February 11, 1988

Executive Committee of the American Institute of Physics

Minutes of Meeting

1. Convene – Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. by Chairman Frauenfelder following dinner at the Halloran House.

Members Present:
Hans Frauenfelder, Chairman of the Board
Peter B. Boyce
Kenneth W. Ford, Executive Director
Roderick M. Grant, Secretary
William W. Havens, Jr.
David Lazarus
F. Dow Smith
Martin Walt
Jack M. Wilson

Member Absent:
Edward N. Sickafus

Non-voting Participants:
Joseph M. Reynolds (Member-at-Large)

Staff Present:
Gerald F. Gilbert, Treasurer
Robert H. Marks, Director of Publishing
John S. Rigden, Director of Physics Programs
Bernard Dolowich, Controller (12 February session)
Timothy Ingoldsby, Director, Information Technology Branch
Lawrence T. Merrill, Assistant to the Executive Director
Nathalie D. Wagner, Assistant to the Secretary
Spencer Weart, Manager, History Division (12 February a.m. session)

Harry Staley: Staley/Robeson/Ryan/St. Lawrence
(12 February a.m. session)

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. Introduction of Tim Ingoldsby; Report on Organizational Realignments
Ford introduced Ingold, the head of the newly-organized Information Technology Branch.

Ford called attention to the organization chart, distributed to the Executive Committee, which contain the name and position of every full-time employee of the Institute.

3. Secretary's Report

  1. Minutes of 3-4 December Meeting
    Grant presented two versions of draft minutes from the 3-4 December meeting. Ford had raised a question concerning the extent of discussion to be included in the minutes.

    It was agreed that a balance should be reached between minutes which record only actions and those which record the full discussion at the meeting; the minutes should reflect some of the background for an action so that they are intelligible to readers in the future.

    Action was deferred on the draft minutes until the next meeting so that committee members could have a further opportunity to review them.

  2. Resolution of Appreciation for I. I. Rabi
    Rigden read the draft of a resolution he had prepared in appreciation for
    I. I. Rabi, who died on 11 January 1988. It will be sent to Rabi's family from the
    Executive Commitee on behalf of the Governing Board.

    Grant moved, Boyce seconded, and it was unanimously CARRIED that the following resolution be sent to Mrs. Rabi:

    "The members of the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics, note with sadness the death of I.I. Rabi, our colleague, neighbor, and friend.

    It was, in a significant way, the work and leadership of Rabi that made the journals now published by and through the American Institute of Physics indispensable to working physicists around the world. In 1928, Rabi was a new Ph.D. working with Otto Stern in Hamburg, Germany. There he discovered that Physical Review, America's principal journal of physics, was essentially ignored by European physicists. Rabi vowed with Condon, Oppenheimer, and others to bring American physics to greatness. By the end of the 1930s, Physical Review was the leading journal of physics.

    Rabi was President of The American Physical Society, AIP' s largest Member Society, in 1950 and was a member of the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics from 1951 to 1954.

    After World War II, Rabi became an active participant in national and world affairs. Rabi saw in science a means to break through barriers that separate nations, communities, and individuals. His desire to make physics a central part of human culture made him an active proponent of educational reforms. His vision remains a challenge for all of us. We shall miss his voice of inspiration and his moral leadership."

4. Space-Related Issues
[Reported here in the sequence in which they were discussed at the meeting.]

  1. Location of the Education Division
    Ford referred to his 2 February 1988 memo to the Executive Committee in which a move of the Education Division from Woodbury to Washington DC is proposed.

    Lazarus asked for a clarification of what is meant by the Education Division. Ford said that this is the Division that administers SPS activities formerly managed by Dion Shea. The new position of SPS coordinator would report to the Division Manager. Rigden envisions a larger role for this Division within his Branch1 as it would assume responsibility for some of the new programs which are being developed.

    The following motion was made by Wilson, seconded by Boyce and unanimously CARRIED.

    MOVED that the Executive Committee approve the relocation of the Education Division of AIP from Woodbury, NY to Washington, DC.

  2. Level of Public-Policy Activity
    Frauenfelder said that Ford's memo on this subject would be taken up in the Executive Session.

  3. Long Island - Report on Survey of Sites
    Ford referred to his 2 February 1988 memo to the Executive Committee in which he reviewed real estate sites on Long Island that he, Marks, and Kranz had recently visited with Weinbaum (AIP real estate consultant). They found asking prices in the range of up to $500,000 per acre.

    Marks reiterated that we can only add on to our present Woodbury location if we acquire a zoning variance. If a variance could be obtained 1 we could extend to 100,000 square feet. We will need this by the year 2000. There has been a change of township administration and a new town supervisor, so we should take a new look at the possibility of a zoning variance.

    Havens asked for an estimate of what can be done with the present site.

    Gilbert replied that if we sell this building (and its 12 acre site) we could get about $3-4 million for it.

    Walt asked how long it would take to find out if this could be rezoned and an addition constructed.

    Marks said we would have to get a well-connected legal firm and draw up some detailed plans for the expansion area.

    Ford said we have not sufficiently explored this alternative because he was told last year that the chances for a variance were poor. Now it seems there is a need to explore this option further. It would be a mistake not to explore this and other possibilities.

    Wilson suggested that we put the property on the market for $7 million A rather than $4 million and see what happens. He also thinks we should keep on looking for sites elsewhere.

    Frauenfelder said he is concerned about the fact that Long Island real estate has become so expensive. We are talking about a long term decision. Should we stay and make the best of it or move to where real estate is much cheaper? We do not have enough facts to answer that question as yet.

  4. New York/Washington

    1. Report on Meetings of Society Governing Bodies

    2. Review of Letters from Societies

    3. Discussion of Alternatives
      Ford noted the several official communications from the Member Societies which have been received, and which were distributed to members of the Executive Committee for their information. He referred to the letters frolD Member Societies and to his 29 January 1988 covering memo to ·the Executive Committee.

      He said we are backing up several years. We are again in the situation of expanding into rental property. This has been lost sight of in the most recent discussions. It is clear from the letters that the New York-based Societies strongly favor their off ices and the AIP off ices remaining in New York. The four Washington based Societies favor a substantially enlarged presence in Washington.

      He sees significant support for relocating some of the physics programs to Washington. Rigden feels that there is a strong case for keeping the physics programs together. A Washington location would be good provided it is not interpreted by the Member Societies as affecting their level of interaction with AIP. Ford has spoken previously about the 2-1/2 hub concept. If a significant move is discussed, he would be talking about moving the physics programs to Washington, keeping the executive offices in New York, and the publishing center on Long Island. He hopes that out of this meeting would come a consensus for a concrete recommendation to the Governing Board.

      Lazarus said the recommendation of the APS Council was that in view of the frequent, extensive APS interactions with the AIP physics programs it would be useful for the latter to remain in New York. They also felt strongly that the administrative structure should not be shifted.

      He then asked, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a move? What would happen to the staff within each of the Divisions?

      Ford said the practical real estate questions involved would be that moving the Education Division has no impact on New York space. Moving only Statistics to Washington would not allow us to condense all other operations into the current building. Moving the entire Physics Programs Branch would leave enough space for the remaining divisions and resident Societies. Space for physics programs could be obtained at less cost in Washington than at 140 E. 45th. It would be a clear saving, apart from transition costs, and would mean we would no longer need outside rental space in New York.

      Rigden said he thinks it is important to think in a 25-year time frame so that you make long range decisions on program rather than on a personnel basis. There is a wide range of attitudes among staff concerning a move. Of paramount importance is the Executive Committee sense of what the AIP programs can do. Should these be passive (waiting for the Societies to ask) or should there be an agenda for serving the physics community? If we choose the passive route, we will get passive people who will only respond when asked. There are many areas not currently addressed by any Society but which relate to the long term welfare of physics. His axiom is that the Executive Committee and the Governing Board favor a plan of action rather than a passive approach.

      Frauenfelder said he feels that we have to move in order to affect some consolidation of our operations, and in order to develop the plans envisaged by Rigden.

      Havens said he disagrees with the basic premise of Ford, Frauenfelder, and Rigden. AIP is a set of people, not buildings or desks. He has lived through the acquiring of critical personnel. This arbitrary idea of a move will kill AIP. For example, PT has been built up with difficulty. It is a collection of people. It is important to preserve the organization. Arguments about space and organization alone are not valid.

      Frauenfelder said one of his premises is that economic competition will become tougher. We are now sitting in an outmoded building in an expensive location.

      Lazarus said the driving force should be service to the physics community, not the location where the services are performed.

      Wilson said we are paying $44 per square foot in New York for which we would pay $15-20 in Washington. He is looking at the long term. Personnel will change. If you accept the thesis that the Institute cannot move because of individuals, you will never move.

      Rigden said he has a vision. The AIP programs are here to serve the Member I Societies. He would like them to be broader and serve in a broader sense. If you are going to initiate programs, you need to get the right people involved. He feels he will have a better chance of attracting them to Washington rather than to New York.
      Frauenfelder said it is clear that there is serious disagreement. He will try to allow time tomorrow for further discussion.

  5. AIP Role in International Affairs
    Not discussed at this session.

5. Executive Session
The staff were excused at 9:45 p.m.; the Executive Committee met in executive session, which is reported in the official minutes only.

The meeting recessed at 11:00 p.m. and resumed at 8:30 a.m., Friday, 12 February, in the Compton Board Room of AIP Headquarters, also in executive session. AIP staff joined the meeting at 9:00 a.m.

6. Information Technology Items

  1. Subscription Fulfillment and Member Records

    1. Recommended New Directions
      Ford referred to the following: Ford's 4 February 1988 memo to the Executive Committee: Subscription Fulfillment; Ingoldsby's 2 February 1988 memo to Ford: Status of AZTECH Subscription Fulfillment System.

      Ingoldsby said that he found the AZTECH project to be less than 50% complete. Major programs were found to be inefficient in their use of computer resources and too complex for the operators. He recommends abandoning the AZTECH software and the proposed purchase of a Data General MV15000 and beginning anew. Because the Univac is frail, we are vulnerable and must rapidly develop a new system. He propose that a new system be developed entirely in-house, and that it should be completed in two phases. First, we should rapidly modernize the subscription fulfillment system while keeping the current one functioning, and then we should modernize the membership record keeping capabilities.

      He recommended keeping the options for mainframe equipment to a minimum, and is currently evaluating as two alternatives: the use of IBM 9370 or 4381, or of Wang VS7120. The Wang route would offer the least risk, and is less expensive than IBM. However, IBM has continually developing technology and it is the market leader. In his estimates Wang comes out slightly ahead.

      Will this save AIP money in the long run? The key to this is the reduction in personnel. Hardware and software costs cannot be reduced. He thinks personnel needs ultimately can be reduced.

      In response to Walt's question re: labor costs, Ingoldsby said this is already budgeted; it would be $275,000 for one year. He is not asking the Executive Committee to make a choice at this time. What is desired is approval for $27,500 for further study. Next month he will be prepared to make a firm recommendation. He estimates that it will take about one year to complete all phases of the project.

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

      MOVED that the expenditure of $27,500 be authorized for a study of various options pursuant to the development of a subscription fulfillment and member record system (to replace the AZTECH system development, which project has been terminated) as outlined in the 2 February memo from Ingoldsby to Ford. Ford said the cost and budget implications will be substantial, perhaps a $300-500,000 increase in expense. He suggests that in March the Management be asked to come back to the Executive Committee at a special meeting in April to consider areas for reduction of budget items to permit these expenditures. He thought these figures could not be ready in time for the March meeting.

    2. Report on APS Decision Regarding Member Records
      Ford said APS has decided to develop the capability to handle its own member record system. AIP staff have not been able to calculate the cost of this decision for other Member Societies, but it can be said that these costs will rise. He hopes for full interaction between the AIP and APS systems when both are operational.

      Havens said the target date to take over their member records is March 1989. They have held back on a number of things due to delays in the AIP system. Their plan will not be heavily labor-intensive. APS does not intend to take over the subscription fulfillment. Member billing is part of their proposal.

    Merrill's 4 February 1988 memo to Ford reports on the status of PI-NET.

    1. Report on Current Usage (Including Federal Awareness Service)
      Merrill said a new data base, Federal Awareness, has been up for two months; its use is increasing. Online registration was offered for the APS meeting, which proved the feasibility of this idea: This has been integrated with the billing procedures.

    2. Report on Gould Conversion
      This development is going slower than planned. About 70% of the programming is complete. The consultant is available for one more week only, per the budget allotment. There is no one at AIP who knows C language well, so that will be a problem. He thinks the system could go online in August-September.

      Lazarus said in its two years of existence PI-NET has not grown significantly. We seem to be talking about a system that will require considerable subsidy. There is also a heavy cost for completing the subscription fulfillment system. We need to ask whether this expense should be continued. The current subsidy is about $400/month/user.

    3. Advisory Committee Report

      1. Recommended Priority for Mail System

        Refer to 4 February 1988 memo from Ford to Executive Committee. It was proposed to the PI-Net Advisory Committee that there had always been a scheme to combine PI-NET and PI-MAIL. Electronic mail is being used; it has to be a menu choice. He proposes bringing AMERPHYS into the system, which would reduce the overall cost. The committee recommendation was to make electronic mail a high priority. The plan is to have a good package developed by the end of the summer.

        Grant said he thinks applications using electronic mail are important not only to the research scientist but also to the larger physics community, including students and high school teachers. He said discussions with Strassenburg and Shakashiri (NSF) indicate that they would welcome a proposal of significant magnitude to support a mail system for communication among high school teachers and students. He will pursue this with Rigden and Wilson.

      2. Recommended Pricing Structure
        This was addressed in the memo but not discussed.

7. Publishing Items

  1. Report on Computers in Physics: Circulation; Archival Articles; Non-member Pricing
    Marks reviewed developments with the new journal, as reported in his memo of 3 February 1988 to the Executive Committee. 10,458 member subscriptions have been received, but fewer than projected non-member subscriptions. It has been decided to offer a special non-member introductory price of $125 (50% discount). As a result of the excellent member sales, we will more than break even at the regular $20.00 rate (the introductory rate was $10.00).

  2. Sponsorship of VCH Handbook of Applied Physics
    Refer to the 3 February 1988 memo from Marks to the Executive Committee and related materials. Marks said this is an area in which AIP is often approached by commercial publishers for cooperative ventures. Discussions in both the Committee on Publishing Policy and the Subcommittee on Books has led to the recommendation that AIP serve as a sponsor. He noted that VCH Publishers is owned by the German Physical Society and the German Chemical Society. Cooperation between FIZ and VCR Publishers is important in this arrangement.

    Marks said there are no sales projections but he thinks it would break even; a project of this magnitude would have to have a net revenue of $1 million.

    Frauenfelder said his concern is that we know very little of the content that will go into it. At present we know nothing but the title and who will be the editor-in-chief. He asked what our escape would be if we're not satisfied as the project develops.

    Marks said we could withdraw if we are not satisfied. It is a five-year project. He said the next step is for AIP participation in naming the editorial board and the people who will decide on the contents and who will be responsible forthe sections.

    Marks said he would like a motion to approve AIP sponsorship. He would supply a clarification regarding the royalty arrangement, but he thinks this is a standard wording.

    Havens asked if AIP is committed to paying the travel expenses of the editorial board. Marks said we are. After the initial meeting, most of the work would be carried out by phone and correspondence.

    Frauenfelder said the expenses would eat up the income for the next ten years. They should be split so that they pay the cost of the European editors and make it more of a joint effort; there is a need for reciprocity.

    Marks thought they would agree to that. They are putting in all the costs of book production and assuming the risk.

    Havens made the following motion of approval, noting it is subject to the conditions discussed. It was seconded by Boyce and CARRIED with one NO.

    MOVED that approval be given for signing, subject to certain clarifications, the Letter of Agreement between the AIP and VCH Publishers, Inc. (NY and Weinheim, Germany), concerning AIP sponsorship of the project and for publication of an 18-volume work entitled Encyclopedia of Applied Physics, as signed by Martin Grayson, President, VCH Publishers on 30 October 1987.

  3. Planned Negotiations with Soviets
    Marks said AIP staff is working with Martin Levin, who was engaged to assist in these negotiations. The existing agreement will be replaced by three agreements with three Soviet agencies, as follows:
    1) VAAP, the Soviet copyright agency. This will enable us to continue the translation journals. We now have a one-year contract, with only a six-month cancel provision; we want a 10-year contract. We are also proposing change in the royalty payment, though the payment term would be the same a now.
    2) MIR Publishers, which translates RSI into Russian.
    3) Mez. Kniga, their import agency, which buy AIP journals.

    The draft contracts have been prepared, and are now being translated into Russian. Marks, Ford, and Levin will go to Moscow. AIP can offer them rights to translate PT and CIP, and can offer free several hundred copies of PT yearly. We propose to offer a 25% discount if they order over 75 copies. The royalty rates for RSI have gotten very high. Our proposed terms would be for the royalty rate to drop for over 1000 copies. They now have 2000 subscriptions.

    Ford said that Levin is extremely competent; we are fortunate to have him. He is also trying to round up the support of physicists in the Soviet Union. He will try to bring together several distinguished Soviet physicists with the agency people. Levin has suggested that, as part of the deal, we offer to support a bi-annual joint symposium in New York to bring physicists together and discuss developments in various fields.

  4. Proposed Exclusive Agreement with FIZ; IEE Reaction
    Ford referred to correspondence between FIZ, AIP, and IEE. The letter from IEE of 21 January 1988 suggests that an exclusive partnership with FIZ may be illegal within the European Common Market. AIP has asked FIZ if they see this as a potential problem. We will also consult legal counsel on this matter. AIP negotiations are going forward with our proposition to FIZ to increase royalty payments for abstracts in exchange for an exclusive agreement. We could still market SPIN tapes to other customers for in-house use. The plan is to meet with the Germans in France in May to try to conclude an agreement.

  5. Status of Discussions on Marketing of Japanese English-Language Journals
    Marks referred to his 25 January 1988 letter to Michiji Konuma, Physical Society of Japan, with a proposed marketing agreement. A reply has been received saying that they found it interesting and will get back to us. If they approve it, the Executive Committee will need to approve the agreement.

  6. Report on Visit to Argonne National Laboratory
    Marks reported that he, Ford, and Scott had visited Argonne recently, where AIP has the editorship of three journals. They met with the director of the lab and others and get a very positive sense regarding their feelings. The space problems have been resolved. A renewal of our agreement with them was signed at this meeting.

8. Finance and Administration Items

  1. Statue of Capital Expenditures
    Gilbert referred to the Status Report on 1987 Capital Expenditures Budget, reported here for information only.

  2. Auto Rental Liability Insurance

    Gilbert referred to his 4 February 1988 memo to Executive Committee re: high cost of collision damage insurance on rental cars, and to his 22 January A 1988 telemail message sent to Grant. Gilbert said this matter has been raised and discussed in CESSE meetings. Hertz has taken a new position they call damage waiver which holds customers responsible for theft or other loss of rental car or damage by vandalism. He is in touch with ASAE and hopes to come up with special insurance to overcome this problem.

  3. Cash Management Plan
    Gilbert referred to his 4 February 1988 memo to Executive Committee and to the 3 February 1988 letter from Bankers Trust Company. Gilbert said that during the December budget review the question was ·raised as to whether the average balance maintained was too high. He made a study of our working capital requirements, which, based on previous experience, come to $28 million per year. He then discussed the matter with our Senior Investment Officer at Bankers Trust, who made a recommendation which he thinks is a good plan. We have a favorable rate with Bankers Trust.

    Ford said this means the conclusion has been reached that we are carrying more than is needed, and are thus proposing that a different plan be implemented.

    Gilbert said he proposes that we no longer use the description "short-term investment income" that has been used in the past. The account will be called "AIP Fixed Income Portfolio". We will now carry $4 million as working capital rather than $6 million. Since AIP's investment account has been growing, although continuing to invest most of the assets in short-term money market instruments, some funds can be invested in longer maturity fixed income obligations, thus earning the highest rate of return. This can be done while maintaining the same cash investment service fee charged to short-term accounts.

    Gilbert said if there are no objections he will instruct Bankers Trust to proceed with this plan and will monitor the results. No objections were heard.

  4. Report of Investment Advisory Committee
    Gilbert distributed the report of the Investment Advisory Committee, which met on 5 February 1988, at which meeting they met with our investment managers. A chart of our consolidated portfolios was set up in order to track them collectively and was reviewed with an investment package. We had a paper loss, since the October 19 stock market crash, of about 3%. The Dow is rising, so this may be eradicated by now. The prime performer is First Manhattan. It was suggested that individual members of the committee closely track separate areas to get different points of view.

    The Investment Avisory Committee reiterated their confidence in the ability of the present portfolio managers to meet our required performance objectives and did not recommend any changes in our portfolio at this time. The previous rate of return objective, established during July 1983, was CPI + 8; they established a new rate of return objective of CPI + 5.

  5. Status of IRS Employment Tax Case
    Gilbert distributed a report of developments in this case, and copy of 4 February 1988 letter from Lehrfeld to Touche Ross giving Lehrfeld's legal opinion of the case as of that date. An appeals hearing on our case was held at the IRS New York office on 10 February 1988. The purpose was to gather further data. The Appeals Officer requested additional explanatory statements and affidavits, which Lehrfeld and Gilbert will develop. Gilbert was asked to sign a Consent Waiver extending the completion date to 31 December 1989 and did so upon Lehrfeld's advice. It is a complex situation, and no quick decision is expected. Lehrfeld is optimistic about the ultimate outcome.

9. Long-range Planning - Report by Spencer Weart
Weart, chair of this Committee for the staff, was present to make a progress report. (The committee consists of Scott, Porter, Carlin, Parisi, Merrill, and Ford.) There have previously been good plans division by division, but they were not coordinated. A sense that it is desirable to have more integrated planning has emerged. A draft plan should be ready for presentation to the Executive Committee by September.

Frauenfelder said he liked the idea that a lot is coming from the staff.

Weart said he and Ford agree that it is better this way than calling in a consultant to tell staff how to do it. It is good to grow from the inside.

Frauenfelder said it is also good to get input from the Member Societies as to their views of how things are going.

Boyce said outside consultants should not be ruled out. They can recognize certain problems such as things getting too ingrown.

10. Study of AIP's Private Fund-Raising Potential - Progress Report by Harry Staley
Ford introduced Staley. The latter reminded the committee that his purpose is to explore the advisability of establishing a development office which would have a dual responsibility:
1) to seek funding for programs carried out under the aegis of the Institute, with the approval of the Governing Board;  
2) to investigate whether such an AIP development office could also serve the
Member Societies by providing them with expertise in areas where they do not have this.

Since January, when he began his study, he has obtained background through conferences with Ford and other key AIP staff members, and is now in the process of interviewing 18 representatives from the Member Societies. Some preliminary observations:

- based solely on a fund raiser's impression of the sizes of the Societies, it is difficult to ignore the fund raising potential of the Societies; this has been only superficially tapped up to now.
- the activities of the Societies and of AIP, as reflected by their mission statements, are of great importance to the nation and to science.
- in order to mount a successful campaign there must be a cause worthy of support, and there must be a financial constituency. One important question is whether there is an awareness of need sufficient to embark on such a program?

He has heard concerns expressed over the concept of a development office; e.g., Is fund raising cost effective? Would the prospects of individual Societies be harmed rather than enhanced by having a development officer at AIP? Where does the final authority rest: with the Societies or the Governing Board? All are legitimate questions. AIP is the creation of its Member Societies. If development capability were to make sense, it would have to meet the needs of the Member Societies and of AIP. He senses a willingness to consider the entire picture before a decision ie reached.

(The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:15 p.m. and resumed at 1:10 p. m.)

11. Physics Programs Items

  1. Report on New Projects
    Rigden reported on the conference planned for 11-12 March at Harvey Mudd Colllege. There will be three study groups, to be chaired by Misner, Holcomb, and Merzbacher. They are looking at the basic structure of the Introductory Calculus based Physics Course.

    A proposal has been submitted to· NSF regarding the University City Project. He hopes to have funding for this by August. Strong support is coming from local schools and industry. The level of funding for the proposed three-year project is $1 million. As a part of the project, an equity audit is being conducted. The Statistics Division will have access to the data and i planning to track children through junior high school. The AAAS and various individuals are also interested. This is an example of how physics programs can complement each other.

  2. Report on Olympiad Fund Raising
    Merrill reported that AIP is involved in soliciting and coordinating contributions for the 1988 Olympiad. The estimated budget is $92,000. Any contributions in excess of this amount will be designated toward the U. S. hosting of the Olympiad in 1992.

  3. Report on Cooperation with Program on Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Math Teaching
    Ford, referring to his 20 January 1988 letter to John M. Fowl er at NSTA Special Projects, reported that AIP has agreed to serve as a cooperating organization for this program in 1988 and 1989.

12. 1989 Budget Guidelines
In his 4 February 1988 memo to the Executive Committee. Ford suggests that the budgeting process start early in 1988. He outlined five policy areas:
1) budgeting of investment income;
2) the bottom line;
3) journal pricing policy;
4) physics programs;
5) private and government funding.

Commenting on journal prices, Marks said the main increases result from decreasing page charges, an expected drop in subscriptions, and an increase in pages published. In addition, a formula of pricing to pay for the physics programs is followed. This year we plan to look at the competition to be sure our prices are in line.

Ford said there are meritorious physics programs that could be initiated and which would require considerably more money; on the other hand, journal prices have been rising rapidly and libraries are cutting subscriptions. We are aware of these concerns and will try to balance them.

13. New York/Washington Space Considerations (II)
Ford said our facilities range over three hubs: New York, Long Island, and Washington, all of which are important. The maximum move would be for all of physics programs to move to Washington; the minimum would be the Education Division. The issue is whether we should generate more information for the Governing Board. Rigden has an idea of writing up the goals and interactions of the physics programs, the degree of importance of these interactions, and the (projected) mobility of key staff members.

Rigden said, with regard to space needs, many of the questions posed and responses received are anecdotal. There are implications of personnel changes and related matters. He proposes to prepare a white paper in which he weighs these issues and proposes moves accordingly.

Frauenfelder said he would like a short outline of the various proposals. Treat each of the three sites ("hubs") separately: each has different problems.
- regarding Long Island, can we build at Woodbury? if not, we can continue renting but look for a solution nearby.
- regarding Washington, we could acquire, according to the results of the study, additional space where people can meet and interact, or enough space to house an even larger AIP presence.
We now have to mix all the problems together. If we treat each location separately, we would not be forced to solve all the problems at the same time. It could relieve the pressure to buy, etc.

Fauenfelder said he would like a preliminary outline of such a plan in March, for the Governing Board.

Ford said one big issue is the sale or non-sale of the headquarters building. If selective units are shifted to Long Island or Washington DC, allowing others to condense into 335 E. 45th, we would postpone that problem. If the decision is made not to move the physics programs, we should focus on New York real estate costs. We would separately address the Woodbury publishing space.

Wilson asked if we would continue to defer a decision if things remain split after this study is prepared. Frauenfelder said we would have to defer it. It depends on which Societies take which position. He cannot see an objectionable part to this proposed solution. It would keep us free to establish a stronger presence in Long Island and to do more in Washington as well.

14. Future of Assembly of Society Officers
Grant said the purpose and content of the Assembly have varied over the years. It was decided not to have one this year. The Governing Board should discuss possibilities and what would be desirable for the future.

Ford said he had input from one Society officer, who found the Assembly unsatisfying; he felt he was mainly being lectured at by AIP staff. He would like the structure to allow Member Society officers time to talk about a topic or topics.

Wilson said he thinks it is worth trying to resurrect the Assembly but it does get too structured. We should consult the Member Societies (through the Governing Board) on this issue. It is their meeting.

15. Announcements and Other Business
In response to question from Wilson, Ford said that a review of market rents in New York would be conducted, and a proposal brought in March.

16. Future Meetings
After discussion it was decided to add a special meeting of the Executive Committee on Monday, 25 April (10 a.m. - 4 p.m.) for the purpose of amending the 1988 budget to accommodate additional computer support functions (PI-NET and subscription fulfillment) and to discuss long-range planning.

Future scheduled meetings (Executive Committee except as noted):
[Note: ** denotes addition or change]
18 Mar (10 a.m. - 12N Fri) Woodbury, NY
18 Mar (12:45 p.m. - 1:15 p.m. Fri) Corporation Meeting, Woodbury, NY
18-19 Mar (1:30 p.m. - 12N Sat) Governing Board, Woodbury, NY
** 25 Apr (10 a.m. - 4 p.m. Mon) New York, NY
9-10 Jun (5 p.m. Thurs - 4 p.m. Fri) Washington, DC
8-10 Sep (9 a.m. Thurs - 12N Sat) Woods Hole, MA
** 23 Oct (12N - 5 p.m. Sun) Marriott Hotel, Tarrytown, NY
** 23-24 Oct (6 p.m. Sun - 4 p.m. Mon) Governing Board, Marriott Hotel, Tarrytown, NY
** 25-26 Oct Corporate Associates, IBM Watson Labs, NY

17. Executive Session

The staff were excused at 2:50 p. m. for the executive session, which is reported in the official minutes only.

18. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.