September 10, 1987

Executive Committee of the American Institute of Physics

Minutes of Meeting

1. Convene – Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., 10 September 1987, by Chairman Frauenfelder.

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:
Robert T. Beyer (ASA)
Kurt F. Wissbrun (SOR)
Joseph M. Reynolds (Member-at-Large)

Staff Present:
Robert H. Marks, Director of Publishing
John S. Rigden, Director of Physics Programs
Bernard Dolowich, Controller
Lawrence T. Merrill, Assistant to the Executive Director
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. Secretary's Report

1. Minutes of 7-8 June 1987 Meeting
   Minutes of the 7-8 June 1987 meeting of the Executive Committee were approved as distributed.

   Secretary Grant asked that his office be copied on any mailings that are sent by individual members of the Executive Committee to all Executive Committee members. He stated that his Office is available to handle such mailings, and that it also has available the most current addresses for committee members. Havens asked that the Secretary's Office provide members of the Executive Committee with a current Executive Committee mailing list.

3. Report of Chairman

1. Overview of Meeting
   Frauenfelder said the most important matter at this meeting would be the discussion of space needs.

4. Report of Executive Director

1. Officer Responsibilities and Organization Chart
   Ford reviewed the Organization Chart of the Institute. Since its recent release, Information Services has been added as a new division to the Publishing I Branch. The Development Office appears prematurely on the chart, as it has not been approved as yet.

2. Committee Structure; Assignment of Staff Liaisons
   Ford noted the listing of committees and the corresponding staff liaisons as they appear in the recently published Handbook for Member Society Officers. There have been three (stated) policy committees: Publishing Policy, Educational Policy, and Public Policy. There are several subcommittees under the Committee on Publishing Policy. Committees formerly designated as subcommittees under the Committee on Educational Policy are now committees. He proposes that policy committees continue to report to the Board and the "program" committees report to Management, thus avoiding Bylaw changes but also giving better balance in reporting activities to the Board.

   Smith and Havens spoke about the history of committees and subcommittees, and to whom they reported. The concern expressed was that the reports reach the Board through one channel or the other, and not stop at the management level.

   Wilson noted that prior to these changes some synthesis of the subcommittee reports could take place in the CEP. What, now, is to be the role of the CEP?

   Ford said the CEP would still be apprised of committee reports, but would not have to review and appraise them. It would continue to serve in an advisory capacity to Rigden and to the Physics Programs Branch.

   Havens and Wilson both commented that these are missionary committees with zeal. Now AIP management has to do the balancing, and this may not be the best way to handle it. Management is put in the position that the CEP had. Priorities have to be set for projects. If these committees report to management, the priorities are set only by management rather than by the CEP or the Governing Board.

   Ford said the budgetary implications of management considerations of the requests will end up for approval at the December Executive Committee meeting.

   Frauenfelder said we may need another co ittee for overview. We can return to it later in the agenda. (See also Agenda Item 16.C. and 16.D.)

3. Meeting with Representatives of Physical Society of Japan
   Ford reported on his meeting in August with representatives of this organization. Three issues were raised:
   1) Possibility of closer affiliation with AIP. They were cool to the idea of becoming an Affiliated Society; it is viewed as a lower status category. The proposal on the Agenda to consider an International Associates category of membership may have strong appeal to foreign societies. (See Agenda Item 19.B.)
   2) Marketing of Japanese journals. Marks, noting that the Physical Society of Japan publishes two fine English language journals, reiterated that AIP would like to market these journals in North America to give them better circulation, and explained the benefits to them.
   3) Publication of translations of Japanese journals. Marks said that possible arrangements and support for translation of two Japanese journals were discussed. Both are in the surface science area.

   Havens said the APS has had a formal agreement with the Physical Society of Japan, and with the European Physical Society, for about five years. The offer of reciprocal privileges is not actively used, but both agree it is highly desirable to continue the relationship.

5. Overview and Planning Report
Ford noted the draft Overview and Planning Report which was distributed with the Agenda and invited comments before it is further distributed to senior staff and the Governing Board. He considers it a transitional document.

Boyce thought it was a good document and a good presentation. He would like to excerpt the first section to the AAS Council for their better understanding. He suggested that the topic of fostering communication should be listed upfront under services to Member Societies.

Ford asked for comments on his proposed mission statement: "It is the mission of the Institute to serve the sciences of physics and astronomy by serving the Societies, by serving individual scientists, and by serving students and the general public."

Havens thought it an excellent statement, and noted that the order of service (the Societies mentioned first) is correct. He thought this was a great improvement in presentation. He does not agree with every statement in the report but will comment as needed.

6. Report of AIP Logo Committee
Ford presented two versions of a new logo which had been prepared by a designer, and given tentative approval by an ad hoc committee. He passed them around for committee members to review. Preference was voiced for the first of the two, a contemporary rendering of the name of the Institute and its initials, AIP. Suggestions made by the committee are to be reviewed with the designer, with the resultant logo to be presented to the Governing Board for possible approval at the 29 September meeting.

7. AIP Headquarters: Future Space Requirements and Location
Ford said that "Future Location of AIP Headquarters" which had been distributed prior to the meeting contains a summary of previously gathered facts and options. During the meeting he added an analysis of the net revenue needed to finance Physics Programs during the remainder of the century, and its relationship to space costs for the various options contained in the report. (Attached as Appendix A to the official minutes only is the revised version of this report as it was distributed to the Governing Board at its 29 September meeting. This document integrates the additional material which was distributed at the time of the Executive Committee meeting with the original report.)

Havens said a possible relocation of headquarters in suburban New York, a major option, was missing from this report (as Landauer had not been asked to examine it). Excluding this option means that it is not a complete report; he feels that this possibility should be kept in mind during the ensuing discussion. AIP needs a DC office, and probably a larger office than the present one, but many of the current activities can be done as well in Woodbury as in DC.

Frauenfelder suggested that the report made it possible to focus on the financial aspects of the various options. The information presented seems to indicate that the options (either New York or Washington) are comparable, while suburban DC and the BWI option are substantially less costly.

Ford drew attention to two items which are contained in this report that had not been presented before:
1. The proposed deployment of AIP Divisions between the Woodbury publishing facility and a proposed relocation of headquarters to Washington DC. This model would base the publishing and financial operations in Woodbury, more separate from the other programs than at present.
2. The distribution (time) of AIP Management. The Director of Publishing, Treasurer, and Controller would operate mainly in Woodbury; the Executive Director, Director of Physics Programs, and the Secretary would be based in Washington DC.

Lazarus objected to making a 30-year projection of AIP space needs (impacted by size of divisions, assumptions about publishing volume, number of employees, growth in Physics Programs, etc.) based on extrapolation of recent history. He also objected to focus on the recent rapid increase in land values; this is not an AIP concern. The concern should be how to provide the best, most cost effective service to the physics community. Developments in the publishing area (changeover to electronic publishing for instance) and the growth and appropriateness of other AIP activities are germane and important concerns. There is a need to analyze our programs; we are talking about a major perturbation. Do we anticipate closer contact with the Federal government? Are there other concerns which drive us toward the DC location?

Ford said the decision regarding location does not need to await a study of purpose. He thinks the present directions will continue; our major emphasis will be in the publishing area, with a gradual expansion (conversion?) into electronic publishing. We know enough about the organization to know where it's going.

Boyce said he feels that it is important to have the Director of AIP in DC. AIP does not have enough resources to attack the education problem by itself. It is critical to have education people in an area where they can interact with other societies with similar concerns, and with the government.

Havens asked what effect he expects them to have.

Boyce said, in view of finite AIP resources, it is important for organizations to proceed down the same path; without close cooperation, everyone is solving his own problem.

Wilson said AAPT works closely with AIP and APS and values its ties with APS. There are always communication difficulties if distances are large. The AAPT Board, in its site considerations for its recently purchased building, considered New York impossible.

Havens and Lazarus asked why they did not, in that case, choose downtown DC.

Wilson said that this was investigated, and that was nothing available in DC that would be attractive to AAPT going it alone with their limited resources. He said his point is that it is the desirability of having as many societies together as possible that makes DC the preferred location.

Ford said that whatever we decide to do, interactions between the Divisions of the Physics Programs Branch are vital and must be preserved. They are now divided among too many locations, so a goal is to bring them together. In terms of relocating to Washington, the closeness to the federal government and its agencies is a plus, but couplings with the other societies located there already ranks even higher on his list of reasons for favoring the move.

Rigden said that history activities, as an example, cannot be done as well if isolated from the other Divisions of his Branch. Beverly Porter is just completing a study on high school physics; what will be done with this study? We have a Public Information group who can take this and get it out to the public. Physics Today can publish the essence of this study. History can bring a historical perspective to it. The Education Division can become involved. These things can be done in NY or in DC. Other organizations can utilize this information, and many of them are located in DC. Location near them would aid in the dissemination process.

Havens said there is interaction with the engineering societies in NY on the operating level, and this has been helpful to AIP on many occasions.

Walt said he thinks Ford underestimates the effect on government. It means interactions with heads of agencies. There can be influence through the variety of these contacts. Being in the same city is important, as the exchanges can be done on an informal basis.

Frauenfelder suggested turning to the next Agenda Item as it relates to this concern.

8. Nature of AIP, Scope of Activities (General Discussion)
Ford noted the 23 June letter from Sickafus to the Executive Committee, his 29 June reply to Sickafus, and the 6 August reply to Sickafus from Havens (copies were distributed with the Agenda). Finally he noted his 19 August memo to the Executive Committee entitled "The Scope of AIP Activities". He stressed that certain activities are carried out by AIP for historical reasons, and that he sees no significant competition between AIP and the Member Societies at present.

Wilson said AAPT has the most potential conflict with AIP's evolving plans since most of the developing areas are in education. He worries from time to time, but thinks things are really working quite well right now.

Havens said he has previously said publicly that AIP has been good for APS and for the physics research community in general. Each has done things the other could have done, and it has been to their mutual benefit. On the other hand, he notes a growth in the paid staffs of the societies, whereas originally most societies had volunteers. When you have permanent staff, you have to give them work opportunities and advancement. This portends the sort of competition that bothers him. He cited examples in AIP vs. Member Society public information responsiveness and in advertising as being areas of concern.

Frauenfelder said he is not worried about competition; he thinks these matters can be worked out. He asked those present to comment, as they saw fit, on the scope of AIP activities.

Havens said APS thinks it important to be closely connected to AIP. APS will be getting new top staff in the next few years. They could be recruited anywhere. APS is concerned that it has always been influential at AIP. There is a contingent in the APS that would like to take over all the activities now done by AIP. If AIP operations do not work, APS could assume more of these independently.

Marks said there is competition in the publishing area. When AIP does a large volume of publishing, it spreads the load and distributes the cost more broadly. AIP has a books program, but other societies do also. It is a delicate balance. The publishing part of AIP is $36 million. APS represents $6 million of this total. His concern is that the publishing program continue to function well and that the close relationship with APS be maintained. AIP-owned properties depend on members of Member Societies for scholarly and editorial functions. AIP does not have an existence independent of the Member Societies. He sees the comings and goings with societal publishing as continuing. This needs to be considered in deciding on a location.

Havens noted that almost all the things discussed as reasons for the move to DC are outreach programs, involving expenses but not income. The need to maintain a strong publishing program has to have a big influence on the location of AIP facilities as this is the major income source. He also stated that APS has 21 employees in its New York office; none would move. A new staff would have to be recruited, a fact which would lead to considerable disruption for APS operations.

Beyer sees the chief ASA contact with AIP as publishing and hopes this will continue. A NYC location is highly desirable for the ASA Standards Office.

Murday said the AVS has two major concerns: a strong publishing program and and the retention of a permanent staff. It derives many benefits from a close connection. There would be considerable short term dislocation and disadvantage involved in the case of a move to DC.

Lazarus noted that APS publishing has 80 people on Long Island. This location--Ridge--is better than DC or NY. It is also dependent on resources at Brookhaven Lab and Stony Brook to some extent. They would not consider moving their editorial offices; it must be near Woodbury. There are several reasons why we should not consider moving the publishing operation away from LI. Hundreds of employees need to be retained.

Reynolds said he was on the National Science Board for many years. He was conscious of being able to contact and see people quickly. It is possible to do this in DC, but hard to do from out of town. His first reaction would be that it would be nice to have all related societies in the DC area. It is useful from the governmental standpoint as well. The decision to relocate there depends on how important influencing the government is to the AIP and the Member Societies.

(End of Thursday discussion.)

Continuation:
23. AIP Headquarters: Future Space Requirements and Location
(The discussion resumed Friday morning; it is given here for purposes of continuity.)

Frauenfelder draw a diagram of various options on the blackboard. Underlying the site decisions are the directions of AIP in the future. He noted that Long Island would be the only alternative if all of AIP is to be located on one site.

Smith noted that there are a large number of things to be accomplished in the next few years. A move to DC might be more than AIP could absorb. He thinks the role of the Executive Director is crucial. There will be a lot of trauma no matter what. If the Executive Director is in favor of DC, he would support that.

Lazarus said he had heard no discussion of staying where we are. He does not understand the immediate need to move. Is the space concern so pressing that we need to move now?

Havens said there is an economic argument: the land we occupy is worth $12 million, and the existing building does not reflect full use of this value. To leave it the way it is, and to rent additional space as needed, presents an anomalous situation.

Frauenfelder said we should not base our decision on the basis of land value. The Institute is currently split into four locations; we should try to consolidate as much as possible.

Ford said that, after much soul searching, he is in favor of DC. He is focusing on the long term; in the short term, such a move would be very disruptive. His thinking is based on AIP's serving (1) as a conduit of information to and from the federal government, and (2) as an agent for influencing the federal government's decisions affecting physics, and, at least to some degree, on the long term costs. We might save money by a move, but this is not the primary reason. There is some appeal in moving all of AIP to LI, but there are activities in the physics programs area that cannot function well outside a metropolitan area. These would be the ones to go to DC. He noted the benefits of interaction with the other scientific and educational organizations in Washington.

Marks was asked for his comments. He said he was impressed with Havens' memo regarding the philosophy of AIP and what it should accomplish. His perspective is with AIP as a publishing operation: its mandate and major function is publishing, which in turn serves to fund the desired programs. He sees the need for coordination not only in the physics programs, but in and between the other branches as well. He is concerned that this would no longer be possible. PT is a prime editorial concern, but also a publishing property and requires much interaction with Marketing, Advertising, and other publication services. He thinks the operations would be more costly. AIP is a lean operation with little overhead in staff. A move to DC would require much more staff. There would be much disruption. It would be more difficult to run and less efficient; communication and coordination would be more difficult. AIP is also a complicated organization, and the interactions are not fully realized. He thinks the publishing operation should stay on LI, if for no other reason than to be near the APS operation.

Rigden was asked for his comments. He said that the physics programs divisions complement each other, and the current separation is a handicap. A goal for any move should be to bring them together in one location. He said there is great potential for tapping talent in the Societies, and to do this you need to have them in close proximity. The presence of other science organizations in DC would make possible a new level of outreach for science. He is working on an NSF project regarding introductory physics and is looking for young physicists to assist in the project; they are scarce and hard to attract. Washington would be a more desirable location for most of them.

Murday said it is likely that over the next 20 years there will be considerable change in the publishing operation. This would require interaction between publishing business people and the science writing people who influence these changes.

Marks said the changes in publishing have been predictable. They do not happen so fast that staff cannot plan for them. This is due to the close working contacts with the physics community, and with the committees. Preparation for an electronic database is a lot of work. There is more and more material being generated by the physics community. He could not have predicted what we are doing now. Staff projections made through the year 2000 are probably on the low side. The growth in membership is not as rapid as the services the Member Societies require. AIP is called on to help the societal special studies; the books program is expanding. New York is a good place to run a publishing enterprise. It is possible to attract good people. Companies leaving NY are in trouble, whereas AIP is successful.

Frauenfelder called for a vote on the designated options:

Keep Headquarters in New York: in favor: Havens.
Moving only part of headquarters to DC: No one.
Moving headquarters to DC: in favor: Boyce, Smith, Walt, Wilson.
Abstain: Lazarus

Frauenfelder told Lazarus he could not abstain; Lazarus then explained his preferences. His choice would be to stay in New York in the present building; however, if it is determined that we have to build, his choice would be DC.

Frauenfelder noted the second problem. If moving to DC, what location? If one locates near or within in the metro system, it does not make a significant difference. If you talk about interactions, the location may be significant.

Boyce said he finds no difference in the number of people who come by the AAS office at Florida Ave. as compared to his previous DC location.

Lazarus said there is a big difference in cost between the two DC choices. As the Committee has to bring a vote to the Governing Board, he wants Ford to do as much work as possible in preparation. Should the next split be discussed (DC or suburban) at the Governing Board meeting?

Frauenfelder said the Governing Board would still have the freedom to determine the location, even if the Executive Committee states a preference.

Frauenfelder called for a straw vote on this matter, specifying downtown to be "river to capital" (2 miles, or taxi zone 1 or 2).

For downtown: Boyce, Havens, Lazarus, Smith, Wilson.
For suburban: Walt.
Abstaining: Frauenfelder

(The meeting recessed for lunch at 12 noon Thursday and resumed at 1 p.m.)

9. Administrative and Financial Matters

1. Status Report of AIP Investments
   (Dolowich addressed these items, in the absence of Gilbert, who was representing  the Institute, with Lerner and Howitt, at the Moscow Book Fair.)

   Dolowich reviewed the reports which were distributed with the Agenda. One-third of our investment income is from the Cash Management Plan. He noted that it appears we will be over budget with the 1987 investment income.

   Walt asked if these figures contain unrealized income. Dolowich said they are realized gains only, which are significant this year as two funds were liquidated.

   The market value of the portfolio (without the cash management plan) increased by 11-1/2% in the first half of 1987; the program seems to be doing very well. He noted the 29 July 1987 letter from Krumhansl (Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee) to Gilbert which states that he sees no need for change in the portfolio at this time.

   Smith asked if we have a method for tracking funds. Dolowich said we have a very useful software package running on a PC.

2. Report of Audit Committee
   Dolowich next turned to the report of the 1986 Audit Committee. The committee met on 6 August 1987. The report recommends that the 1986 audit be accepted, and that Touche Ross be retained for the 1987 audit. Although AIP had the most efficient way ever of dealing with the auditors, the auditors reported that they went over budget (the fee was $52,000) and he does not know if it can be contained next year.

   Lazarus asked whether it was time to change auditors. Dolowich said Touche Ross changes partners who deal with AIP frequently, so this has not been a concern. We have wanted a Big 8 certification.

   Smith said the OSA had difficulties with a Big 8 firm and has switched to a local firm, from which they have received good service.

   Dolowich said there are advantages and disadvantages in dealing with either a big or a small firm.

   Beyer {Chairman of the Audit Committee} said the committee was concerned over the cost of the audit, but that Touche Ross functioned well . Perhaps preliminary consideration could be made of another firm for next year.

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

   MOVED that management investigate the possibility of getting a different firm for the 1988 audit.

   Havens noted the recommendation in the report that management assign one person to work exclusively on prorations during the next year and to prepare a handbook on proration procedures. He asked how this was being addressed.

   Dolowich said it is not practical to have only one person involved. There is already one designated person who does the coordination. It is an assembly line operation, with information coming from several sources.

   Havens said the knowledge on this is specialized and better communication and distribution of information is needed.

   Dolowich said the immediate problem is the Pubs and Reprints prorations. He has written a detailed memo on this, and does not follow the committee’s reasoning on this.

   Marks added that the components are handled by a wide variety of staff. The reports are coordinated by his office and they go to accounting. He does not think the idea of one person is practical.

   Wilson said he supports the idea of a handbook, but does not think this recommendation belongs in a report; it is an operational matter.

   Havens said the problem has been developing over the years. Management needs to report back on measures being taken to reduce the problem.

3. Developments with IRS Audit
   Dolowich referred to Gilbert's 24 August memo on the Employment Tax Liability audit. He said there are 16 people at issue here. Gilbert is working with Lehrfeld in attempting to resolve the matter at a regional level. If not, he will have to go to the national level.

   Havens said this is important to all Member Societies and their editors. It would make editorial expenses much higher if the IRS interpretation is upheld.

4. Status of Capital Expenditures
   Dolowich noted the figures in the report. When the budget is prepared, it is usually well before the purchase of capital items. The needs for the next year are anticipated as far as possible. Some changes result when an authorized item is not purchased, and others when substitutions are made which result in reduced costs.

   Boyce said it is clear from the report that staff is doing a good job of reviewing and integrating computer needs.

   Merrill said that as of the previous week, all requests were satisfied, at $32,000 less than budgeted.

   1. Request for Purchase of Van
      Dolowich said one item not in the capital expenditures budget was a new van which will be needed soon for NY-LI runs. The existing one would be used for the new facility at Woodbury.

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

      MOVED that approval be granted for expenditure up to $20,000 for the purchase of a new van to serve Headquarters and Woodbury.

10. Publishing Center Space
Marks said a le se, for a total of $385,000, has been negotiated for 16,500 square feet of rentable space at Executive Plaza. There is a cancellation privilege at the end of the third, fourth, or fifth year. He referred to the 24 August memo from Kranz detailing the anticipated expenses of the move. Any additional expenditures related to the space will be in the 1988 Capital Expenditures budget. The contractor expense for necessary remodeling is charged to the landlord and is included in the rent, which is about $23 per square foot. Included will be new carpet, additional restrooms, a conference room, etc. The negotiated rent is comparable to the current Woodbury expenses.

Boyce made the following motion, which was seconded by Smith, and following the discussion below, unanimously CARRIED.

MOVED that the 1expenditure of up to $150, 000 to cover costs associated with the move to Executive Plaza, as outlined in the 24 August 1987 memo from Kranz to Marks, be authorized.

Lazarus and Wilson raised questions about the proposed telephone switch. Marks replied that the switch can handle more than is currently needed, and therefore can be used in future consolidation of space. We will own it and the cost of the switch will be depreciated in five years.

Frauenfelder suggested reviewing the matter of the telephone switch, but pointed out that this is a management concern. Marks said he would take another look at the proposal before proceeding.

11. Subscription Fulfillment
Marks referred to 26 August memos from Dolowich to Marks and from Marks to Ford on this matter. He reported that the AZTECH agreement has been terminated. Two excellent programmers have been hired. Commercial software packages are being investigated. Ford formed a three-person ad hoc committee of consultants to examine the picture; their report dated 2 September was distributed (attached as Appendix B).

Marks also has obtained a report from Andrew H. Uezak, now President of InfoPub Consulting, who designed AIP's original system, and therefore is familiar with AIP requirements. [This report was delivered from New York later in the meeting, and is enclosed as a part of Appendix B.]

Dolowich said he has recently looked at various commercial software packages. He has found that despite vendor claims, AIP's unique needs would make necessary modifications to all packages he had reviewed. He outlined a few of the modifications that would be needed. The Grenier system is greatly improved since their first proposal several years ago, and is the only system now being seriously considered. Their package costs about $190,000, as described in his memo. It would take a year and would require training of personnel. Meetings are scheduled soon with Unisys and with vendors who use Wang hardware.

Marks said that as any different approach would probably take a year, it will probably be faster to complete the AZTECH system than to replace it with other packages. The Data General MV15000 will be required so that subscription fulfillment and accounting functions can run in an efficient way on the two machines. The consultants found no problems, with the use of Data General Computers.

Ford commented on the report by the consulting team he had formed (Robert Borchers, Tim Ingoldsby, and Ned Sauthoff). Two are physicists with experience in handling large data bases. They said that what exists is a classic case of mismanaged software development. There were inadequate specifications and unclear delegation of tasks. They made two classes of recommendations: 1) proposed reorganization of AIP for information resource management, and 2) recommendations specific to the DSF development. A high-level person fully experienced in this kind of service is needed.

Frauenfelder thought the report suggested that further review was necessary before a final recommendation is made. He suggested that AIP again look at the AAPT system, as recommended by the consultants.

Ford said the report points out that software maintenance costs are expected to be substantial. It suggests further exploration of Grenier and recommends against shared development. It would be better to have Grenier do it if this is the path chosen.

Walt asked if anyone had looked at the AGU system. Dolowich said the staff has looked at it, but we had been committed to AZTECH. Boyce said the system used by AGU (Scribe) is used by the University of Chicago Press. He has the impression that it dos not have enough capability for AIP's needs and Spilhaus does not recommend it; they have problems with it. Marks said Gudes does not recommend it either.

12. New Rules Governing Associate Member Societies
Ford referred to his 27 August memo to the Executive Committee on this subject. Grant reviewed the general background of these rules in the context of a matrix which presents the characteristics of the various categories of membership in AIP. An Associate Member Society has certain things in common with Member Societies, and certain things in common with Affiliated Societies. On review, the management committee feels that changes are needed if the Associate Member Society category is to be made attractive, but could not reach a firm recommendation. Ford's memo asks the Executive Committee to consider how to make the Associate Member Society category more attractive to the MRS, while avoiding the expectation of full Member Society status that seems onerous to some of their Board.

Marks noted that the MRS did nearly $200,000 worth of business at AIP in 1986 (the cost of producing their journal); the net to AIP for the journal was $16,950.

Grant said that an Affiliated Society, such as MRS, does not pay per member dues to AIP. If they become an Associate Member Society, they would pay dues, would still pay the 15% surcharge, and would receive Physics Today.

Ford said the management discussions were not conclusive. One suggestion would be to reduce the service charge to 7-1/2% and offer them PT at half the reduced rate now offered to members of Affiliated Societies ($12.50 instead of $25.00). As an Associate Member Society, they would pay the same dues as Member Societies (this is required by the Constitution). He noted that MRS would actually be paying AIP more under this plan than they do at present.

In favor of finding a suitable compromise that would be favorable to AIP as well as to the MRS (and other future applicants for this status), the point was made that we should encourage affiliation with the Institute by associations with a significant component of physics. In opposition to the suggested compromise position, concern was voiced over changing the expectation that PT would be sent to all members (the members of some current Member Societies may wish to entertain this option), and that AIP should not be subsidizing the activities of a society - rather, they should be supporting the programs of the Institute.

It was left to Management to prepare a proposal for consideration at the Governing Board meeting.

13. Proposed Development Office

 (Note: The following discussion took place on Thursday afternoon.)

Ford referred to his 20 August memo to the Executive Committee. He said that this is a good time to consider the idea of a development office. It is time to seek ways to reduce the total dependence of support for physics programs on net publishing revenue. The office could also be a resource and service to the Societies as well. His proposal which gives three-year projections, is to include this in the 1988 budget.

Frauenfelder noted the memos from Havens (24 July) and Smith (29 July) expressing reservations about the proposal, and the memo from Sickafus (26 August) supporting the concept.

Walt said he was concerned that nothing would be gained if the money raised by AIP would have gone to the Societies if it were not given to AIP. Lazarus and Havens voiced similar concerns. AIP has no individual members; physicists giving to AIP would have given it to the Member Society if the solicitation had come from there first.

Ford said he realizes this is an area of great sensitivity.

Lazarus said he does not believe the premises of the consultants' report. AIP cannot be compared to a college or university which has alumni with a well-defined loyalty. In his experience, professional development staff take the credit, but funds are really raised by alumni and staff. It is an absurdly expensive operation. Personal contact with people who have a stake in physics is the key. He thinks AIP would not get any money and thinks it makes no sense.

Ford said it is more likely that the money raised would be money that would not otherwise be going to the physics community; he did not think that the perceived competition was real.

Havens said he agreed with Lazarus, and referred to the concerns which he expressed in his memo. The fund raising to purchase 335 E. 45th St. was successful through accounting procedures, but it did not pay for the building. He has concerns about the current atmosphere for fund raising: in 1972 there was no difficulty in raising money for IUPAP, whereas last year it was very difficult to raise even $50000.

Smith said he thinks AIP would benefit from a feasibility study with experienced outside staff. We need to sharpen our objectives before beginning any fund raising efforts.

Havens said we could propose a successful building campaign. This would be better than a campaign for general endowment to support, e.g., physics programs.

Grant said he has heard the comments about competition between AIP and the Member Societies often, but he thinks there is a big difference here in that the AIP programs are of wide benefit to the physics community. He does not see the programs under discussion as threatening to the concerns of the societies.

Frauenfelder summarized that AIP needs to establish definite goals. There cannot be an endowment fund without direction. He suggested that the previous AIP investigations of fund raising (1984) should be looked into.

Ford said he will check the records on this.

(Note: The following discussion took place on Friday morning.)

Ford said that he will review the past development efforts and proposals. He will also talk with Smith regarding his experiences. Although the Executive Committee has not supported his proposal, he still feels this would be useful and cost-effective. Perhaps some additional personal efforts at fund raising can be made, using the present staff.

Frauenfelder said if the Governing Board follows the recommendation regarding a headquarters move to Washington, there would be a good argument for fund raising for a new building there. This would be an immediate goal.

Havens said he has always maintained that a specific project is required for such an effort. It requires a different type of operation than for general endowment. No action was taken on the proposal to authorize 1988 budgeting for an AIP Development Office.

14. PI-NET - Report of Current Enhancements
Merrill said the new system (a Gould computer) is in place, but there has been no full-time staff assigned to this enterprise until two weeks ago. Chris Lloyd, staff programmer-analyst, has been working part-time on it. Initially the system will look the same to users, but will have enhancements. Conversion is progressing, and they are looking at accounting and other details. He reviewed the future features and services.

Havens asked about the anticipated total expenses for 1988. Merrill said this year they are $175,000; it is free to customers this year. PI-MAIL broke even. It has 400 users, paying about $1,000 per month. This experience helped in the development of a billing procedure.

(See also discussion under Item 15.)

15. Budget Guidelines for 1988
Ford referred to his 27 August memo "Budget Guidelines" which outlines philosophy and issues for the budgeting process. He noted that a tentative decision had been made earlier this year to budget short-term investment income as operating revenue, and long-term investment revenue would be a separate budget item. We would budget for a break-even operating income, with the net to be put into reserves. He invited comments on these topics.

Smith said it is necessary to decide what level is needed for operating revenue. He thought the cushion had been high in recent years and that the Committee of Society Treasurers had suggested that it be lower.
Ford said there are two rationales for budgeting:
1) At what rate is money added to reserves to reach the goals set by the Governing Board?
2) Arbitrarily, net income from long term investments will be equal to the budgeted bottom line net.

Ford said that in keeping with the earlier decision, and unless directed otherwise, the staff will budget the short-term revenue into the operating budget, and long-term investment income (approximately $1 million [estimate prior to "Black Monday"]) as the amount to go to reserves.

The next budget consideration was PI-NET. Havens a ked if there is any minimum charge for PI-NET. Merrill s id at present there is not. Out of 250 hours a month usage, about one-half are regular users of PI-NET. Of the many possible ways of structuring the charges, he suggest an hourly charge for all users (a nominal connect time charge). This could be about $16 per hour for member, $24 for non-members, with lower charges for night use. At this rate we would recover all phone charges, and possibly make a small net. If we do not charge, AIP would be paying out about $77,000 to subsidize the phone costs.

In response to concerns that there are still too few users, Merrill said it is crucial to keep the data current. AAS has put on its job notices. He hopes to get the AGU and AAPM notices on also, and other organizations are interested. This plus the expanded capabilities of the Gould system should make it more attractive to users.

Ford said for certain databases of special value, he would propose an additional charge beside the connect charge.

Marks said he is working on an arrangement with FIZ to have Physics Briefs available online via PI-NET. He is hopeful that this will provide a revenue stream, as it is a very good database. We would negotiate for a reduced member price.

Smith asked if the usage instructions are adequate. Marks said giving adequate instructions is part of the job of marketing such a service. Merrill said demonstrations are given at Society meetings. Ford said a booklet has been prepared.

Turning to salary policy, Ford said AIP has a good personnel system working. It is moderately generous and merit-based. Individual raises average about 7%; overall, they are not actually that much, due to turnover.

Walt asked if this changes due to inflation. Marks said it had remained the same for the last several years. Havens commented that AIP salaries had not kept up with inflation in the 70's and so got behind. The result was that there had to be some scale increases in order to keep staff.

Ford said a salary matrix will be presented at the December meeting. The Executive Committee asked that this be done at a later meeting in September.

Ford then referred to his projections of the rate of growth in the Physics Programs. These should grow at about the same rate as the publishing program. There was no discussion.

The proposed discussion of journal pricing would be for 1989; 1988 prices have already been set. Havens thought there seemed to be resistance to the continually rising prices. Marks agreed that this is a very important issue. We have to increase prices to make up for the number of lost subscriptions. It is on an upward spiral.

Ford suggested holding a discussion of the price structure at the February meeting in order to have input for pricing for the next year.

16. Physics Programs

1. Report of New Director
   Rigden said the summer of 1987 saw further disquieting news that the U.S.A. is underdeveloped in its science education; he cited relevant articles and experiences.

   There are many challenges, and to meet them we mu t have the support of society. He encourages exploiting all available resources. He is thinking of need that can be addressed, with AIP as a center to draw on talent. He sees no problems with competition with the Member Societies; with careful coordination, things can happen.

2. Report on 1987 Physics Olympiad
   Wilson pointed out the AIP press release regarding the Physics Olympiad. He said the U.S.A. does not compare well with the rest of the world on the secondary school level. An excellent group of coaches assisted this year's Olympiad team: David Stork, Abie Hauser, and Arthur Eisenkraft. He reviewed the procedures for selection. 20 candidates came to the University of Maryland in June for special training; five were chosen to go to the Olympiad in East Germany. The U.S. team received three bronze medals and one honorable mention. The press coverage was quite good.

   Wilson proposes that AIP now take on the financial responsibility, including the fund raising, for the annual participation in the Physics Olympiad. This project is appealing for fund raising. He would like to have this on the Governing Board agenda. The tentative budget figure is $66,000. It will be in Austria in 1988. He would be happy to continue to run the program for the immediate future. 1994 is now the proposed year for the U.S.A. to be host to the Olympiad.

3. Report of Meeting of Committee on Educational Policy
   Rigden said he has been familiar with the CEP subcommittees and the unhappiness members have with the reporting procedures. He thinks there is a need for careful look at this structure. His feeling is that the CEP, as structured, has been a waste of time. This Committee does not seem to have a sense of purpose or mission. He is to call the next meeting, and expects to prepare an agenda to be of use in advising him and his Branch.

   Wilson said he thinks this is an accurate picture, but thinks there is a reason for this Committee. It requires a lot of staff work and a good Chair.

   Havens said he feels problems with this Committee can be solved.

   Frauenfelder said there is a problem relating to changing the former CEP subcommittees to committees. An overall review is needed to see which committees have enough importance and impact to report directly (and briefly) to the Governing Board. For instance, he feels the Advisory Committee on Physics Today is important enough to report to the Governing Board.

   Rigden said as long as committee recommendations are substantive, they will get recognized whether they report to him, to Ford, or to the Governing Board directly.

4. Revision of Committee Structure
   Ford noted the above discussion. (See also Agenda Item 4.B.)

   Smith referred to the 1974 Committee on Committees, on which he had served. At that time, his impression was that the committees were there to endorse the positions of the Director. He thought this was not a productive structure. The report recommended abolishing committees reporting to the Director and required all committees to report to the Board. All committees should be fully reported.

   Grant noted that excerpts from this and other Nominating Committee reports, as well as statements regarding representation on committees and subcommittees, are included in the Handbook.

   Ford said the question of reporting of the six Physics Programs advisory committees is almost irrelevant. Their reports will reach the Board, whether they report directly or report through Management. He thinks the CEP should serve as an advisory committee to Rigden. Rigden can apprise the CEP of the recommendations of the six advisory committees as necessary.

5. Meggers Award Committee
   Rigden said a policy was passed by the Governing Board in October 1986.

   [At the June 1987 CEP meeting, it was stated that Ford (with Frauenfelder sending the appointment letters) should appoint a Meggers Award Committee. AIP Senior Education Fellow Sallie Watkins received the background material on this subject following this meeting.]

   Grant said that guidelines are required for the solicitations of proposals for this award. He will review what is needed, and the procedures to be followed, with Rigden following the meeting.

17. Report of 1 September Meeting of Committee for Public Policy
Ford said he is serving temporarily as liaison to the CPP. The Committee recommended that the report on the Federal Budget process, prepared by Condell, be duplicated and sent to the Societies. It contains details on the handling of bills, and recommendations for contacting congressmen.

1. Congressional Fellow Program
   Ford said the Committee defined the conditions for the Congressional Fellow Program. A subcommittee of the CPP (George Shaw-Chair, Ronald Geballe, Charles Hebel, and Robert Park) is administering this. They suggest that a past Fellow serve on this committee; Havens agreed to a past APS fellow for the current committee, but not the immediate past one. The regulations would follow the APS policies in almost all respects. A stipend would be up to $40,000. There would be no extension after one year. They would be asked to report at the end of their term, and to serve ex officio on the CPP for the year following their term. Applications will be received until 15 March [changed later to 15 February]. The material is being handled by the Washington office.

   Havens said Condell obtained the APS information for the AIP Fellow and he thinks he is sending everything from the APS program to prospective AIP Fellows. This increases his concern over the overlap of these two positions. They are going after the same prospect pool.

   Ford said the material is only in draft form. He thought it desirable that they be similar, to avoid any possibility that the AIP program might be deemed more attractive.

   Havens said he would have proposed a joint APS/AIP committee, and selecting three rather than two fellows. APS has a broad selection committee.

   Ford thought this would be tricky, in part because a criterion for the AIP program is that the applicant be a member of any one of the Member Societies.

   Frauenfelder suggested that Ford and Havens discuss this and report back.

   (The meeting recessed at 5:15 p.m. for a buffet dinner at the Study Center and resumed at 7:15 p.m.)

18. Proposed Gift of American Flag
Ford noted the correspondence with Cranberg on this matter, which had been forwarded to the Executive Committee. He presented a draft of his proposed response to Cranberg, and asked for endorsement or amendments. He reminded the committee members that Cranberg has offered an American flag to the Institute, and wished to see it displayed at headquarters in New York. Ford’s offer to fly it at Woodbury led to further correspondence wherein Cranberg rejected that offer.

Although no formal vote was taken, it was the sense of the Executive Committee that Ford's draft response was appropriate and should be sent.

19. International Affairs

1. Recommendation of ad hoc Committee on International Relations
   Beyer, Chair, of the ad hoc Committee, noted his report contained in his 17 June letter and memo to Frauenfelder. He said the group was sensitive to the fact that the Societies have various programs in this area; one of the reasons for the proposal to form a permanent committee was to expedite the exchange of information among the societies. He said he also thinks the proposed International Associates category of membership in AIP is a fine idea.

   In response to a question from Grant, Beyer said the charge, purpose, and suggested composition of the committee are set forth in the ad hoc committee’s report.

   Frauenfelder said he is in favor of this action. This area will be increasingly important to the physics community. He thought the proposal could be forwarded to the Governing Board in this form.

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

   MOVED that a recommendation be made to the Governing Board to authorize the establishment of a Committee on International Relations, as recommended by the ad hoc committee report.

   Frauenfelder thanked Beyer and the ad hoc committee for their work.

2. Proposed International Associate Category
   Ford referred to the 20 August memo from Grant which provided a proposed description for this category of membership. He reminded the committee of his recent conversations with the Japanese (Agenda Item 4.C.). They are interested in doing studies similar to those done by the Statistics Division. He noted the following under privileges:
   Item b: undertaking of joint projects, and
   Item d: offering of subscriptions at member rates for PT and CiP. There would be no dues for this category.

   Grant reviewed the proposal (definition, criteria privileges and responsibilities), noting that this was modeled after a previous proposal prepared for Koch on a suggested Library Associate category. He said that the model is meant to parallel the Corporate Associates category to some extent; adoption of this proposal involves an amendment to the Constitution.

   Marks said if we could develop this category with the EPS and also with the PSJ, we could expand European and Japanese circulation of PT; it would benefit advertising and increase international communication. Overseas Member Society members get PT via seamail unless they specify airmail.

   Grant made the following motion, which was variously seconded and unanimously CARRIED.

   MOVED to recommend that the Governing Board move to amend the Constitution and Bylaws so as to add an International Associates category of membership in the Institute, as outlined in the 20 August 1987 memo from Grant to Ford.

   Boyce said he does not like including the various definitions of membership in the Constitution. He suggested referring this matter to the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws.

   Grant said he will correspond with the Committee.

20. History of AIP, 1967-1987
Ford referred to the exchange of memos between Havens and himself regarding the idea of a history of AIP covering the 20 years that Koch was Director of the Institute. Havens noted the previous historical articles on AIP. He thinks it would be a good idea to get started on such a project. He sees no urgency, and it should be implemented in a low-key way. (A 28 August 1987 memo to Ford from Weart supporting the idea was distributed.)

Lazarus said any historian will say this should be done formally. On the other hand, there is an oral history. He thinks that a full history of the Koch era is not essential. Why hire a professional historian since Koch is planning to do it already? He should have the opportunity to do it if he wishes.

Havens agreed that we should not engage a professional historian.

21. Report of ad hoc Committee on Composition of Executive Committee
Havens, a member of this Committee, noted the letter from Wright which was a preliminary report. She will propose three alternatives and suggests that two of the three be presented to the Governing Board.

Boyce (also on this Committee) said that one thing came up in the discussion: it would be useful to have AIP pay the expenses of a non-voting participant in cases where Societies are not represented on the Executive Committee.

Beyer said he had raised the matter of expenses with Wright. From his perspective (the first year ASA has not had a voting member on the Executive Committee) he thinks it is useful to be able to speak even if one cannot vote. Smith agreed that participation was more important than being allowed to vote.

Frauenfelder said another factor to consider is the issue of length of term. Longer tenure promotes a deeper understanding of the problems. He concluded by stating that further discussion must await the final report of the committee.

22. Executive Session
The staff were excused at 8:30 p.m. The Committee met in executive session, reported only in the official minutes.

1. Report of ad hoc Committee on Executive Compensation
   This was discussed in executive session only.

    (The meeting resumed on Friday, 11 September at 9:00 a.m.)

23. AIP Headquarters: Future Space Requirements and Location (II)
Reported with the previous discussion on space (Item 7).

24. Proposed Development Office (II)
Reported with the previous discussion of the office (Item 13).

25. Strategies for Long-range Planning
Ford said the draft plan he has prepared this year does not contain a lot of long-range planning, but he hopes in 1988 to draft a plan to cover the next five years in which substantive goals are related to budgets.

Havens said one of his troubles with the previous long-range plans was that, except for publishing, the plans were not tied to budgets. He felt that Ford 0 s objectives are desirable.

Ford said that he has the impression that in recent years AIP has stayed away from "soft money." We need to have a policy in this regard.

Havens reviewed that AIP had had a $1 million plus contract with the NSF, which was suddenly cut back in about 1969. A large number of staff positions had been committed, and it cost AIP a lot to terminate them. The effect was that the Institute since has been leery of contracts and grants.

Boyce said we should go after soft money only for very valuable things; part of the calculation should be whether we would want to put AIP money into a project if grant money were discontinued.

Grant said when the policy was set up for the Meggers Awards, it was to be designated for pilot projects and things of this nature within the Physics Programs Branch.

Frauenfelder said a policy should be made not to hire semi-permanent positions with soft money.

Havens said there is a tendency to think that since it is not our money, we can spend it more liberally than if it were AIP money. AIP needs to be careful with grant money, but it should utilize it.

Regarding AIP philosophy concerning AIP as a publisher of books for the general public, Marks said that at the present level of funding, AIP could not do more than one such book per year. A lot depends on the success of one per year. The marketing is limited; the program is just about breaking even at present.

Wilson said the books program is an example of potential competition with AAPT existing programs. In the 1960's, AIP had a reprint book operation. AAPT took this over when the grant money supporting the program stopped. There is also confusion between AIP and AAPT programs; books have been published by each party with similar I formats and titles. AAPT has an excellent books committee. It is not good to continue this competition without negotiations.

Smith said there is a considerable market for books. The OSA has a books program; it is probably sufficiently specialized that there would be no competition.

Marks said representatives from the Societies should communicate on these matters. He reviewed the current programs: a series of books on the history of physics (Tomash); reprint series from PT articles; another reprint series from all sources. There is room for a lot of activity. The Books Division is continually looking for areas of cooperation and ways to bring marketing resources to these efforts.

Walt asked about joint marketing efforts. The AGU does not sell as many books as they should.

Marks said AIP exhibits at Member Society meetings and associations. It is not prepared to market 20,000 plus copies. If this were anticipated, AIP would make an arrangement with a commercial publisher to market the title.

Lazarus said all of the discussion has focused on peripheral enterprises. He does not see a plan for an alternative to the Russian translation journals. Should we have scenarios for supporting enterprises if this income is removed?
Marks thinks the books program will develop. New journals are being started. Realistically, AIP has to think about new journals. He does not think the change in the. Russian journals will happen overnight.

Havens said that Ford, Marks, and he are on a CESSE committee which is examining ways to get revenue from electronic publishing. There is as yet no good plan for duplicating revenue now obtained from journal publishing. The committee wants input on this. Developments in high energy physics, since they are highly subsidized by the federal government, have a preprint distribution system without going through the regular publishing mechanism. Computer and telephone access is decreasing journal subscriptions. He thinks it will take over because one can get an article on screen, scan it, and print out what is wanted.

Lazarus said he is a strong supporter of Pl-NET. At the same time he is worried about electronic publishing. This can be a model and an experiment for putting up a journal and developing a charging system for services.

Marks said the journal subscription price would be replaced by an access subscription fee. This could be 75% of the journal price. The program cannot be paid for on a printout basis or a connect fee.

Frauenfelder asked if a representative group of physicists have been asked what they would want from a system such as Pl-NET?

Merrill said they want Dialog or STN free. It is necessary to put as much online as possible, and to offer choices.

(The meeting recessed at 12 noon for lunch, followed by a free afternoon. The reception at 6:00 p.m. was followed by a New England clambake.)

(The meeting was reconvened on Saturday 12 September at 9:00 a.m.)

26. Publishing Matters

1. Computers in Physics - Response to APS Dues Checkoff
   Marks referred to the 26 August 1987 memo from Parisi which gives preliminary information on subscriptions to CiP. Marks said the first issue is expected on 26 October. Over 5,000 APS members have responded to the dues checkoff, which bodes well for the success of the response to the other Member Society dues bills. Advertising efforts are continuing.

   Frauenfelder asked if articles are coming in. Marks said the number of archival articles received in time for consideration for the first issue was disappointing; this issue will contain five. Many were received that were not suitable.

   Havens said the APS has a topical group - Computers in Physics - that is very active. He suggested that members of this group giving papers at upcoming APS meetings could be asked to write articles for subsequent publication in CIP.

2. Report of 21 August Meeting of Subcommittee on Books
   Marks referred to the 21 August 1987 memo from Lerner which reported on the meeting. Sales are increasing as planned. A five-year long-range plan was discussed with the subcommittee; the plan will be refined. Two projects involving other publishers are pending. Discussions have taken place with McGraw Hill regarding a new edition of the Handbook of Physics but AIP will try for better terms on royalties. The
   proposal is to combine two titles into one ten-volume set. It would be a total expenditure
   of $10 million. The Books Division encourages the development of co-publishing ventures with Member Societies.

3. IEE/INSPEC Developments
   Ford referred to the exchange of letters and to the report of telephone conversation between AIP and IEE. The extended negotiations with IEE regarding use of our abstracts have been unsuccessful so far. He and Lerner have had conversations with our copyright attorney. He noted that his letter to Losty took a firm tone regarding use of our abstracts without payment or notice, and their response was evasive. He and Marks will visit IEE in November to discuss purchase of SPIN tapes. Prior to this meeting, they will confer again with our attorney to be sure of our legal rights. It is felt that it is time for AIP to take a hard line. About one-half of their total income comes from U.S. sales. IOP has made an agreement with IEE in the past year; this agreement calls for a royalty fee only.

   Marks reviewed the terms of our agreement with FIZ. If we gave INSPEC a more favorable arrangement, our arrangement with the Germans could collapse. We are trying to compete with INSPEC, which is an entrenched product.

   Ford thinks the deal with the Germans is very good for us; it may have to be renegotiated to be equal to an arrangement we might get with the British.

   Marks said he thinks the price the Germans pay is a fair price and should not be lowered. Several present agreed with this view and felt strongly that this should be maintained.

   Marks said it costs about $24-25 to prepare a non-AIP item for the database. Our incremental cost for AIP items (which includes keyboarding and indexing) is $3-4.

   Official action authorizing free use was taken in 1977, though we have said this was rescinded soon after that date. As far as the written record goes, free use was rescinded officially in June 1987.

   Havens said it is apparent that the IEE does not recognize this as AIP property. Marks agreed.

   Frauenfelder said we should review this. An injunction might be useful.

   In response to Boyce's question, Marks said the second largest group of abstracts used in Physics Abstracts is that of IEEE, which they now buy. IEE markets the IEEE publications, so IEEE would not take action against their sister organization.

   Havens said the argument over the years has been that it is better to have one abstracting service rather than two competing. What is the relative distribution of the two services?

   Marks said distribution of the British printed product is about 2,000 worldwide; the German, about 800. Electronic services are also competing. The INSPEC tape is competing with Physics Briefs online service; we market the latter. Most of the INPSEC business comes via Lockheed Dialog; Physics Briefs is in partnership with Chem Abstracts on STN International, a powerful connection.

   Havens asked how AIP stands on a direct competitive basis. Marks said as long as FIZ is willing to spend funds, AIP can participate at no expense. One of our advantages is timely material, at a fair price.

   Frauenfelder asked what the difference is between the services. Marks said INSPEC goes back to 1970, FIZ to 1974. The coverage is very close. FIZ has better coverage of iron curtain countries and will have better coverage of astronomy. INSPEC has better coverage of electronics and electrical engineering. INSPEC is delayed several months compared to Physics Briefs. We hope to get a communication node to FIZ through PI-NET and offer it at a member price, which will help the marketing.

   Havens said it seems it may be better to offer our service at a competing price if there is no satisfactory basis for an agreement.

   Frauenfelder asked if it is clear what would ultimately be the best for us. Would it be better to say that we have offered; now we will just compete?

   Marks thought this probably would be the best position.

4. Policies for Sale of Mailing Lists
   Marks referred to his 26 August 1987 memo to Ford: Proposed Price Schedule for Sale of Mailing Labels by AIP. Staff is proposing a price increase. He reviewed the current procedures. There have been requests recently for the list on magnetic tape, which we do not want to do. Approval is requested for a price increase and stated policies. This is a sizable business, with total gross sales for AIP and the Societies for fiscal year 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986 of $69,139.

   The following motion was made by Havens, seconded by Walt, and unanimously CARRIED.

   MOVED that the statement of policy and the price schedule, effective January 1988, for the sale of mailing lists by AIP as outlined in the 26 August 1987 memo from Marks to Ford, be approved. (Memo attached as Appendix C)

5. Procedures to Deal with Apparent Abuses of Subscriptions at Member Rates
   Marks reviewed the background on this long-standing concern. He referred to the 26 August 1987 memo from Parisi concerning members subscribing to an excessive number of journals, and proposed letters to dome tic and Japanese subscribers. Kinokuniya is cooperating with AIP on this. The Japanese letter will be addressed to specific individuals.

   This was discussed at length, with various suggestions for revising the letters made and accepted.

   Frauenfelder agreed the proposed procedure should be tried. However the proposal that the first letter (not personalized) go with the member billing to 6,000 individuals who take AIP journals as a polite way of reminding them of proper use of the journals seemed like overkill. He thought a large number of letters to innocent people should be avoided when possible. He asked if it could be more specifically directed to subscribers of large numbers of journals. Marks said that, with a little effort, it could be sent to the 403 individuals who have been identified as taking six or more.

   Several people asked what would happen if there is no response. Havens said there could be a cutoff on the number of subscriptions allowed by individual members. Wilson wondered if there is actually a remedy to the problem. Havens replied that this has been discussed in APS; if the problem continues to increase they would consider a cutoff. APS has tried to correlate these with the subscriptions the member's institution was taking, but the catch is that the institutional subscriptions are almost universally through agencies. Some agencies will not report who their customers are.

   Marks said the plan now is to proceed with the letters and report back.

27. Future Meetings
28 September (8 p.m. - ) - Executive Committee, Washington DC
29 Sept. 1987 (8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.) - Governing Board Washington, DC
30 Sept.-2 Oct. IUPAP/Corporate Associates Meeting Washington, DC
3-4 Dec. (6 p.m. Thurs.-4 p.m. Fri.) Executive Committee New York
11-12 Feb. (6 p.m. Thurs.-4 p.m. Fri.) Executive Committee New York
18-19 March (1 p.m. Fri.-1 p.m. Sat.) - Governing Board Woodbury, LI

28. Review of Governing Board Agenda
Ford, reviewing a listing of possible items for the Governing Board agenda, said it will have to be cut. The Governing Board will have an unusually short meeting this time, so the agenda must contain only necessary items and one major item for discussion.

Frauenfelder agreed that there should be one major topic and everything else kept as short as possible. The major issue is space, and members of the Governing Board need to feel they have had time to be heard. The matter of the composition of the Executive Committee cannot be taken up at this meeting. He received a preliminary report from the Chair, Ann E. Wright. The Committee is still deliberating. A lengthy discussion would be inevitable if this matter were raised.

29. Other Business

1. Unbudgeted Expenditures over $10,000

   1. Legislative Awareness Service
      In response to Lazarus' question regarding a status report on the Washington office, Ford opened discussion on a recommendation for a new activity for that office. He thinks this would be an opportunity for the office to demonstrate its value. He distributed a handout entitled Congressional Service & Bill Text Service. It contained a description of five services Legi-Slate is prepared to offer, as follows:
      1) Congressional Service and Bill Text Service
      2) Federal Register Service
      3) News Service
      4) Press Briefings Service
      5) Member Profile & Rating Service

      Condell recommends subscribing to services 1 and 2: 3 is provided free of charge with 1. The total annual cost is $16,000. Ford said the Washington Post owns Legi-Slate. The material could be redistributed free of charge. Lehrfeld and our copyright attorney will obtain authorization, in writing, allowing us to take anything we download and put it up on PI-NET. The service would allow a search of topics. The Washington office could contact Member Society officers to find out their profile of interest and tailor information to the Society needs. The Member Societies should be asked if they would be willing to contribute toward this personalized service; thus AIP could recoup some of the outlay.

      Wilson asked what one does with this information. The Societies which are finding it most useful seem to be the ones who have paid lobbyists. This information also appears in the Washington Post. In addition, the NSF summary publishes bills of interest to the science community.

      Ford said it is not a substitute for personal contact but would be a quick reference service for Park or Goodwin.

      Grant said he cannot see paying staff or purchasing a service if one can get the same information from the Washington Post.

      Lazarus said a filter is needed for this type of information to be useful. Park does this and has the information available. Who would read and filter these data?

      Ford said the value of electronic access is to zero in on what one needs. It would be a current awareness service. The question is to what extent Societies and individuals need this.

      Boyce said he was not enthusiastic about this at the CPP meeting. (The service was recommended for approval by the CPP.) AAS would not use it enough to contribute to the purchase price. What is needed is personal effort with committee staffs. However, other Society representatives and Sallie Watkins (new AIP Senior Education Fellow) thought it would be useful.

      Frauenfelder said he is not in a position to approve or disapprove. He suggested Park be asked his view of the potential for APS, and Goodwin for PT.

      No action was taken at this meeting.

   2. Copier for 140 East 45th Street
      Ford said a copier with additional features is badly needed for this location.

      Havens made the following MOTION, which was seconded by Boyce and unanimously CARRIED.

      MOVED that expenditure of up to $12,000 for the purchase of new copier for the 140 East 45th Street location be approved.

2. Publishing Center Space
   Frauenfelder asked if we should .start planning more definitely for Woodbury? With the leasing of additional space, we now have two Woodbury sites. Can we sell what we have at a profit, and can we find land sufficient for long run needs?

   Ford asked if this should be moved from the back burner to the front. We know we will have to deal with this in the near future. Perhaps an ad hoc committee might be appointed to review it.

   Marks thought this would be appropriate. If some of the current New York activities are to be moved to Long Island, we should start considering this now.

   Havens said property is the most important thing to find. The longer we wait, the more difficult it would be. Construction can always be delayed.

   Frauenfelder said if the Governing Board decides that the Washington option is what is wanted, we should then review the Woodbury situation also. We should look at the long range picture first before deciding, but should be on the alert for a site of 20-40 acres located somewhere not far from Woodbury.

   Marks said he has a promising lead through Hofstra University, with space located at Roosevelt Field, off the Meadowbrook Expressway.

   No action was taken at this time.

3. Journals for Third-World Countries
   Marks said when this topic is on the agenda of the Committee on Publishing Policy it elicits heavy discussion. He distributed a 24 August 1987 letter from Abdus Salam, President, The Third World Academy of Science. Salam asks for a favorable response to assigning rights for Member Society journals to produce satellite editions of scientific journals in third world countries . The most recent specific request is from World Scientific Publishing Co. We have turned such requests down in the past as we would not have control over what happens with the product under these conditions.

   Havens said the statements of World Scientific are fallacious . They say they will offer the satellite editions to third world countries, but their prices are high. They also market these editions in the U.S.

   Marks said he would say that if a journal is two years old, we would sell them at a discount of 50% off the current non-member price. This price would cover all AIP expenses. We do not have a back number member price. The ACS is making this offer. He then distributed a 2 July 1987 letter to customers stating that World Scientific has established their own office in Teaneck, NJ. When this came up in 1985 a rundown was made on subscriptions in specified third world countries. There were 3,600 non-member subscriptions in these countries and 5,600 member subs, which he thought surprisingly good.

   Havens said that Abdus Salam is sending large numbers of APS journals to developing countries; IUPAP is paying for them. APS deals only with individuals in these countries. They did decide to be generous with Physical Review Abstract; an agreement was signed by Koch and Havens for the two abstract publications. Regarding giving away Physical Review, very few physicists in developing countries can read it. APS does not give complementary subscriptions. They have a joint program with the AAAS. A large number of technical journals are going to the Sub Saharan countries. He does not think we can or should do what Salam suggests.

   Marks agreed. It would be far better to take the journals and ship them. It would be reasonable to follow the ACS policy and make the journals available to those who want them before the inventory reduction (after three years). He would like each Society to make this offer. We could respond that we are discussion this matter with all the Societies and would then respond with a joint offer. He will make a study to determine a breakeven price.

   No action was taken on this topic.

4. AIP Affiliations

   1. Aspen Center for Theoretical Physics
      Ford distributed copies of a 18 August 1987 letter to Frauenfelder from Richard E. Norton of the Aspen Center for Physics. The letter suggests the possibility of the Institute becoming an Associate of the Center, with a suggested contribution of $3,500. Unless there is a closer tie-in than what appears to be likely, it may not be appropriate for AIP.

      Frauenfelder is an affiliate of the Center. He said the organization has to look for money, and their board suggested that they look for more outside funding. They had had only summer workshops, but are now developing a winter program. North Holland Publishing Co. has become an associate.

      Ford said it is obviously a high-class organization. If the Member Societies think it appropriate, we could do it; it would be a new departure.

      Havens thought it was not appropriate for AIP.

      Frauenfelder suggested that Ford write a polite letter of cautious interest; it would be good for Ford to visit there sometime. He thinks AIP should not jump into it.

   2. AAAS Interest in Affiliate Status
      Ford distributed a 28 August 1987 letter from Alvin W. Trivelpiece, Executive Officer of the AAAS. Trivelpiece had discussed the possibility of having their membership directory published by AIP; they have never published one. We have a sophisticated technique for handling the data and converting it to a directory. Trivelpiece thought our estimated price was very reasonable. He is also planning to discuss with the AAAS Board of Directors the possibility of their requesting Affiliated Society status with the Institute. (Section B of the AAAS has been an Affiliated Society since 1979.)

   3. Council on Undergraduate Research
      Grant distributed a 24 August 1987 letter from James Cederberg of the Council on Undergraduate Research concerning the possibility of a relationship between the Physics Section of C.U.R. and AIP, with a fact sheet about the Council and listing of members. They have recently published Research in Physics and Astronomy of Private Undergraduate Institutions and would like it to have bro der circulation. They thought Affiliated Society status with the Institute would be useful. Grant discussed the qualifications of the organization and its range of membership. He said this raises the visibility and would not affect subscriptions adversely.

      No action was taken on this matter, pending response from the C.U.R.

   4. Inactive Affiliated Societies
      Grant noted the lack of response to official communications sent from the Secretary's Office to two Affiliated Societies: Physics Club of Chicago and Physics Club of Richmond. No response at all has been received from the Chicago organization. The liaison for the Richmond organization reported but said they have been inactive. Grant suggested dropping these two if no further response is received.

      There was no dissent to his suggestion. Further action should be taken by the Governing Board.

30. Adjournment and Lunch
Following motion of Havens, seconded by Walt, and unanimously CARRIED, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.