Executive Committee of the American Institute of Physics
Minutes of Meeting
Members Present: H. Richard Crane – Chairman, Joseph A. Burton, Laurence W. Frederick, W. W. Havens, Jr., E. Leonard Jossem, H. William Koch, Jarus W. Quinn
Non-Voting Participants: Robert T. Beyer (ASA), Henderson Cole (ACA), John C. Miller (SOR), Colin Orton (AAPM)
Absent: Wallace Waterfall
AIP Staff Present: H. William Koch, Director; Sidney Millman, Acting Secretary; G. F. Gilbert, Treasurer; Lewis Slack, Associate Director for General Activities; Robert H. Marks, Associate Director for Publishing; Dorothy M. Lasky, Assistant to the Director; Mary M. Johnson, Assistant to the Acting Secretary
Chairman Crane called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
Attention was called to a typographical error in the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of June 7, 1974. On Page 3, the title of Item 2e "Acknowledgments to Member Communications" should be changed to "Revised 1974 Budget for Subscription Fulfillment Division." The item was correctly listed in the "Table of Contents." On motion made and passed without dissent, the minutes of the June 7, 1974, Executive Committee meeting were approved as distributed, with the above correction.
2. Publishing Matters
AIP-IEE Agreement and Related Topics
Koch reported on the informal meeting he had on June 17 with E. L. Brady of NBS and H. Hookway of the British Library Board about reopening negotiations with the Institute of Electrical Engineers. A short formal report is expected in a couple of weeks which will include three basic principles to be followed in future discussions. They are: (1) the honoring of copyrights of abstracts, (2) the recognition that INSPEC is the secondary service on the world scene, and (3) the acknowledgment that there must be more guidance from the users. They want to encourage an AIP abstracts tape interchange with INSPEC, which means also we would have access to their data base. Our recent action in discontinuing the titles and abstracts journals is consistent with basic principle #2. In line with this, we should consider also incorporating our SPIN tape into their tape and resigning from the ICSU Abstracting Board, which has cost us $1,000 per year.
Another proposal is that AIP participate in an international advisory board to be formed. More information on this topic will be presented at the September meeting of the Executive Committee.
Soviet Contract Negotiation
Koch reported that he has sent two contracts to the Soviet publication authorities as per his memo dated August 2, 1974, which had been distributed prior to the meeting. The first is with Mezh Kniga for the period May 27, 1973, to December 31, 1974, and the second is with the All-Union Copyright Agency to be effective January 1, 1975. For the 1973-74 period the royalty rate will be $3.90 per thousand pages per subscriber as previously reported. Beginning in 1975 the rate will go up to $5.90. It is estimated that AIP may receive approximately $120,000 for the 1973-74 period. So far no agreements have been signed.
Society Response to Invitation to Suggest Alternate Abstracting Combinations
Marks referred to S. Millman’s letter of July 12, 1974, to Secretaries of AIP Member Societies inviting suggestions for alternate combinations of abstract or title journals, as per motion passed on June 7. (See June 7, 1974, Executive Committee minutes Page 4, Item 3c.) So far there have been no replies. Marks noted that there are over 1,500 member and over 1,800 nonmember subscriptions for CURRENT PHYSICS TITLES and CURRENT PHYSICS ADVANCE ABSTRACTS at the present time. The nonmember subscriptions are close to budget while the member subscriptions are about half of budget. Since these two publications are to be discontinued he recommended that the subscribers be renewal-billed for the new CURRENT PHYSICS INDEX quarterly to be started in 1975. A separate subject and author index would be produced for 1974. Both would come out in March 1975 which, hopefully, would give us enough time to develop the 700 subscriptions needed to break even. Burton suggested that it would be inappropriate to renewal-bill subscribers for a new publication which they know very little about. On the other hand, Quinn thought that a renewal bill would make it easier for libraries to subscribe. This discussion led to a compromise suggestion by Havens that nonmember subscribers should be treated differently from members. The following motion was then passed:
MOVED that publication of CURRENT PHYSICS INDEX be deferred until 1975; that nonmember subscribers to CPT and CPAA be renewal-billed for CPI, and member subscribers be notified of the new publication.
It was further suggested that nonmember subscribers should also be notified of the discontinuance of CPT and CPAA and the replacement that is to follow.
Participation in an Advisory Panel on Publishing
Marks referred to a letter and questionnaire on this subject, copies of which had been sent to Committee members prior to the meeting. The letter was sent to 10,000 members of AIP societies asking them to join the advisory panel. The object was to get opinions on three areas of publishing: (1) Advertising, (2) Readership Analysis, and (3) Use of Secondary Services. Not all panelists will receive all questionnaires. There is $10,000 in the budget this year for this activity. About 3,000 recipients responded. Burton expressed the opinion that letters intended for distribution to a large number of society members be first reviewed by the Executive Committee. It was further felt that asking members to fill out certain questionnaires is not in keeping with the common usage of being a member of an advisory panel. He suggested that the Executive Committee should have a chance to comment on letters which go to Society members before they are sent out. Marks and Koch agreed to follow such a procedure in future correspondence.
Marks called attention to the proposed new reprint prices listed in Exhibit A, and a motion approving these prices was passed without dissent.
Marks also brought up a proposal for a revision in reprint pricing policy, copies of which had been distributed. It was felt, however, that this revision might put page charge honoring in jeopardy and no action was therefore taken.
Affiliated Member Price for PHYSICS TODAY
Marks pointed out that we had previously decided to increase the price of PHYSICS TODAY to members of Affiliated Societies from $4.00 to $6.00 for 1975. It appears, however, that the $6.00 will not be enough to cover cost. An increase to $8.00 is therefore recommended. The following motion was passed without dissent:
MOVED that the price of PHYSICS TODAY be increased from $6.00 to $8.00 for members of Affiliated Societies effective in 1975.
Royalty Arrangement with Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.
Marks noted that copies of the proposed agreement with Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross on royalties to be paid on books incorporating published articles in AIP and society journals were sent to Executive Committee members prior to the meeting. He said there would be an advantage in having a general agreement with DH&R and it will yield a small royalty payment to the societies owning the copyright on the pages used. Approval is requested to include AIP-owned journal articles and to contact each society about society-owned journals. Burton suggested that a decision on this agreement be deferred until the September meeting of the Executive Committee in order to give members of the APS Publication Committee time to study the proposal. This led to the passing of the following motion:
MOVED that action on the royalty arrangement with Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. be deferred until the September meeting of the AIP Executive Committee.
3. Fiscal Matters
Financial Statement for 1973
Gilbert noted that a copy of the financial statement for the year ended December 31, 1973, had been mailed to all Governing Board members on June 30, 1974, with a covering letter. (Copies of the statement and letter are attached to these minutes for others who should have them, and a copy of each is attached to the official minutes.) This statement reflected a net expense for 1973 of $67,000. The major difference between the audited figure and the estimated figure reported in March is due to the fact that the auditors applied $40,000 of 1973 Soviet Translation income collected during January and February 1974 to 1974, whereas the staff accrued the income in 1973.
Gilbert explained the nature of the Accumulated Deficit as of December 31, 1973. He also solicited recommendations for possible changes in the format of the Institute's financial statements in the interest of making them more meaningful to recipients.
Report of Meeting of Fiscal Policy Committee, July 2, 1974
Gilbert reported on the latest meeting of the Fiscal Policy Committee, the minutes of which had previously been distributed to Executive Committee members. He noted the enthusiasm with which societies are responding to the AIP use of the 1974 quoted prices in preparing society financial statements.
Acknowledgments to Member Communications
Gilbert called attention to a document entitled "Acknowledgments to Member Communications" which had been distributed prior to the meeting. It contains sample replies to inquiries not covered by the rather extensive form letters that already exist and cover different types of action to be taken in response to member communications. It was suggested that the reply card add a specific AIP person and telephone number for possible future contact.
AAPT June 30, 1974, Statement of Account
Gilbert reported that subsequent to the July 29 mailing of AAPT's financial statements and statement of account reflecting a balance due AIP of $35,000, a letter was received from AAPT indicating they could not pay until later in the year when their dues collections would be coming in, and asking whether AIP would be willing to grant a loan to cover their debt at an interest rate to be set. With the concurrence of Crane and Koch, he responded that AIP would be willing to extend the time required for payment without any penalty. There were no objections to the action taken by Gilbert.
Appointment of Ad Hoc Committee on Accounting Services
Koch raised the question whether we should appoint a three-man committee to focus on accounting services. He noted that AIP has 400 cost centers, 6,000 accounts, and a number of subsidiary ledgers. The major problem is distributing the prorations. Fredrick thought that it was too early for such an action. He said we should wait and see how the Fiscal Policy Committee works out. Crane agreed and suggested that we await the recommendations of the Fiscal Policy Committee.
Burton suggested that the Executive Committee review the entire committee structure of AIP. He said he believes that both the Publishing Policy and the Fiscal Policy Committees should report to the Executive Committee or be abandoned entirely. He thought that what was needed was an outside consultant. Koch noted that he was going to suggest this review for the September Executive Committee meeting.
Burton wanted the members of the Executive Committee to take note of the fine efforts by the AIP staff in implementing the program of quoted prices recommended by the Fiscal Policy Committee. APS received its six-months statement in July, which is quite a contrast to previous years, and is very pleased with the prompt statement.
4. Upcoming AIP Meetings in 1974
September Executive Committee
Koch proposed that the September meeting include an in-depth discussion of computerized publishing, a review of the committee structure, and a preview of the Governing Board agenda for the October meeting with input from the Executive Committee. Five-Year Manpower plans of AIP should be an item for the Governing Board agenda. Burton pointed out the need for the AIP Executive Committee to take a more active role in many policy-making decisions in the future than it has in the past. In line with that, he suggested the following topics to be considered:
- Regular monthly meeting of the AIP Executive Committee.
- Society responses to AIP Long-Range Planning Committee report.
- Review of the AIP committee structure.
- Review and revision of statements about AIP purpose and programs.
- Review of the roles of AIP and the Member Societies.
- Review of the roles of the Executive Committee and Governing Board in relation to that of the AIP staff.
Monday, September 9, was set as the date for the next meeting of the AIP Executive Committee.
Corporate Associates Meeting
Lasky distributed a draft of the Corporate Associates meeting program to be held November 14 and 15, 1974, in Washington at the National Academy of Sciences building. The theme of the meeting will be International Science and Technology. The preliminary and incomplete agenda was briefly discussed by Koch.
October Executive Committee, Assembly of Society Officers, Governing Board
Koch stated that the Assembly is scheduled for the afternoon of Thursday, October 3, with Laurence Fredrick as Chairman. Fredrick reported that he hopes to get one of Guyford Stever’s associates to talk about the role of NSF in the direction of public understanding. Fredrick also expects to schedule a 45-minute kick-off talk on Society relations and information programs.
The AIP Executive Committee meeting will be held in the morning on October 3 and the Governing Board meeting will start on that evening and continue through the following day, October 4.
The meeting was adjourned for luncheon at 12:15 p.m. and reconvened at 12:50 p.m.
5. AAPT Matters
Termination of AIP-AAPT Contract
Jossem discussed some of the recent fiscal history of the AAPT as background material in connection with the action taken by AAPT in notifying AIP of its intent to terminate the contract between the two organizations. He stated that this step had been taken by AAPT not with the intent of severing its connections with AIP, but, rather, because it was the understanding of AAPT that this action was a technical legal requirement in order to allow desired changes in the contract to be made without long delays. Koch noted that this step was not necessary for the purpose and that changes in the contract could be made on an acceptable timescale without termination of the present contract. Jossem said that this represented a new interpretation of the legal situation and that if the changes which AAPT believes are essential can be arranged without termination of the present contract that would be satisfactory, since, again, it was not the intent of AAPT to sever relations with AIP.
Koch noted that unless something is done, we would not have a contract with AAPT to handle services for them as of January 1, 1975, and his recommendation is that AAPT withdraw its letter cancelling the contract. If the service changes requested are minor they could be handled within the existing contract. We will find out more tomorrow about what AAPT wants when we have a meeting with A. A. Strassenburg and Clifford Swartz. Burton suggested that if a new form of contract evolves, this Executive Committee should review it before it is adopted.
AAPT Section Representatives’ Report and Related Correspondence
A report relative to the activities and management of AIP was prepared by a committee of the Section Representatives of AAPT and submitted by them to the Section Representatives present at the AAPT meeting last June. A resolution based on this report was passed by the Section Representatives at that time and copies of the report and resolution were distributed to AAPT Council members and to others inside and outside of AAPT. Jossem commented on the circumstances involved in the preparation and distribution of this report and resolution, and on the reaction of the AAPT Executive Board to these items. He noted that this report and resolution are addressed to AAPT members and that they are therefore technically internal AAPT documents. Crane reported that he wrote a letter to AIP Board members after getting, a copy of the report of the Section Representatives pointing out the fact that the Section Representatives' communication was not addressed to AIP but to AAPT members of the Governing Board. No action by the AIP Governing Board or Executive Committee is called for at present. Crane also noted that Koch wrote a letter to Sherwood Haynes pointing out some of the errors contained in the Section Representatives’ report.
6. Society Responses to AIP Long-Range Planning Committee Report
Crane reported that he had asked the societies to send him their responses to the LRPC report so that they could be summarized at the fall Governing Board meeting, and he has received about half. There were three kinds of responses in the letters thus far received: (1) Those critical of the report itself, (2) Those treating past inadequacies of AIP, (3) Comments about AIP staff performance. Crane stated he felt it is not fruitful to try to modify the original report. It was useful in its way. He felt it more important to look to the future than to past inadequacies and also recommended that discussion about staff be best left to the Executive Committee’s administrative review sessions. Central in the follow-up to the LRPC are society relations with AIP, and structure and pattern of operations in AIP. There is a belief that AIP has been getting over-committed to projects which are not direct services to the societies. He mentioned specifically the Panofsky letter received a few days before the meeting and the areas it covered. When all replies are in he could try to summarize the points made. Quinn asked whether Crane could summarize in writing the replies received so far in preparation for the Governing Board meeting. Burton thought that some part of the September Executive Committee meeting should be devoted to the discussion of society responses. Jossem thought that the Governing Board could suggest an ordering of the problems. If we had a list of the suggestions which have been made, we could rank order them and that would be helpful. Some of the criticisms are criticisms of the Executive Committee which means the societies are essentially criticizing themselves. We are responding, for example, by scheduling more meetings.
Crane noted that another question is: What does AIP envision itself to be? One could ask specific questions like, "Should we take income from journals and use it to pay for some of the costs of our services?" We have already started taking action in response to many of these points raised in the Panofsky letter. Crane will try to have some organization of these responses by September and we can give it a dry run. Burton suggested that members of the Executive Committee get copies of all these letters.
Koch referred to an item in the Panofsky letter dealing with the History of Physics program and reminded the group that at the April meeting he told the Executive Committee that a search committee is looking for a replacement for Charles Weiner, and that the Executive Committee agreed this was a good procedure. He asked whether AIP can proceed with an offer if the names of the qualified candidates become available at the end of August as is currently anticipated. Crane noted that the Executive Committee has said to do so, yet can, if it wishes, retract this. Havens suggested a wait until September 9 so he could check with his Executive Committee on their views. Although the Governing Board has been quite clear in its support of the Institute’s program to preserve the record of the development and achievements of 20th Centure physics and its impact upon modern society, he thought that the philosophy behind the History program has changed since it was started. The critical question is whether you hire a senior person. This particular point had been brought up at the APS Executive Committee meeting and discussed in detail; they did not at the time realize that hiring a new director for the project was so imminent. Havens gave a brief history of the History project and Koch read some excerpts from his letter to Martin Klein and noted that the most likely candidate is a young Ph.D. in astrophysics who has converted to history of physics. He added that if the appointment is to be supported and endorsed on September 9, there should be a strong statement at that time. Crane observed that if this was not done, it would again have to become the subject of discussion by the Governing Board.
7. Monthly Meetings of the AIP Executive Committee
Crane asked whether we should have monthly meetings or half as many for twice as long. Havens noted that we have never had a two-day Executive Committee meeting. He thought it was more practical to have monthly meetings with a concentration on a particular topic. A decision on this question was deferred until October.
8. Committee Appointments or Elections
Administrative Review Committee
Crane reminded the group that the last Administrative Review Committee raised the question as to whether it is appropriate to have such a committee every year. He also had the feeling that it might be well to try skipping a year. He proposed that some time in the fall, he will constitute the Executive Committee as a whole as the administrative review committee for this year. There were no objections.
After some general discussion on procedures to be followed in the future on selection of nominating committees, the subject turned to a nomination requiring early decision–that of the status of the Acting Secretary. Havens reminded the members that at the March 1974 Governing Board meeting Sidney Millman was elected Acting Secretary because of some commitments to APS he had at that time. The recommendation at the present time is that the Executive Committee recommend to the Governing Board that his title be changed from "Acting Secretary" to "Secretary" and he proposed that the Executive Committee make such a recommendation to the Governing Board. The following motion was passed:
MOVED that the Executive Committee recommend to the Governing Board that Sidney Millman’s title be changed from "Acting Secretary" to "Secretary" effective as of the October Board meeting.
On a related matter, Havens reminded the group that the Board passed a resolution on March 31, 1973, to the effect that no employee or officer of a Member Society could be an officer of AIP, and he proposed that the Executive Committee recommend to the Governing Board that this resolution be rescinded. It was decided to discuss this further at the September 9 Executive committee meeting.
Interim Replacements on Executive Committee
Koch expressed his belief that the Acoustical Society is planning to take some action on their part to replace Wallace Waterfall on the Governing Board. When such a replacement is effected some action will have to be taken as to which Board member should replace Waterfall on the Executive Committee.
Committee to Recommend Compton Medalist
Crane reported that he has appointed Kenneth Ford – Chairman, William Fowler, and Gerald Holton as a committee to nominate candidates for the Karl T. Compton Award and they are to report to the Board in October. The medal would be presented at the Corporate Associates meeting in November.
9. Appointment of Gloria B. Lubkin as Nieman Fellow
Slack informed the group that Gloria Lubkin has received an appointment as a Nieman Fellow to spend a year at Harvard with supporting funds from NSF. The terms of the appointment require that she not engage in writing during that year although she can serve as a consultant. We have put her on a reduced work schedule of detached service. Beyer suggested that the Executive Committee signify its congratulations to Ms. Lubkin, whereupon the following motion was passed:
MOVED that the Executive Committee congratulate Gloria Lubkin on her appointment as a Nieman Fellow and that the Secretary notify her of the appreciation of her services by this Committee.
10. Request for Revision of SPS Constitution
Slack stated that all revisions of the SPS constitution require ratification by all sections and approval by the Governing Board. He raised the question whether it would be better for the Executive Committee to be the approving body rather than the Board. He believes that the staff feels it would prefer that the AIP Executive Committee be the approving body for any changes in the SPS constitution. Havens observed that the Executive Committee can at present act for the Board between meetings of the Board and felt that it should in this case. There were no objections.
11. Other Business
Crane reported that Sherwood Haynes had asked whether there was a conflict of interest in having, advertising for PT and society journals handled by the same people. Havens noted that with the type of operation we have, he didn’t think anything could be done about it. The volume is too small to justify separate advertising groups.
Quinn asked whether everyone had heard about the death of Wallace Brode and suggested that the Executive Committee take some note of his death in the form of a resolution, with a copy to be sent to his widow. Upon motion passed, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, The Executive Committee of the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics desires to record its deep sorrow at the death of its esteemed colleague, Wallace R. Brode, who served as a member of the Governing Board and Executive Committee from 1960 to 1963, be it
RESOLVED, That the Executive Committee of the Institute hereby gives formal expression of its severe loss and does hereby note in its records the passing from this life of a man who was esteemed by his associates and respected by all; and be it further
RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to his family.
Cole asked whether there is any plan to expand the distribution of “Physics in 1973.” Crane noted that it is directed primarily to news writers. Slack added that if we aimed for a different audience, it would require a separate publication.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.