbury property be authorized at a cost not to exceed $80,000.

  2. Report “Review of Manhattan Building Options for AIP and Society Headquarters”

    Koch opened the discussion on the need for deciding on a suitable renovation plan for the headquarters building by noting that a report dated 20 April was circulated to the Governing Board as a result of discussions by the Board on 1 April. The need was to bring all Board members up to date on what we were proposing for the headquarters building. There are two sets of options, short term and long term. We felt it would probably take three to five years to make a major decision for any long term plan. We must, however, make some short term decisions regarding the headquarters building, which is most suitable for activities requiring a visibility. We would be left with about 65 people in this building (not including about 20 people on the staffs of Member Societies) if we moved all of our publishing activities, accounting, and most office services to Long Island.

    Duke stated that the precise goal he would like to see management aim for is to have all the people now on Second Avenue either in this building or at Woodbury, but coordinated in two locations.

    Branscomb thought that it would be prudent to plan for a 10% buffer. Ten per cent of our people in rented space would provide an incentive to consolidate rather than expand. Koch replied that we essentially have such flexibility. We will want to use second and third shifts at Woodbury and can do that. With typewriter composition, we supplement our own activities with outside contract work. This provides a control on our own costs and gives us a buffer in case of an emergency or expanded requirements. This is going to decrease requirements for space at Woodbury.

    Morse stated that there are a number of ways that an appropriate committee might attack long range planning. A commercial company has a series of objectives; alongside each one is an indication of what kind of support, what kind of market, profits, one might get from each, and one tries to get a balance between the good that might come out of each and the support for each. He would suggest that the AIP staff present a series of priorities that includes where the support for such activities would come from or, perhaps, whether some may be self-supporting. This requires a certain amount of business judgment, and one hopes a committee would address itself to this. If one does get a long range committee set up, it is going to have a pretty heavy job and a number of pretty long meetings. Morse did not feel prepared to appoint such a committee at this time, but will talk to potential members and determine whether they are prepared to spend the kind of time that would be required.

    Havens thought that it is essential to determine which way the Institute can go and that one has to have some sort of long range objective that one tries to follow, but recognizing that whatever plans it comes up with may or may not be implemented.

    Branscomb thought it is possibly premature to appoint a long range planning committee. It is almost impossible to discuss what the Institute should do five years from now until the first five years are covered. The best that can be done is to just extrapolate from the last several years and indicate what AIP would do without new initiatives. That job has to be done by the full-time staff. The second phase, which should also be done by the operating staff, is to make the financial projections of required support for new programs AIP hopes to initiate. At the same time each Member Society might come up with suggestions for activities it would like to see AIP undertake. When all of that is put together, with the help of some staff work, then a committee appointed by the Governing Board could see what can be made out of it and come up with some specific recommendations.

    Morse commented that several times during the last two or three years it appeared to him that there was a dichotomy between the ideas and hopes of the staff and the thinking of most Governing Board members. To ask the staff again, without bringing the Board in fairly early, to put a lot of work into developing a long range program would be very wasteful. He would hope that a committee would work very closely with the staff, particularly in the early stages, to absorb ideas that the staff comes up with rather than asking the staff to do something separate. The committee could not only call in the staff but also call in the Societies for bull sessions. But regardless how we proceed and how fast we work, he doubted whether we can get a really sensible decision about selling the present headquarters building in any time shorter than three, and probably five years. Nevertheless, we ought to get started thinking about what we want to have done with the Institute three to five years from now.

    Quinn noted that the one thing that has always stymied any long range planning with respect to new initiatives in General Activities is that Koch wants to get money for new programs from the Societies and the Societies say, "Let AIP pay for them." Duke stated that AVS wants the cheapest possible services from AIP. Judging from discussions he had with people he knows, AIP cannot count on any financial support for any of these expansionist things. Koch thought that an additional source of income might be forthcoming from the Institute's newly acquired ability to disseminate an increasing volume of secondary services and get some financial return for it. Duke expressed his belief that the Societies will say, "Use this to cut our charges."

    Branscomb thought that any committee we might select should be fairly small and fairly sophisticated about its understanding of the relations between the Societies and AIP. He suggested that Morse take a crack at writing a charter for such a committee.

    Havens stated that even if we decided to sell the present building today, it would probably be three years before it would happen. The Executive Committee is not ready to decide on moving today and probably it will be close to five years before anything is done, which is the break-even point for putting that kind of money into the headquarters building. He is prepared to support the short range plan.

  3. Structural Analysis of the New York Building and Proposed Renovation

    Marks pointed to the agenda attachment labeled Option 11 "Renovation Budget Estimate" totaling $603,000, and noted that the headquarters is a reasonably substantial building for our purposes. We should have no fears about the safety of the structure. He noted that a smoke detection and fire alarm system for about $10,000 is included in the proposed renovation. Rosenberg pointed out that most people are going away from the wet system because it can damage computer equipment, papers, etc. He therefore recommended the smoke detector system, aside from the fact that the sprinkler system would cost an additional $30,000.

    Marks added that, in taking a close look at the design of the building, we have developed a list of features that it would be desirable to add to the items allowed for in the cost estimate sent to the Governing Board on 21 April, totaling $460,000. These include two new rest rooms in the basement, enlarging the first floor conference room to provide a better meeting room for the Governing Board, glass partitions for some office walls, modernization of the elevator, and provision for a temporary outside hoist elevator to expedite renovation and scheduled completion time. These additions increased the estimated cost by about $165,000. We can, if we want, omit some of the items and save some money. We had not planned to do anything with the exterior of the building but we could look into it. Branscomb suggested we might want to do so before the $40,000 temporary hoist elevator is taken down.

    Millman informed the Committee that, in line with action taken by the Governing Board at its meeting of 1 April, encouraging Board members to communicate their suggestions and comments on the detailed renovation plans to be discussed at this meeting, he had reminded Executive Committee members and other Governing Board members of this action in his recent correspondence with them. He also invited Board members to send their comments to him, if that was convenient. This resulted in the receipt of three letters from Board members L. W. Fredrick, I. J. Hirsh, and J. Ovadia, and copies of these letters were distributed at the meeting. In summary, one said "yes", one said "no", and one, in effect, said "maybe."

    Branscomb thought that Ovadia may have a point in his concerns about the uncertainties introduced by the recent IRS notification, revoking our 50l(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Gilbert pointed out that Ovadia was probably not aware of the recent developments with respect to IRS, and the time scale. We are not likely to have to pay back taxes even if we lose. Moreover, it would be several years before any unfavorable action goes through all the delays to be encountered in the various appeals.

  4. Furniture Proposal

    Marks then turned to a discussion of the proposal to purchase new furniture. He noted that our furniture and fixtures are fully depreciated and it is about time for replacements. The proposal is to use this occasion of the renovation to get new furniture and furnishings of a design that is compatible with what we have at Woodbury, and an efficient layout of the new offices. The plans for the new layout would go out for bids shortly. Negotiations and the placing of contracts would take place some time early in August. The earliest the work could be completed would be 1 January 1979, and surely by 1 March. Our people can stay in the rented space across the street until the end of the year, at least.

    Havens observed that we are now talking about a total investment of $1 million, not a $600,000 investment. Duke added that he did not envision this escalation when he made the motion at the Governing Board meeting delegating this discussion to the Executive Committee. Rosenberg stated, in answer to a question on the accuracy of the estimate, that coat estimates are good to within 5%. He added that there are not so many unknowns ae there were in the case of the Woodbury building.

  5. Financing

    Gilbert distributed a document entitled "Financing" and noted that our Building Reserve is approximately $900,000. We would adjust depreciation on the headquarters building as a result of the renovation. We used 30 years to start with, taking us to 1992. He noted that any additional mortgage we obtain would be at an interest rate of 9-3/4% to 10-3/4%. Since our current return on short term investments is about 7-1/4%, it is prudent to finance the renovation out of operating funds. The money would come from short term investments. By depleting our cash reserves we would reduce our operating revenues by the amount of interest income which would be lost.

    The following motion was made by Branscomb, seconded by Duke, and passed unanimously:

    MOVED that AIP proceed with the renovation of the headquarters building at a cost not to exceed $603,000 in accordance with Option II (Attachment C-4 to agenda item No. 7c.IIIa), and that financing be provided from operating funds.

    Turning to the discussion of the purchase of the furniture, the following motion was made by Duke, seconded by Strassenburg, and passed unanimously:

    MOVED that the Executive Committee recommend to the Governing Board the approval of the purchase of furniture and furnishings for the headquarters building at a sum not to exceed $425,000, and instruct the Secretary to conduct a mail ballot on this proposal to members of the Governing Board.

    (This motion includes $25,000 to provide for furniture for APS which will be repaid by APS in regular installments during the depreciation period.)

7. Heineman Foundation Awards

Koch informed the Executive Committee that he had received a telephone call from James Heineman notifying us that AIP is going to receive a 10-year continuation of the Dannie Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics. A similar award over a 10-year period in astrophysics, to be administered jointly by AAS and AIP, has also been approved. Each of the awards is for $5,000.

Branscomb, commenting generally on prizes to be administered by AIP, stated that they should be between $3,000 and $5,000, if possible, not less.

8. AAPT Proposal for Traveling Exhibit

Koch called attention to a letter he received from A. A. Bartlett, President of AAPT, suggesting that AIP and AAPT cooperate in the development of an exhibit at meetings of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Strassenburg explained that AAPT sometimes exhibits at meetings of other societies and is surprised at how much interest there is. Theirs is a very modest exhibit. He proposed to their Board that AAPT prepare a better-engineered exhibit and display it at three specific meetings. He will write a proposal and send it to AIP within the next few weeks. The initial investment for design and construction would be approximately $5,000. The operational cost at meetings would be something like $1,500, not counting salaries. He hoped that AIP could take up the burden of the initial investment. AAPT would provide manpower and share the operating coats. No action was requested at this meeting.

9. Comments on Administrative Review Procedures

Branscomb called attention to a letter from George E. Pake, Chairman of the most recent Administrative Review Committee, in which Pake questioned the wisdom of appointing members of that committee who are not familiar with the performance of the officers of AIP. Pake suggested that the people involved in this activity should be drawn from among those who are more closely involved in the AIP operations. Havens added that he agrees with Pake that that function could be best performed by members of the Executive Committee. Quinn thought that the Executive Committee as a whole ought to try it for a year.

10. AIP Auditors

Havens reported that, at a recent meeting of the Council of Engineering and Scientific Society Executives (CESSE), he learned that societies change their auditors occasionally as a matter of principle. APS has done so about a year ago and it was his opinion that AIP should also make a change. AIP has had perhaps too comfortable an arrangement for over 20 years with the same auditors and maybe that is not good. Gilbert thought that the least difficulty in making a change would be incurred if it is done when the accounting system has been computerized, in mid-1979. Morse suggested that the agenda of the annual meeting of the Corporation could carry an item regarding appointment of auditors. Whatever is needed could be done before the spring meeting of the Governing Board. An item on this subject should be included on the agenda of that meeting. Gilbert thought the Chairman of the AIP Audit Committee should be asked for suggestions.

11. Next Meeting

Koch proposed following Branscomb’s suggestion to hold the fall Executive Committee meeting a couple of weeks in advance of the Governing Board meeting. Accordingly, the next meeting of the Executive Committee was set for Thursday, 1 September, at AIP headquarters.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.