Executive Committee of the American Institute of Physics
Minutes of Meeting
1. Convene – Roll Call
The meeting was convened at 7:50 p.m. in the Cleveland Room of the Summit Hotel.
Members Present:
Hans Frauenfelder, Chairman of the Board
Peter B. Boyce
Kenneth W. Ford, Executive Director
Roderick M. Grant, Secretary
William W. Havens, Jr.
F. Dow Smith
Martin Walt
Jack M. Wilson
Member Absent:
David Lazarus
Non-voting participant:
Murray Strasberg
Staff Present:
Gerald F. Gilbert, Treasurer
Robert H. Marks, Director of Publishing
Lewis Slcrck, Director of Educational Programs
Bernard Dolowich, Controller (8 June)
Lawrence T. Merrill, Assistant to the Director (8 June)
Paul A. Parisi, Manager of Special Projects (8 June)
Nathalie D. Wagner, Assistant to the Secretary
For clarity in presentation with reference to the printed agenda, events recorded here are not necessarily in the same chronological order in which they appeared.
2. Report of the Secretary
-
Minutes of 19-20 February and 27 March Meetings
Draft minutes of these meetings were distributed prior to the meeting. Havens asked that revisions of his presentation on space needs in the February meeting be incorporated in the formal minutes. The minutes were then approved by acclamation.
3. Report of the Executive Director
-
Award Committee: Prize for Industrial Applications of Physics
Ford noted the proposed slate of the Award Committee for this prize, as given in his 26 May 1987 memo to the Executive Committee. Five people are required, including the Executive Director ex officio.The following motion was made by Wilson, seconded by Boyce, and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the proposed slate of the Award Committee for the Prize for Industrial Applications of Physics be approved, as follows: Praveen Chaudhari (Chair), Nils Muench, John Reitz, Harvey Scher, and Kenneth W. Ford (ex officio).
-
AIP Logo Committee
Ford, referring to his 26 May 1987 memo to the Executive Committee, said he has appointed a committee consisting of himself as Chair, Peter B. Boyce, Robert Resnick, Edward N. Sickafus (the preceding four currently on the Governing Board), S. Jeffrey Howitt, David Kalson, Gloria B. Lubkin, Lawrence T. Merrill, Spencer Weart (all AIP staff). He has given background on AIP to three free-lance designers; he anticipates the cost for each will be less than $500. They have been given samples of logos and have been told that the design has to be suitable for many applications and must not suggest only a single physics specialty. He hopes to have some ideas from them for the Executive Committee in September. -
Proposed Policy on Employment of Relatives
Ford referred to the draft statement on employment of relatives of employees contained in his memo of 26 May 1987 to the Executive Committee. (Appendix A)The consensus of the Executive Committee was that this is a good approach to a difficult problem. Gilbert said it will become a part of the Personnel Handbook.
Members of the Executive Committee concurred that this need not be voted on by the Executive Committee, but should be considered for information only.
-
Proposed Name Change: Educational Programs to Physics Programs
Ford said the main reason for the proposal for this title change, contained in his 4 May 1987 memo to Executive Committee, is that "educational" implies a narrower focus for the Branch than "physics".Boyce said "physics programs" is broad, but why not. Frauenfelder said the weight here should be on programs, not physics. Ford said Frauenfelder's comment is useful: the emphasis is on programs.
Havens said it is not physics. Although he likes the idea of changing the name, this name is inappropriate for this subset of activities. However, he has not thought of another name as a substitute. All but employment statistics and career placement would fall under physics information and education programs. "Public Information and Educational Programs" is a possible name, but is too restrictive. Perhaps consider just "Programs."
Ford said he likes "programs" alone less than "physics programs." Would this make a difference in our clout with outside organizations?
Havens made the following motion, which died for lack of a second:
MOVED that the new name of this branch be "Programs."
Wilson then moved the following, which was seconded by Boyce, and CARRIED, with one opposing vote.
MOVED that the name of the "Educational Programs Branch" be changed to "Physics Programs Branch".
-
Discussion of Possible Development Office and Fund Raising
Ford gave an update on this proposal. He has had favorable responses from several executive officers.Havens said he would bring it to the APS Executive Committee on 22 June. He has had unfortunate experiences with development offices; it has to be handled carefully. It would be bad to be in competition with the Societies; the sources are the same. It is necessary to have a specific need.
Ford said he is conscious of this, and of the need to have a specific purpose for the fund raising. There are two possible levels with the Societies: either the services could be consultative, or AIP might take on a specific fund raising task for a Society. The underlying philosophy is that of trying to move away from total dependence on publishing revenue. This has been a good source but it seems important to develop other sources.
Boyce thought that the future of publishing revenue looks frightening. Physics journals are raising their prices, including the for-profits. He noted editorials in Science and the Chronicle of Higher Education. He thinks this idea is good. AIP needs to deal with the problem of how to get more non-publishing revenue.
Smith noted that Koch raised the fund raising concept a few years ago. Ramsey also tried to develop the idea. The recommendation was that AIP not try to develop programs until specific, defined goals are set forth. The OSA has been very successful, but they actually did it backward; they acquired a building, then went after funding. He strongly recommends that a development office make use of an outside consultant.
Ford said he brought in an outside consultant, with whom he previously had worked when in New Mexico, for two days. During that time the consultant talked with many AIP staff and with Havens. A report will be submitted soon.
Frauenfelder sensed that we should go forward, understanding the difficulties.
Ford said that in September there will be a suggestion for the budget implications.
-
Procedures for Agenda
Ford noted the procedure he had followed prior to this meeting of distributing some materials ahead of the agenda as generated. The same material was then duplicated in the agenda packet. He asked what the Committee would prefer.
The consensus was in favor of continuing this procedure.
4. Report of ad hoc Committee on Space Needs
Ford distributed a memo dated 1 June 1987 on this subject.
He reported that, by a narrow (7-5) vote, the committee opted to recommend to the Governing Board that it authorize construction of a new building for AIP Headquarters at the site of the presently owned building.
The committee also considered options for the publishing operation and (at its first meeting) adopted the following MOTION:
AIP Management is encouraged to develop a plan for the purchase of property on Long Island--sufficient for expansion--to meet the long-term needs of the publishing operation.
Ford's memo summarized his understanding of principal factors affecting space decisions. Probably the differences in cost are not well enough understood. Some concessions are offered in Washington, making a difference between quoted and actual costs. The committee assumed that the percentage difference in cost was small.
Havens said this matter should be discussed further at Woods Hole before a final decision is made. More information is needed, and there was no time to prepare it prior to this meeting.
Frauenfelder noted that we have been losing money in New York in the present small building. What this tells him is that this is not a basis for a decision for the next 30 years. Woodbury is now a white elephant and we need to move. We have the most expensive real estate available in New York. We should look at things anew. What are the truly important things? Whenever there is a 50-50 vote, it tells you that it is not the best solution yet. Ford and the AIP staff need to look at two solutions. It had been decided that a complete move to Woodbury should not be considered. But with the tight space at Woodbury, this may need to be reconsidered.
Frauenfelder said one option is to expand to four locations; another is to get rid of the present property as soon as is possible and relocate on a site that does not have restricted zoning.
Boyce said this means that the previous decision to remain in Woodbury should be reconsidered.
Smith thought we had wanted to protect AIP personnel in Woodbury. This committee had made the recommendation that the publishing operation should stay on Long Island, in a location appropriate to maintaining trained personnel. Havens said it had been thought possible to build on the present Woodbury site, but the new factor is that this is not now true. He referred to the last sentence of the previously adopted motion: that a plan be developed for purchase of property on Long Island sufficient for expansion to meet the long term plans of the publishing operation.
-
Woodbury Rental Space
(Note: The following is a summary/distillation of the extensive discussion and related actions concerning Woodbury space rental and other space needs issues which took place at both the Sunday and Monday sessions of the committee.)Marks gave background on the Woodbury property. It was purchased originally from a not-for-profit company. Since it is in a residential zone, AIP obtained a special use permit from the town of Oyster Bay. The property in the area has since become very valuable, and Oyster Bay has voted to eliminate all future special use permits. It would be difficult to get a permit to build further. Since expensive condominiums are being built nearby, he thinks the time is ripe to find a developer and sell it for residential development. In turn, we should plan to find a new, nearby location in order not to lose the large staff developed and trained over the last five years. Projections are that 120,000 square feet are needed by the year 2000. A commercially zoned property would be sensible. Long Island is desirable because of a good labor market, and the fact that it is a growing area. The caliber of people is very good and turnover is very low.
Marks distributed a copy of his 5 June 1987 memo to Ford headed "Need for Space at Woodbury." We are overcrowded; additional space is needed between now and the end of the year. Rental space has been located by AIP's real estate broker in a newly constructed building about five minutes drive from the Woodbury offices. The asking rental price is $23.00 per square foot. A five-year lease would be negotiated. Certain units could conveniently be relocated here. If we do not act promptly on this proposal, we could lose this opportunity.
Wilson said this seems to be a new issue, suddenly mushroomed. Solutions always seem to be for the short term.
Sickafus said he has similar concerns. He feels a fresh-eyed look is needed in the long term. The Executive Committee is handicapped in that its members represent non-profits and are volunteers. We need a business group to evaluate this. What is the best return on our investment? A consulting group could be engaged to look at business opportunities, which every company has to do from time to time. Space is only a part of the issue; it also involves the labor market and future competition.
Frauenfelder said he is concerned with this point also. Who does such a look? There may be only a small dollar difference yearly among different solutions, but this could make a large difference in the long run. We should have a number of options and study moving costs and consolidation. He sees two problems:
1) Short term. Space for the Woodbury operations.
2) Long range. Headquarters and AIP in general.
We do not have the background, knowledge, or the numbers to take an answer to the Board.Grant pointed out that the only thing new before the Executive Committee is a specific proposal on an available site. The shortage of space in Woodbury and other possibilities for rentals had been discussed previously.
Marks said this is an opportunity situation. It is close and has ample parking and would give us flexibility. Woodbury is now overcrowded and has limited conference room space. He wants to expand composition of additional journals. If a projected 15% increase in pages happens, the publishing operation would be hard pressed.
Frauenfelder asked how it would affect the overall budget for next year. Marks said for 1987, it would be additional rental for one-quarter year. It is within the leeway of quoted prices for editorial mechanics and composition in the operating budget. The cost would be $400,000 in 1988.
Ford noted that the Committee was operating under a boundary condition: that publishing was to remain on Long Island. It only discussed the New York needs. If that condition is opened up, it changes everything. From this meeting, what guideposts are needed? There is the possibility of a near-term move away from Long Island, but he hopes not.
Havens said all of the reasoning that led to the decision to remain on Long Island is not seriously affected by the restrictions on the property. He understands that there is adequately zoned property not far away in Long Island. We would not want to go further east than Ridge.
Ford asked when a decision should be made regarding Long Island as a publishing anchor.
Havens reviewed the previous actions of the Executive Committee regarding Woodbury, and made the following motion, which was seconded by Smith, and discussed extensively. Following discussion, reported below, the motion was DEFEATED.
MOVED that the Executive Committee reiterate the motion that the publishing center remain in the general vicinity of its current location in Woodbury.
Wilson spoke against the motion. He recalled the actions but thinks the parameters are different now. He likes the idea of a consulting firm working with the Executive Director of AIP to identify possibilities and consider the options. We should not rule any area off limits.
Boyce thought it was premature to state this motion now. He is unhappy with the idea of establishing the publishing at Woodbury as a given.
Havens said one of the reasons for stating this was the unsettling effect on the staff of the prospect of moving from Woodbury, since this had been major move just a few years ago. He read the statement from the minutes. It was felt necessary to reiterate this. He gets questions from AIP employees regarding Executive Committee actions. He is concerned about the effect on the current AIP Woodbury operation.
At this point the vote on the previous motion was taken.
Wilson then made the following motion, which died for lack of a second:
MOVED that the Executive Director be empowered to employ consultants to prepare a study. This would include review of the Landauer report; interviewing the AIP Management Committee, Member Societies, and other physicists; and preparing a study regarding where AIP should be in the year 2000.
Further, extensive discussions involving long range planning and AIP space needs were held. (These are reported only in the aide-memoire for the meeting.)
Havens then made the following motion, which was seconded by Sickafus and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that management be authorized to negotiate and sign a five-year lease for rental space near the Woodbury Publishing Center at an annual rent not to exceed $400,000 per year as described in the 5 June 1987 memo from Marks to Ford.
5. Sunday Executive Session
(The staff was excused at 10:15 p.m.)
The Executive Committee met in executive session, which is reported in the official minutes only.
The meeting resumed at 9:00 a.m., Monday, 8 June, in the Karl Taylor Compton Board Room at AIP Headquarters.
6. Subscription Fulfillment System
-
Status of Development of New System
Ford noted his 17 April, 30 April, and 26 May memos to the Executive Committee in which he gave status reports on this project. We now have received all of the software done by AZTECH. One meeting was held with AIP programmers and Gudes. Options were discussed, including the hiring of additional programmers. Things will be narrowed down in the next few weeks.Dolowich reported that when obtaining the software from AZTECH, their accounting records were erroneous, but he made clear to them that AIP did not owe any additional money. AIP may purchase the Henco package (INFO), which recently came on the market and can be used for retrieval against any database and for additional reports, obviating the need for Selectron. The cost would be $20,000, which is almost a washout with the money formerly allocated to be paid AZTECH. There were four qualified candidates for the advertised programmers position. The best one rejected the position because of travel time. The others were not considered good enough. New ads are being placed.
Dolowich then distributed a memo "Database Reorganization Benchmark." AIP has decided to split the database into four parts. A subset of 56,000 service records was converted from the Univac files so as to run a test on the current MV8000 and also on the MV15000, model 10 (in the Data General office in Long Island). The quoted price 'on the model 10 is $167,000; with peripherals it is $200,000. The quote on the model 8 is $135,000, including peripherals. The next model up (the model 20) is $286,000. He reviewed the speeds found in the test. The MV15000 is twice the speed of the MV8000. The #20 is four times the speed. It appears that the #10 is sufficient and the best buy. The allotted time for processing the entire data base must be less than 48 hours (over the weekend) . The two peak seasons would be June-July and December-January. During a busy season, the data base might be reorganized once a week; at other times, once a month. They are now reviewing the options.
Ford said that Gudes indicated there is new software, which was not available five years ago, that may meet our needs. We have to look carefully at these packages.
Dolowich said time is needed to do this. The key Data Processing person is John Auliano, who is now on jury duty. He is most familiar with the AZTECH software, so it is difficult to review software without him. If it clearly does not meet our needs it can easily be eliminated. However, if it seems possible, this takes more time. Dolowich would not put a lot of stock in these programs. He has reviewed many packages; they do not do those functions that are unique to our operations.
Grant asked to what extent we are prepared to change our requirements to meet existing software.
Dolowich said requests from Member Societies have to be considered. For instance, the OSA had asked that the distribution cost be separated from the subscription cost. This was a unique request and not common in the fulfillment world.
Ford noted that this is an interim report only. He hopes to target the September meeting for a decision.
-
Requested Approval of Expenditures for In-house Development
Ford noted his 26 May memo to the Executive Committee requesting authorization to cover expenditures of approximately $50,000 for two programmers in this year, if needed.Dolowich distributed Gudes' "Report on Results of Investigating Commercial Software Packages for Dues and Subscription Fulfillment for AIP," dated 4 June 1987.
Havens made the following motion, which was seconded by Sickafus and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that expenditure of up to $50,000 during the current fiscal year be authorized, if needed, for the purpose of employing additional programmers to work on the development of the new subscription fulfillment system.
-
Steps to Enhance Services Provided by Present System
Ford said subscription fulfillment is a problem area and has been a source of friction and complaint, especially in the areas of special requests. Sometimes the answer has been yes, but it would cost extra, or sometimes a yes would be given but not delivered. He is discussing this with the officers and with Dolowich. Marks has agreed to take a special interest in this area. Dolowich has agreed to be the focal point for requests received.Grant thought this was an important step. His experience in visiting Member Societies has been that this is a sensitive area. There is a need for responsiveness, whether delivered in person, phone, or letter, and attention to all societal requests, not ignoring one while servicing another. Often filling a need for one Society can delay another Society.
Dolowich noted that the programmer's rate is about $60 per hour. Computer time is $120 per hour. Requests must be filled at cost; often customers do not realize the real cost.
Boyce thought other Societies would benefit greatly from a meeting to review requests. Perhaps the Committee on Society Services could be helpful in sharing information.
7. Publishing Matters (All approved prices given in Appendix B)
-
Recommendations on 1988 Prices for Journals and Page Charges
Marks said that there are several considerations in setting prices: the net income required to maintain the AIP physics programs, the projected number of non-member subscriptions lost each year, the projected number of pages published, and in-house operating costs. Subscriptions have dropped 3-5% yearly. The number of pages published is anticipated to increase about 14% next year. Based on estimates of the variables noted above, recommendations for increases in non-member prices range from 14.5% to 28.8%.Frauenfelder asked if, when we send out new prices, a letter of justification is sent.
Marks said the first notice of prices goes to the agencies (Faxon, Ebsco), which deal with libraries, so we do not have direct contact. AIP exhibits at the Special Libraries Association meeting and will speak there soon. Barschall's article in PT on journal prices has been very useful and has been widely distributed.
Frauenfelder noted that librarians will have to make decisions on what journals to drop. A reprint of Barschall's article might make a difference.
Marks said this could be added to the current promotion program.
Sickafus asked the reason for the 20% increase in the cost of gratis reprints. Marks said this is tied in with an increase in honored pages and the resulting need for free reprints.
Grant noted a previous Executive Committee discussion of free reprints and the request that there be consideration of whether they should be continued.
Marks said they periodically look at reprints and whether to charge for them. They now make an arbitrary division of the expenses of collecting page charges between gratis reprints and page charges. AIP will look at the APS experience of charging for reprints, a policy adopted when they lowered page charges.
Havens said when APS went away from free reprints, they were costing $10 per page. He has been amazed at the lack of complaints since they began charging for them.
Boyce said the AAS has not given free reprints for several years. He is concerned with the trend of decrease in subscriptions and the long term future of publishing, especially with the squeeze in library budgets. He thinks raising library rates while maintaining page charges is a problem and will be counterproductive. Libraries often look at the numbers of users and titles, not the cost per page. He thinks there is a need to look at the page budget from all sides.
Walt said he shares this concern. How does AIP estimate the number of subscriptions, especially with the large increase in subscription prices?
Marks said they have found since 1982 that decreases in subscriptions are not proportional to increased prices. It is necessary to consider page charges separately from subscription prices. Dropping page charges results in more article submissions. We have aggressive competition, which involves not just subscription prices but also page charges and where a physicist wants to publish his or her results.
Ford wondered if we did not give gratis reprints, would we save $430,000?
Marks said the in-house handling costs involved would have to be reallocated. The same group collects page charges, provides gratis reprints, and sells reprints. Gilbert added that you just shift the costs of this group somewhere else.
Sickafus moved the following, which was seconded by Wilson and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the 1988 subscription prices and page charges for AIP archival journals, as given in Table I (attached herewith), be approved.
Marks next reviewed the recommendations for the translation journals. These journals are only sold to libraries (except for the OSA journals, which have a member price). Even with the high prices, shrinkage in subscriptions has been less than with the archival journals. Projected net income is about $1.6 million. This is an important part of publishing revenue; they are projecting a slightly higher income for 1988. The proposed increases vary, as an effort was made to balance the overall prices and still achieve the desired net income. In 1987, revenue is up but so are expenses. He is looking at this program in the short term, as we are not sure how long the Soviets will continue to publish in Russian. This uncertainty is one reason for developing the books program. We now pay the Soviets a royalty of 8.5% of the total income; our royalty payment almost exactly matches their payment for subscriptions to our journals. The agreement with the Soviets is automatically renewed unless cancelled by the end of June. Several AIP representatives will attend the Moscow Book Fair in September.
The recommendation from the Committee on Publishing Policy was unanimously CARRIED.
That the 1988 subscription prices for AIP translation journals, as given in Table I (attached herewith), be approved.
Marks then reviewed the package pricing. AIP feels it is a good concept, but it takes time to make it known. We now have 10 subscribers taking packages. We continue to promote the concept and it will be featured at the Special Libraries Association meeting. The goal is to pull up those Soviet journals which have low subscriptions and to increase the circulation of the archival journals.
The recommendation from the Committee on Publishing Policy was unanimously CARRIED.
That the 1988 package pricing for journals, as depicted in the 30 April 1987 memo from Parisi to the Committee on Publishing Policy (attached herewith), be approved.
-
Recommendations on Physics Today, Computers in Physics, 1988 Secondary Products, and Advertising Rates
Marks reviewed the proposed rates for PT: an increase in the individual member (affiliated society member) rate, from $20 to $25, is proposed. The proposed rates for the new journal Computers in Physics are $20 for members, $25 for individual non-members.Marks noted that we are competing with commercial magazines for advertising. He requested authorization for a possible maximum increase of 29% in 1988, to be carried out in two steps, with the rates to be increased at AIP's discretion. There is a lot of competition for the advertising dollar, although not direct competition, and it is a continual battle. We have some disadvantage: 7,000 of our subscribers are students, but we can prove that PT is widely read by a wide-ranging group. Our rates are competitive with magazines that have the same general market, such as Spectrum, Laser Focus, Research and Development, and Technology Review.
The following recommendation from the Committee on Publishing Policy were unanimously CARRIED.
That the 1988 advertising and subscription prices for Physics Today, the PT Buyers Guide, and Computers in Physics, as depicted in 20 May 1987 memo from Marks to Ford (attached herewith), be approved.
Marks noted that the recommended prices for secondary products and services represent modest increases. Few companies mount tapes in-house, but we hope these products will be used by the developing secondary services. SPIN now has six customers.The following recommendation from the Committee on Publishing Policy was unanimously CARRIED.
That the 1988 prices for secondary products and services, as depicted in the 20 May 1987 memo from Marks to Ford (attached herewith), be approved.
Boyce proposed that the numbers approved be translated into a page budget for AIP editors.
Marks said this has been discussed, but there is great reluctance to turn down a good paper because it is over the page budget.
Boyce thought the times are now different; we have to be fiscally responsible. If we are not charging adequate page charges, we should put an upper limit on papers.
Marks pointed out that the publishing program is not in the red; it is producing a higher net than most commercial publishers produce.
Frauenfelder said he would be reluctant to do such a thing without a detailed study.
Marks said we have in the past set a limit for non-honored pages, and we could then come in on target. But now we do not delay non-honors. If a paper is accepted we publish it. This has led to some problems with the page budget.
Boyce said these recommendations come from people involved in getting papers published, not people in the fiscal areas.
Grant said he could agree with both sides. When AJP removed page charges, it got more papers and the average length increased. There are other factors when the limitation is removed. It is a difficult thing for an editor to control.
Frauenfelder said he had been asked to look at Physical Review B to see if it contained any papers that should not have been accepted. He found only a very few that he thought mediocre. The main cut is not in journals but in grants. There is now a 20% acceptance rate in grant applications. He is more interested in how higher prices will affect circulation and income. If limited, authors will inevitably go to European journals for publication, and it is then hard to get them back.
Boyce said it is essential to realize we are loading onto the libraries the cost of accepting unlimited papers. Frauenfelder disagreed with this interpretation; if a paper is not accepted by one of our journals, it will appear in a commercial journal at a much higher price.
-
Report on Development of Computers in Physics
Marks distributed a promotional flyer for the journal. Alex Wolfe (formerly with Electronics Magazine) has been named Managing Editor. It is on the dues bill for APS, OSA, ASA, and AAPT. Early returns from APS indicate a response larger than he had anticipated. -
Problem of Multiple Subscriptions by Individuals at Member Rates
Parisi, referring to his 21 May 1987 and 3 June 1987 memos to Marks, noted that there are 403 members, mainly APS and OSA, taking more than six journals, and some members taking up to 16 personal subscriptions. These subscriptions are usually going to people at universities. He suggested a possible approach, and included a draft letter to be signed by Ford to go to these subscribers with a form to return.Ford said that it is clear there is abuse and there is evidence that it represents a large number of dollars. He suggests two actions:
1) Immediate: a routine letter from Subscription Fulfillment not implying suspicion.
2) Labeling covers differently for member and non-member.Grant thought it would be a good idea to send a letter but noted that it would come from AIP although Member Society journals are involved. He suggested that once approval is given by the Member Societies, the letter could state that it has the concurrence of the Member Societies involved. Ford agreed.
Frauenfelder said that the consensus seemed to be that we should move along on these lines.
-
Status of Videocomp
Marks noted his 26 May 1987 memo to Ford. The present equipment is 12 years old; many of the key parts are no longer made. We had been advised to delay replacing it as long as possible in order to get the best technology possible, but it is no longer possible to delay because the present equipment will not be serviced after January 1988. We can now get a VC570 for $250,000; the order must be placed now as the delivery time is six months. This will result in a slight increase in photocomposition costs, but use of the laser printer for proofing will yield a net drop in the overall cost.Havens made the following motion, which was seconded by Wilson and CARRIED with one abstention.
MOVED that an expenditure of up to $250,000 for the purchase of a VC570 Videocomp from Information International, Inc., be approved, including an initial non-refundable deposit of $25,000, subject to review by the Committee on Publishing Policy at its next meeting.
-
Reports of Subcommittees
-
Information Technology
The report of the 7 May 1987 meeting of the Subcommittee on Information Technology was included with the Agenda. Parisi said there was no action required from this meeting. The committee reviewed the status of PI-NET/Pl-MAIL and agreed that a charging mechanism should be in place in early 1988. Softstrip was discussed as a novel technology by which computer-readable material could be printed in a journal and transferred into a personal computer; the staff will pursue this matter. A second Kurzweil optical scanner has been installed; about 15% of the AIP journal pages are now processed through this system. -
Intellectual Property Rights
The report of the 7 May 1987 meeting of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Rights was included with the Agenda. Parisi reported that the subcommittee met with AIP's new copyright counsel Bruce G. Joseph and David Ladd of Wiley, Rein & Fielding. They asked AIP to copyright the last five years of SPIN and to add copyright notices and labels to all new SPIN tapes. The new AIP copyright form is being used and many of the Member Societies have adopted similar forms.There was extensive discussion on IEE/INSPEC matters in the committee meeting, and it was felt that a stronger approach was needed. A letter will be drafted and reviewed by counsel, stating that past permissions are rescinded and both organizations should work toward the licensed use of abstracts.
-
Recommendation to Rescind Past Action on Free Use of Abstracts
Ford referred to his 26 May 1987 memo to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee at its 8-9 September 1977 meeting passed a motion that granted to abstracting services the right to copy abstracts royalty-free. This motion was apparently never printed in AIP journals and the statement that copying for further sale was not permitted continued to be printed. There is no record of a review of this policy although the motion passed at that time called for its reexamination after a year. Since it is now evident that abstracts can generate considerable revenue (contrary to the assumption in 1977), it is important to establish without question our rights to copyrighted abstracts.Havens made the following motion, which Boyce seconded and which was unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the motion passed at the Executive Committee meeting of 8-9 September 1977 that granted abstracting and indexing services the right to copy abstracts royalty-free be rescinded.
-
8. Financial Matters
-
Status of Capital Expenditures
Gilbert reviewed authorized 1987 capital expenditures to date.Ford said he was pleased that items are coming in under budget, especially with the personal computers. The Institute standardized requests for PC's with the NEC/APC4, which is IBM/AT-compatible. Software is also being standardized.
-
Actions on Arbitrage Account
Gilbert referred to his 28 May 1987 subject memo to the Executive Committee, which reviewed actions taken following the March Governing Board meeting to comply with its motion (made in Executive Session) concerning Drexel Burnham Lambert, as follows:All AIP securities (including securities in the Arbitrage Account) and all AIP cash balances then held by DBL were transferred to Bankers Trust Company. This action eliminated all possible risk to these assets.
Bankers Trust Company opened the following three custodial accounts for the Institute:
A) American Institute of Physics - Minis
B) American Institute of Physics - RCA (Resource Capital Advisers, Inc.)
B) American Institute of Physics – DBL Bankers Trust Company custodial account charges will be borne by DBL.The following services are currently being performed by DBL:
1) They act as broker for the execution of certain security orders (with highly discounted brokerage commissions).
2) They manage our Arbitrage Account (at no cost to AIP).
3) Through their Asset Consulting Evaluation (ACE) data base, they assist AIP in locating investment advisors and provide monthly monitoring of the performance of our investment advisors (at no cost to AIP).The Investment Advisory Committee and Gilbert feel that these services are of great value to the Institute and make a significant contribution to the success of our investment programs.
Frauenfelder noted that by telephone ballot on 7 April 1987 the Executive Committee voted to TABLE the motion regarding transfer of our arbitrage account from DBL or liquidation of same. The tabled motion must be brought up at this meeting. He noted that passing this motion would create considerable problems, as we would lose access to a valuable data base of investment advisors.
The following motion, as tabled from the Executive Committee telephone ballot on 7 April 1987 for action at this meeting, was removed from the table and DEFEATED, with two votes in favor and five votes opposed.
MOVED to transfer our arbitrage account from Drexel Burnham Lambert to another broker as soon as possible, or to liquidate this investment account.
The following motion, in confirmation of the telephone ballot of 7 April 1987 and previously acted upon as reported above, was unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the action taken by the Treasurer to transfer AIP securities and cash balances held by Drexel Burnham Lambert promptly to another custodian be sustained.
-
Recommendations of Investment Advisory Committee - 27 May 1987 Meeting
Gilbert reviewed the report of the conference-call meeting of the committee on 7 May 1987. The Committee decided to maintain AIP's current position in equities and increase our investment in top-performing conservative mutual funds. They discussed the three funds of the Mutual Shares Corporation which have a record of top performance together with a very low risk rating. The Committee considers it advisable to increase our holdings with Minis & Co., as they have faith in this management.Walt said he is involved with investments for AGU and thinks these AIP investments are not conservative enough. In particular, AIP seems to be overly invested in equities at this time.
Gilbert said the majority of our equities are with First Manhattan. They are not in the usual blue chips but in growth organizations. For the past three years they have had an excellent record and do well in a down as well as in an up market. He noted that arbitrage functions independently of the market. Regarding the balanced fund, the balance is indicated as 50-50, but they do not have 50% in common stock.
Walt said this means one-half of the portfolio follows one philosophy. AGU would be nervous with this kind of portfolio.
The following committee recommendation, as stated in the report, was moved by Boyce and seconded by Sickafus. Following discussion, it was unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the Treasurer be empowered to remit the following funds to the designated portfolio managers for investments:
Mutual Beacon Fund, Inc. $1,000,000 Mutual Shares Corporation $1,000,000 Minis & Co. $1,000,000 [Later in the meeting Gilbert reported that he had just learned that investments were closed for Mutual Shares Corporation until the end of July, so the funds would be placed in short-term investments until they can be placed there.]
Frauenfelder noted that the committee has been doing a good job.
Wilson said there are those not in favor of our arbitrage account. He personally would prefer to be out of it.
Gilbert explained what we would lose if we got out of the DBL service. It would put a great burden on him and on the committee. Here we benefit from an excellent data base.
Smith asked whether Wilson's reservation was based on Drexel Burnham Lambert or on the concept in general. Wilson said both. He sees fundamental problems.
Smith said one OSA member was strongly opposed to it. They had a DBL representative speak to them and asked him about possible places to invest. Nearly all investment companies have arbitrage departments. DBL's own arbitrage account is in New York. The corporate office for bond takeovers is in Los Angeles. Our account has indeed been productive. Last year was exceedingly good for equities. Over the years it has been steady, with low exposure and low risk.
-
Status of 1986 AIP Audit
Gilbert said the signoff date, the end of May, was earlier this year. We should receive the Touche Ross draft of the letter of recommendation about 9 June. The financial statements will be ready about then and will go to PT for publication.In the past the Audit Committee met at the time of the Governing Board meeting. However, last year they met earlier, shortly after the auditors' report was received, in order to correct the concerns immediately. He will schedule it this year as soon as practicable upon receipt of the letter of recommendation. The Financial Statement was better than that given to the Governing Board in March because investment income was higher than expected. The net revenue for 1986 on the audited statement will be $3,895,000.
-
Status of IRS Audit
Gilbert reviewed the IRS activity. Last September he had reported on the IRS representative who was auditing the W2 and 1099 Forms, an unusual type of audit. The audit went into depth on the 1984 1099's; he was concerned, as AIP has many freelancers. These persons are in a gray area in which the IRS is cracking down. The IRS wants them to be declared employees so it can collect FICA tax. Gilbert explained to the auditor that we are knowledgeable about this area and the relevant laws. Gilbert had our attorney draw up an independent contractor form complying with the provisions, which these individuals sign.Gilbert checked with the engineering societies; some had gotten fines for not filing. The auditor completed his work in May and gave a verbal report at that time. He stated that he considered all AIP journal editors to be employees of AIP. However, he said nothing about the free lancers. Gilbert explained the philosophy of the peer review system to him; AIP has no control over the Editors. The auditor reported back after discussing it with the District office. He finally brought a statement for Gilbert to sign; Gilbert refused to sign it. He discussed the matter with Lehrfeld our attorney, who was surprised and said this is a first. The auditor said that AIP is a test case. Gilbert signed a power-of-attorney for Lehrfeld to represent AIP in this matter. Lehrfeld will get from Gilbert copies of agreements with the journal editors and moneys paid since 1984. After he reviews the background he will recommend a course of action.
-
Recommended Policy on Use of Income from Endowment Funds or Equivalent Restricted Funds
Ford said that Institute spending from the endowment funds or equivalent restricted funds has been done on an ad hoc basis, with no established policy. In his 6 May 1987 memo to the Executive Committee he proposes guidelines. He reviewed the proposed policy with the Management Committee, which endorsed it.Ford then made the following motion, which was seconded by Sickafus, and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the Executive Committee approve the following policy statement for use of income from endowment funds or equivalent restricted funds as follows:
"For endowment funds, or equivalent restricted funds, with an invested principal of $100,000 or more, annual expenditures from earnings are to be limited to five (5) percent of the amount of the principal, averaged over any three-year period. Exceptions to this policy may be approved by the Management Committee and must be reported to the Executive Committee, with stated reasons for the exceptions. For proposed expenditures of six (6) percent or more from earnings on endowments of $500,000 or more, advance approval of the Executive Committee is required."
-
Recommended Improvements in Employee Benefits
Gilbert said he monitors employee benefits with sister organizations. AIP is presently lagging in the area of disability and life insurance. It would be a very small increase in cost to the Institute to bring these up to an equivalent level.The following motion was made by Boyce, seconded by Havens, and unanimously
CARRIED.MOVED approval of management recommendations for the improvement of employee benefits under Total Disability and Group Life Insurance programs, as outlined in the 28 May 1987 memo from Gilbert to the Executive Committee.
The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:10 p.m. and resumed at 1:00 p.m.
9. Educational Programs/Physics Programs Matters
-
Reports of Meetings of Subcommittees of Committee on Educational Policy
Slack reported on the three meetings, recently held. There are no written reports as yet. The CEP will meet in June.-
History of Physics - 5 June Meeting
This committee, chaired by Stuewer, heard a full report on the Division. They expressed hope that they would be invited to be consulted on plans for a new building. They expressed hope that during any transition period caused by relocation the unique facilities (archives and microfilms) would continue to be made available to scholars.The staff has identified needs and opportunities for future programs. They are thinking that some of the new emphases should be more directly oriented to educational aspects. The committee is enthusiastic and supportive of this idea.
-
Physics Today - 2 June Meeting
This committee, chaired by French, expressed concern over timing of issues. The staff tries to get it out by the first of the month and are making plans to achieve this goal. Design work and plans for cover and text pages were well-received by the committee. Special issues were discussed. These are attractive to advertisers. They thought it would be well to devote more space to industrial research. International coverage was discussed. They supported expansion, perhaps in cooperation with foreign journals. The value of continuing to print annual reports from the Executive Director PT was raised by Ford, but this is the legal necessary mechanism for conveying this. -
Education and Employment Statistics and Career Placement - 27 May Meeting
In this meeting, chaired by Layman, there was much discussion of surveys. The biggest at the moment is the high school teachers survey. Two-thirds of the questionnaires have been returned. A 99% response was received from the high school principals. Preliminary data will be available by the fall. The committee suggested sponsoring a workshop in the fall, to see what people want from this survey. A follow-up survey was discussed; it would be better to wait for three years to digest what was learned from this one. They are aiming for a report by Porter at the January APS/AAPT meeting on the high school survey. The division has copies of tapes from the Center for Education Statistics (U. S. Dept. of Education) but they have not yet determined the best utilization of them. There currently seems to be more interest in hiring college graduates. More effort could be devoted to placing them. Recruitment has been largely on college campuses.
-
-
Recommended Commitment for Hosting Physics Olympiad in 1992
As noted in his 21 May 1987 memo to the Executive Committee, Ford said that Wilson had learned that the International Physics Olympiad would be receptive to an invitation to hold the Olympiad in the U.S. in 1992. The budget for this is estimated $225,150. Ford recommends that AIP be the fiscal guarantor.
Wilson distributed his 28 May 1987 Proposal for Hosting the 1992 International Physics Olympiad. It reviewed the background, format, and preliminary budget, using the University of Maryland as a model since those figures are in hand. If it should be held there, the University has agreed to contribute $50,000. Chances are good for acceptance of the U. S. proposal. He suggests that we solicit bids for the site and not state a specific one in a motion. The final decision for the site is up to the U. S. group. Noting that the U.S. is responsible for expenses after the delegations arrive, he said it is important to pick a site near an international airport.
The following motion was made by Sickafus, seconded by Boyce, and, following discussion, unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that a commitment of up to $200,000, be approved for AIP to act as financial guarantor toward host-country expenses for the 1992 International Physics Olympiad.
10. Rules Governing Associate Member Societies
Grant said he was 3sked to redraft a document regarding Associate Member Societies. He noted that the difference in the characteristics between this category and that of Member Society is nebulous. The financial handling charge now applies only to Member Societies. Both receive PT and pay dues. Services to Member Societies are at cost. The overhead charge to Associate Member Societies for services done in-house is 15%, and 5% for outside services. They do not have any voting representative on the Governing Board.
Ford said the reason for putting this on the agenda was his recent discussion with John Baglin, current vice president of the MRS. At the October 1986 Governing Board meeting, the MRS asked for at-cost services. The Governing Board found their conditions unacceptable. The MRS still professes interest in being an Associate Member Society. He suggests going back to them with a package. We may need to redefine the conditions for the category.
Gilbert said that when Baglin was at AIP recently, he reviewed the Governing Board discussion. Gilbert asked him if they were willing to change their requests. Baglin agreed that their only reason for wanting to come in is financial. They asked that we reexamine the magnitude of the overhead charge. The 15% developed when we had an NSF grant: the government insisted that overhead had to be levied on societies as well as on the government. The government is our most preferred customer. We have had no reason to change this since then. It could be even higher today if it were examined. He told him it would be reviewed.
Gilbert said we cannot deviate from this with the MRS; we would be in trouble with the government if we did. We do the MRS journal at an overhead of 15% for inhouse expense, 5% for out of house.
Havens said the original principle is that it should not cost AIP anything to have an organization as an Associate Member Society, and this is still reasonable.
Frauenfelder asked if we are publishing their journal too cheaply now. Gilbert said we do not lose money on their journal.
Frauenfelder said we have to look at the picture completely, and that we should return to the subject in September.
11. Report on Plans for IUPAP/Corporate Associates Meeting
Havens said all is proceeding as planned.
Merrill said two versions of the brochure were prepared, one for IUPAP and one for the Corporate Associates. He noted the reservation form, which all Governing Board members will receive. APS will receive the IUPAP reservations; AIP will receive the Corporate Associates registration. They anticipate about 400 attendees total.
12. Discussion of Long-Range Planning and Other Issues to Be Considered at September Meeting
Ford said he is looking for guidance and is interested in comments from the Executive Committee on this matter. He has reviewed the previous planning documents and would like to make drastic changes in Part A, at least. He will start working on a policy document of all significant policies for internal use. He is thinking of trying to develop a brief mission statement in a brochure. The Purpose and Program brochure does not have much on the philosophy of AIP. We need to look at the one-to-five-year plans. He is planning to do some revision of the organization chart. The changes should be looked at by the Executive Committee in September.
Sickafus said we need consideration of the focus for a business plan.
Wilson said, regarding a long-range plan, he would like two sheets of paper, done with a broad brush. This would be only a road map and would change over the years.
Frauenfelder said we should look at what could put AIP out of business and look ahead in a long-range way to fallback positions, taking into account such things as books, electronic information, and methods of transmittal of information.
Ford said he will get from each AIP unit its perceptions and aspirations.
Boyce said he sees as considerations of a long-range plan the philosophical goals and how to go about fulfilling them. This would include relevant environmental concerns.
13. Future Meeting Dates
Ford reviewed the projected schedule. After discussion the following dates were agreed on:
10 Sept. (9 a.m.)-12 Sept. (to 1 p.m.): Executive Committee, Woods Hole, MA
29 Sept. (8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.): Governing Board, Washington DC
30 Sept.-2 Oct.: IUPAP/Corporate Associates Meeting, Washington DC
3 Dec. (5 p.m.)-4 Dec. (to 3 p.m.): Executive Committee, New York
11 Feb. (5 p.m.)-12 Feb. (to 3 p.m.) 1988: Executive Committee, Washington DC
18-19 March 1988: Governing Board, Woodbury
14. Other Business
-
Retirement of Lewis Slack
Frauenfelder thanked Slack for all his work for the Institute over the last 20 years. His remarks were supported by acclamation.
-
Gemant Award Committee
Frauenfelder asked for suggestions for someone to replace Holcomb on this committee, as his term has concluded. Several suggestions were offered. -
Appointment of ad hoc Committee on Composition of Executive Committee
Frauenfelder noted that he had been asked to appoint a committee to review changes in and composition of the Executive Committee. He thought it would be a good idea to have one member from each Society and reviewed a list of names he had considered. After discussion, the following were asked to serve:APS: W. W. Havens ASA: R. T. Beyer AAPT: R. B. Clark AAS: P. B. Boyce AVS: J. S. Murday OSA: F. D. Smith SOR: K. F. Wissbrun ACA: W. L. Duax AAPM: A. E. Wright AGU: M. Walt He thought this could be done by letter, with possibly one meeting. In response to suggestions for a chairperson, Wright was suggested. [She subsequently accepted the appointment.]
-
Letter from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents
Frauenfelder had received a letter of invitation from the CSSP and asked for comments.Havens, said the APS is no longer in the CSSP. It was founded about 1972 by Morse, who called a number of society presidents together as a result of an unfavorably received speech to Congress by then President Nixon, to expedite exchange of information in such situations. APS subsequently resigned in protest of certain practices, later rejoined, and again resigned in protest. He thinks it is a relatively loose organization which uses names of society presidents without their knowledge or approval and does not have as much influence as it says it has. There has been some pressure for APS to rejoin however the presidents who did attend meetings felt it was a waste of their time. The membership is extended to the first vice president and the past president.
After discussion of the experiences of other societies, Frauenfelder said the consensus seemed negative and that he would write a polite letter to this effect.
15. Executive Session
The staff was excused at 3:00 p.m. The executive session is reported in the official minutes only.
16. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.