Executive Committee of the American Institute of Physics
Minutes of Meeting
Executive Committee Members Present: Philip M. Morse – Chairman, Robert T. Beyer, L. W. Fredrick, W. W. Havens, Jr., H. William Koch, Melba Phillips, Jarus W. Quinn, and Sidney Millman for the afternoon session only, due to transportation problems
Absent: W. A. Fowler
Board Property Committee Members Present: Robert T. Beyer – Chairman, James G. Baker, Peter T. Demos, L. W. Fredrick, W. W. Havens, Jr., E. R. Piore, Philip M. Morse, H. William Koch, and Sidney Millman for the afternoon session
Non-Voting Participants: J. A. Burton (Chairman of the APS Building Committee), R. D. Burbank (ACA), J. S. Laughlin (AAPM)
AIP Staff Present: H. William Koch, Director; Sidney Millman, Secretary (afternoon), G. F. Gilbert, Treasurer; Lewis Slack, Assoc. Director for General Activities; R. H. Marks, Associate Director for Publishing; Dorothy M. Lasky, Assistant to the Director; Mary M. Johnson, Assistant to the Secretary
Chairman of the Executive Committee Morse called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
1. Minutes
Upon motion made and passed without dissent, the minutes of the February 4, 1976, joint meeting of the Executive and Board Property Committees were approved without dissent.
Koch called attention to a typographical error on Page 5 of the minutes of the February 18 meeting of the Board Property Committee. Under Item 7b, "Correspondence with Weinbaum," line 6 should read “the 5 ½% interest rate…” instead of “the 5% interest rate…”
2. Report of the Board Property Committee
Morse turned the chair over to Beyer, Chairman of the Board Property Committee, who noted that since the last meeting of his Committee held on February 18, the APS Building Committee has met and this has stimulated further studies by AIP management. He asked Koch for any comments he might want to make on these studies.
Koch reported that the APS Building Committee met on March 2, and he referred to two letters associated with that meeting, one from Elizabeth Baranger, and another from E. R. Piore who had been unable to attend the March 2 meeting (copies of letters are attached to these minutes as Exhibits A and B, respectively). AIP has received a request from the APS Committee for more information but, Koch explained, things have been going so fast that it is difficult to respond adequately. He called attention to some of the basics to be kept in mind when considering the purchase of the Lake Success building while keeping our headquarters location. The 45th Street building costs about $250,000 per year to maintain and the Lake Success building's operating cost is about $500,000 with some extras of about $100,000 which would be incurred during the first year. This double location would cost about $850,000 which is about $400,000 more than we are now paying. Some of us, therefore, do not feel that we should propose such a dual location.
Koch then distributed copies of a "Recommendation for Purchase of An AIP Building, Report C," dated 11 March 1976 (copy of a revised version of this report is attached as Exhibit C). He noted that, by making the decision now to purchase the Levitt Building at Lake Success, we can still leave our options open concerning the sale of the 45th Street building a year from now.
Marks reviewed the figures on Pages 3 and 4 of Report C (Exhibit G) in some detail. He noted that the increase in operating costs under the status quo (Option IID of Report C) on Page 5, is due to inflation. From his point of view, consolidating in a location such as Lake Success does make sense and the next choice from an economic standpoint would be maintaining the status quo.
Piore expressed his concern that there has been no articulation from the Member Societies as to what they want; specifically, does APS want to have a presence in New York? Have they stated that officially? Havens replied that the projected possible change in AIP locations was first called to the attention of the APS Council at its meeting on February 1. The Council set up a Building Committee and this Committee has been gathering information. It is not planned to call a special meeting of the Council before its next scheduled meeting on April 25. The APS Executive Committee will meet on March 29. Burton distributed copies of a summary report of the APS Building Committee meeting held on March 2 at which Koch, Millman and Marks were present (copy attached as Exhibit D). This summary represents the viewpoints of the following APS Committee members: George E. Pake, W. W. Havens, Jr., Elizabeth Baranger, Norman Ramsey, and Burton. The views of Piore, who does not subscribe to all of the points made in the summary report, are given in his letter of March 1.
In response to Beyer’s request for clarification of what is included in "member-related headquarters activities," Burton said that he would tend to define them much more broadly than could be accommodated in 12,000 square feet of rented space. They should include the Center for the History of Physics, Manpower, parts of Physics Today, that part of Data Processing which deals with membership records, some portions of Office Services and Accounting, the Director's Office, the Secretary's Office and the Treasurer's Office. This would be the preference of the people on the APS Committee. Their feeling is that there should be one headquarters, not two, and that it should be located in Manhattan. The publications production operation would not be a headquarters operation. APS officers are going to have to explain to its membership any commitments APS makes on changes in location and assumption of additional financial burdens.
Piore agreed that one would like to see a single headquarters for all physics activities. The activities, however, ought to be those which are visible to the public. Other activities which are merely a convenience to the officers but escalate costs should be regarded differently. If it is cheaper to do them someplace else, then it is worth an element of inconvenience. As a member of the AIP Governing Board representing APS, he would like to see that any proposal from AIP is financially and administratively sound since AIP will have to live with it and administer it. If the projected cost savings are not realized, AIP will have to explain it to the Governing Board.
Koch noted, in response to a question, that Option I of Report C would not result in any increases in page charges, member dues and subscription prices. There will have to be some increases in a dual location unless someone provides about $250,000 a year for the next ten years. Option I plus rented space of 12,000 square feet in Manhattan would not require any increases in building costs but the details have not been worked out. Burton observed that the modified Option I has essentially two headquarters. Koch disagreed, pointing out that AIP would have its offices in the City and meetings of the Governing Board and Executive Committee would be held in the City, too. The individual Societies would make their own choices about location of their headquarters.
Beyer referred to his March 8 letter to the Board Property Committee (copy attached as Exhibit E) and pointed out that we are faced with two positions that do not coincide. Moving everything out of Manhattan provides a cheaper operation. If we follow the wishes of APS, we would have to have a headquarters in Manhattan in order to provide a visible presence in a central city.
Baker asked whether there is any way APS can assist financially in maintaining a headquarters in New York since it is advocating such an arrangement. Burton replied that APS now pays $8 per square foot for the space it occupies in the 45th Street building. He felt that APS would be receptive to financial participation in some arrangement that resulted in a net improvement over the present situation for member-related activities. However, the number of people and amount of space that would be provided for in the 12,000 square feet of rented space in New York is essentially no improvement over the status quo. Piore added that the physics community will not have an effective visible presence in the 12,000 square feet of rented space.
Koch pointed out that what is now being proposed is the purchase of the Levitt Building. The Governing Board, at its fall meeting, can decide what to do with the 45th Street building. Demos stated that he would like to see some indication from the Societies as to which they would rather sacrifice, some efficiency in the publishing of journals or the visible presence of a headquarters in the City. Burton commented that the position of APS officers is that, if there is a plan that is clearly in the interest of the physics community, APS would be glad to participate in it even if it includes some increased costs.
Havens observed that AIP was set up to perform services that can be done better by one organization than by the Societies separately. No one questions the fact that publishing is one. These other activities take money and they are supposed to benefit the physics community. AIP should have just as much interest in those activities as all of the Societies. If AIP moves all of its operations out of the City, it will become just a publishing house. Koch replied that he concurred with what Havens said but expressed the view that the money to carry on the non-publishing activities comes from publishing and fiscal operations. He was concerned that if we do not put those on a sound footing, we will not be able to afford the member-related services.
Quinn thought that we should look at the member-related services one by one and determine what are the advantages of Manhattan versus Long Island. Slack observed that of the 250 users of the History services each year, there are probably about 60 who do extensive work and would probably come wherever it is located. Piore noted that, as a result of the reception held at the Institute by the History Division on February 2, people from small colleges have begun to understand that there is a resource here they were not aware of in teaching physics. He believed that very few would travel to Long Island and he thought it important that this resource be kept widely available. Koch added that the people in the Public Relations Division have said that New York City is much more desirable for them and their contacts with the press.
Piore observed that the stumbling block appears to be what to do with the 45th Street building. Is selling or renting it the only way out? When you start renting three-fourths of this building, then you have no headquarters. He would not mind having a tenant on the top floor. Morse wondered whether by renting a little of both buildings, one can take care of the additional costs of maintaining the two buildings. Koch replied that, if we rent out about 20,000 square feet in each location at $8 or $9 per square foot, we would then have the kind of savings needed to make up the deficit we are projecting. We could thus absorb the annual operating costs of $750,000.
Quinn wondered whether we are about to close one option with the purchase of a new computer. If we are thinking about two locations, maybe we need to think about two computers. Koch noted that the staff has discussed the possibility of locating the publications operation and the computer somewhere away from headquarters and having computer terminals for subscription handling.
Beyer felt that the Board Property Committee should make a recommendation to the Executive Committee. One possibility is to arrange for the purchase of the Lake Success building and postpone a decision as to whether the 45th Street building should be kept or sold.
The meeting adjourned for luncheon at 12:10 p.m. and, following an executive session of the Board Property Committee, reconvened at 1:25 p.m.
Beyer reported that, in its executive session, the Board Property Committee concluded that we should keep ownership of the 45th Street building, that we continue negotiations toward purchase of the Levitt Building, and that the AIP staff be asked to come up with estimated operating costs assuming the most reasonable rental of excess space in both buildings. The Committee recognizes this will not make up the total difference between the cost of maintaining both buildings and moving all of the AIP operations to Lake Success. The difference is estimated at about $100,000 to $150,000 per year. The Board Property Committee, therefore, recommends that the Member Societies be asked to commit themselves to a contribution of $2 to $3 per member per year for a maximum of five years, with the understanding that the Institute would make every effort to close this gap as soon as possible. He noted that there is a problem of timing. It is understood that the decision to purchase the Levitt Building would not have to be made until the end of April, which would allow time at least for the American Physical Society, the Astronomical Society, and the Acoustical Society to have it come before their governing bodies to make the decision as to whether or not they would support such a method of raising the necessary funds. Morse added that, if the Societies report back that it cannot be done, then the Levitt Building would not be bought. Accordingly, the following motion was made and passed without dissent:
MOVED that AIP inform the Governing Board representatives of the Member Societies that, in order to help finance the acquisition of an additional building on Long Island and maintaining of the present building on 45th Street in New York City, AIP is contemplating requesting a contribution from each Member Society of $2 to $3 per individual member per year for a maximum of 5 years. This proposal is being advanced in anticipation of decreased costs of publishing in the future by the centralization of production operations out of New York City while providing room for expansion of the Physics History Library, other general activities operations, and Member Society offices in New York City.
3. Reappointment of Sutton & Towne as Exclusive Real Estate Agent for AIP
Koch informed the Committee that AIP has had an old arrangement with Sutton & Towne, who are also brokers for the Levitt Building, which officially terminated on December 31, 1972. It had many advantages and no disadvantages. He would like to write to William Weinbaum, the man we have been dealing with, proposing an extension of the agreement to March 1, 1977. Quinn asked whether this would not be a conflict of interest if Sutton & Towne are also agents for the Levitt Building. Koch observed that it is not unusual, and added that we have also asked our attorney to look out for our interests. There followed a discussion about the ethics of having the same agent or company acting as exclusive agent for both a buyer and a seller, and the following motion was made and passed by a vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed:
MOVED that the Director be authorized to propose an extension of our real estate agreement with Sutton & Towne, as our exclusive agents, to March 1, 1977.
4. Status of New Copyright Law
Koch distributed copies of a letter from H. M. Sarasohn, Director of Engineering Communications of IBM, asking whether they will be allowed to make photocopies of articles in our journals in view of the contemplated new copyright law. He asked for suggestions from the Member Societies and, in addition, proposed that four representatives from our Corporate Associates meet with the AIP Publishing Policy Committee or with the Executive Committee to formulate a policy. Fredrick thought the matter should be referred to the Publishing Policy Committee who would get the views of the Society journal editors. Koch stated that it would be desirable to have a policy by the end of June. Accordingly, the following motion was made and passed without dissent:
MOVED that the matter of permitting industrial laboratories to make photocopies of articles from AIP and Society journals be referred to the Publishing Policy Committee.
5. Sales of Abstracts on Tape to Engineering Index
Marks reported that the Executive Committee of Engineering Index (EI) has agreed to buy our abstracts and we have made a letter offer to sell the abstracts at $11 per abstract for about 10,000 abstracts per year. The U.S. Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA) is buying our nuclear physics abstracts for Chemical Abstracts, and we cannot sell them to EI for a lower price than the Government is paying. We believe that we can justify a price of $10-11 and still not be charging EI less than we are charging ERDA for equivalent services. We are going to have a negotiating meeting with EI on March 17.
6. Negotiation of Agreement with Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) on Behalf of AIP and Other Societies
Koch reported that ISI makes copies of articles from our journals and sells them. AIP does not get any royalty, but we do want to make such an arrangement with them this year. He thought that we should refer this first to the Publishing Policy Committee, and the following motion was made and passed without dissent:
MOVED that the question of an agreement with ISI on the sale of copies of AIP-published articles be referred to the Publishing Policy Committee.
7. Publication of Translated Uspekhi Articles in Reviews of Modern Physics
Marks reported that Soviet authors of articles in Uspekhi, the Soviet equivalent of RMP, would also like to publish the same articles in RMP. One such author contacted the editor of RMP who arranged for simultaneous publication in RMP and in our English version of Uspekhi. We did this on a one-time basis with AIP paying for the translation. Now Soviet authors want to submit more manuscripts directly to RMP. Marks raised the question of whether or not there should be a sharing of the translation costs and royalties. Part of the proposed arrangement is that AIP will be doing the translating. There probably would be at least one or two articles per year. Beyer observed that Uspekhi is translating works from the West into Russian and we do not translate them again into our journals. Under our present policy, an RMP article that appears in Uspekhi would not be published in the English edition of Uspekhi. The following motion was then made and passed without dissent:
MOVED that the proposed publication of translated Uspekhi articles in RMP be referred to the Publishing Policy Committee.
8. Status of New Computer Acquisition
Koch reported that the program conversions have regained momentum. There has been steady progress and it looks as if all aspects of the conversion should be on schedule.
9. Exercise of Purchase Option on Present Computer
Gilbert reminded the Committee that, when the Governing Board approved acquisition of the new computer, the deal included purchase of the present computer. We have to exercise our option for purchase of three leases by April 15. The purchase price is about $8,300. The remaining lease, which covers one tape drive and 16K of memory, expires in November 1976, at which time we can decide whether or not to exercise our purchase option. The rental is $770 per month. The following motion was made and passed without dissent:
MOVED that the staff be authorized to exercise purchase options on three computer leases, as described above.
10. Election of Corporate Associates
Lasky presented some background information on the companies which applied for Corporate Associate membership. Accordingly, a motion was passed electing the following two organizations Corporate Associates of the Institute:
- Maxwell Laboratories, Inc. at annual dues of $250
- Universal Oil Products Co. at annual dues of $500
Lasky also noted that we recently lost two Corporate Associates, Carborundum and Firestone Tire & Rubber, who notified us that they would not renew their memberships for 1976.
11. Status of Manpower Proposals
Slack reported that two proposals have been submitted in draft form to APS: (1) a mini-survey of APS membership, and (2) follow-up studies of departing faculty members. There was little enthusiasm for the first, and the second led to action being deferred only until the APS committees have had time to look at it further and comment. Beverly Porter and Slack met with Lee Grodzins, Chairman of the APS ad hoc Manpower Advisory Council, on March 8 following which Slack talked with Milan Fiske, Chairman of the APS Committee on Manpower. We hope to prepare a final version of what the Societies want AIP to do.
12. Statement of AAPT Relating to Negative Vote on Constitutional Amendment to Make the Secretary of AIP an Ex Officio Member of the Governing Board and Executive Committee
Millman noted that, at the February 4 joint meeting of the Executive Committee and Board Property Committee, the Secretary was asked to record in these minutes the reason for AAPT’s negative vote on the proposed constitutional amendment which would make the Secretary a member of the Governing Board and Executive Committee. The relevant excerpt from a letter dated February 12 from J. B. Gerhart, AAPT Secretary, to Sidney Millman is recorded below:
“It is the opinion of the AAPT Council that it is improper for salaried officers of any association such as AIP to be voting members of its governing body, though the Council sees no difficulty with their being non-voting members.”
13. Admission of AVS to Full Membership
Millman reported that we have been notified by all Member Societies that they have voted to approve the American Vacuum Society for Member Society status. All [that] is required now is a formal election at a meeting of the AIP Corporation. The Constitution requires that this election not take place until six months after notice of nomination was sent to the Societies. If we follow the letter of the Constitution, we cannot act at the regular annual meeting of the Corporation scheduled for March 27, and a special meeting would have to be called for this purpose, possibly at the time of the Washington APS meeting in April. We have asked our attorney, William Boylan, to advise us on the possibility of scheduling this election for the March 27 meeting.
14. Contribution to Scientific Manpower Commission
Slack informed the Committee that there are about 13 or 14 founder societies of the Scientific Manpower Commission, of which AIP is one, that contribute to the support of the SMC. We have annually voted on the AIP contribution and the amount in the budget this year for this purpose is $1,000. This is the same as it has been since the establishment of SMC in 1953. We get from this organization fast information on what some of the other societies are doing, and it is also a good will gesture on our part. ACS and AIP are probably the two strongest societies other than AAAS that are in it and have the most activity in the manpower area. It is a coordinating forum for exchange of information on techniques. The following motion was passed without dissent:
MOVED that a contribution of $1,000 to the Scientific Manpower Commission be authorized.
15. Suggestions for Governing Board Agenda
Millman distributed copies of a proposed agenda for the Governing Board meeting to be held on March 26 and 27. Koch suggested that we have informal discussions on Friday evening by the Board and Society officers who will be attending as non-voting participants. There was general agreement with the proposed agenda. It was decided to schedule the Executive Committee meeting for 2:00 p.m. on Friday, March 26. The tour of the Levitt Building for those who indicated interest would also start at about 2:00 p.m. Slack was appointed by Koch as a guide.
16. Negotiations with IEE
Koch reported that J. H. H. Merriman of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in London has proposed purchasing from AIP input to Science Abstracts at $1.13 per item. E. L. Brady has said in writing to Harry Hookway, Chief Executive of The British Library Board, that he was appalled at such a low offer. Brady pays, for the National Bureau of Standards, $38.50 per item. The guess is that IEE will not insist on the $1.13 offer, and would be willing to pay possibly ten times as much if AIP does not insist on a royalty payment. If AIP offers to make the same kind of an arrangement as we do with Engineering Index, IEE might accept it. Marks observed that would bring in $170,000 a year and would take care of our building needs.
17. Liability Insurance
Gilbert reported that, at the recent tax conference in Washington which he attended, they were told that company officers are subject to suit by their members and also liable in connection with the new Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). He had known about this, and about a year ago had asked our insurance broker to look into it. Now there is enough of a demand for the kind of insurance that a carrier in Chicago is now in this field: He completed an application on behalf of the Institute recently and we are awaiting a response. He circulated brochures for those interested. He noted that Society officers can be sued for a variety of administrative actions such as an alleged unwise investment, an increase in dues, and a move of offices to an inconvenient location. The insurance will also cover all committee and Board members and volunteers, and includes publishers’ liability.
18. Request from Australian Institute of Physics
Koch reported that he received a letter from the Australian Institute of Physics asking for preferential rates on our journals. We could do what we did with the European Physics Society on Physics Today, namely offer that journal to their members at the member rates. Phillips thought this is a very good thing and should be encouraged. A MOTION to provide members of the Australian Institute of Physics with Physics Today at the member rates was passed without dissent.
19. Next Meeting
In addition to the meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled for March 26 at 2:00 p.m., it was agreed to schedule a breakfast meeting at the Sheraton-Park Hotel in Washington for the morning of Monday, April 26 starting at 7:30.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.