Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics
Minutes of Meeting
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics met at the AIP Woodbury Facility in the afternoon of 15 March, at the Plainview Plaza Hotel in Plainview, Long Island, in the evening of 15 March, and at the AIP Woodbury Facility in the morning of 16 March 1985. For clarity in presentation with reference to the printed agenda, events recorded here are not necessarily in the same chronological order in which they occurred.
Members Present: N. F. Ramsey – Chairman, H. H. Barschall, (APS), R. T. Beyer (ASA), P. B. Boyce (AAS), R. B. Clark, (AAPT) , C. B. Duke (AVS), A. P. French (AAPT), R. M. Grant (ex officio), W. W. Havens, Jr. (APS), H. W. Koch (ex officio), A. U. Landolt (AAS) , D. Lazarus (APS), M. H. Mueller (ACA), J. A. Purdy (AAPM), N. Suntharalingam (AAPM), E. N. Sickafus (AVS), M. Strasberg (ASA), J. A. Thornton, (AVS), J. M. Wilson (AAPT), K. F. Wissbrun (SOR)
Members Absent: J. A. Armstrong (MAL), J. M. Bennett (OSA), L. L. Elliott (ASA), V. Fitch (APS), N. F. Lane (APS), F. B. McDonald (APS), E. C. McIrvine (MAL), J. P. Meyer (AAPT), G. E. Pake (MAL), J. W. Quinn (OSA), R. R. Shannon (OSA)
Nonvoting Participants: R. E. Alley (AAPT), D. A. Berry (AAPT), R. Greenler (OSA), D. Holcomb (AAPT), D. Martin (ASA), D. Mattox (AVS), E. P. Osterman (AAPM), R. Sears (AAPT), H. Voss (AAPT), S. Watkins (AAPT)
Guests: R. P. Bauman (Committee on Educational Policy), R. Geballe (Committee for Public Policy), J. B. Gerhart (Chairman, Committee on Constitution and Bylaws), A. F. Spilhaus, Jr. (Executive Director, AGU)
AIP Staff: G. F. Gilbert, Treasurer; R. H. Marks, Associate Director for Publishing; L. Slack, Associate Director for Educational Programs; B. Dolowich, Controller; L. T. Merrill, Assistant to the Director; N. A. Davis, Assistant to the Secretary
1. Convene – Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m., 15 March 1985, by Chairman Ramsey.
Introduction of New Members
Grant noted the new members of the Governing Board.
Resolution in Memory of R. Bruce Lindsay
A resolution in memory of R. Bruce Lindsay, who died on 3 March 1985, was read by Beyer. Lindsay was a member of the AIP Governing Board from 1956 to 1971, on the Executive Committee from 1959 to 1970, and Editor of the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America from 1957 until his death. The resolution was unanimously adopted, as follows:
The Board of Governors of the American Institute of Physics notes with sadness the passing of its long-time member, R. Bruce Lindsay, and extends its condolences to his family. Bruce's contributions to physics, through his teaching, research, editing, book writing and counseling, have spanned a period of more than sixty years, ending only with his death, and even then, his record lives on. Of his life one can only repeat the encomium "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
Resolution in Honor of Hugh C. Wolfe
A resolution in honor of Wolfe, who is retiring as Editor of the AIP Conference Proceedings Series in April 1985, was read by Slack. The resolution was unanimously adopted, as follows:
The American Institute of Physics honors Hugh Campbell Wolfe on his second retirement from the Institute. He joined AIP in 1960 following a thirty-year career in physics teaching and research, culminating in the position of Head of the Physics Department at Cooper Union School of Engineering. While at AIP, he managed AIP's successful and ever-growing publications program from 1960 to 1970. His insistence on high standards in style and usage as well as in physics content ensured the continuing high reputation of AIP journals. This, in turn, was recognized outside AIP by his service on advisory bodies of the IUPAP, NAS-NRC, ISO and the American Metric Council, dealing with standards and usage in scientific publication. His first retirement from AIP in 1970 did not mark an end but rather another beginning; he turned his attention, part-time, to the creation, development, and monitoring of AIP's Conference Proceedings Series, now numbering 127 volumes, as its Editor-in-Chief. This series continues to bear the mark of his years of accumulated wisdom.
His association with the Annual Conference on Magnetism and Magnetic Materials spanned both parts of his AIP career. As AIP Representative to the organizing committee he watched this meeting grow from small beginnings in 1961 to a very active conference of 820 registrants in 1983.
May he commence his second retirement with sure knowledge of AIP's gratitude for his manifold contributions over the past 25 years, to the entire physics community as well as to the Institute.
2. Report of Secretary
Minutes of Governing Board Meeting of 21-22 October 1984
The draft minutes of the October 1984 meeting of the Governing Board were approved as presented.
Statement on Role of Advisory Committees
Grant said the Executive Committee had suggested that a modification be made in the letter which is distributed annually to all AIP committee members, to indicate that committees are responsible for advising on programs and activities but not on personnel matters. The revised letter was reviewed and accepted without comment by the Governing Board.
3. Report of Chairman
Actions of Executive Committee Since Last Meeting
Ramsey noted the written summary of actions taken by the Executive Committee since the previous Governing Board meeting and included in the distributed material for the meeting. He mentioned that search committees are in progress for new editors for Physics Today and for the Journal of Mathematical Physics. Fiscal operations will be reported on during the agenda.
4. Report of Annual Meeting of Corporation
Ramsey reported that the Annual Meeting of the Corporation, required by New York State law, took place as scheduled just prior to the Governing Board meeting.
5. Report of Symposium for Assembly of Society Officers and Briefing for Elected Society Officers
Geballe, the retiring Chairman of the Committee for Public Policy, reported in detail on the talks given in the Symposium for the Assembly of Society Officers, just concluded. He complimented AIP and the symposium participants on the high quality of the meeting.
Koch commended Geballe for his report on the Symposium and said that this meeting is a useful means for review and sharing of experiences by the Societies.
Koch reviewed the background for the briefing session for Member Society Officers which had been held the preceding day. The Task Force on AIP-Member Society Relations had recommended that AIP increase its visibility and increase the awareness of Society officers concerning the functions of AIP. Discussion at the briefing focused largely on the fiduciary responsibilities of Society officers. The officers also were given a tour of the AIP facility. Koch felt this briefing was useful in two ways: 1) as an opportunity for AIP to review its services, and 2) as an opportunity for exchange among Societies.
6. Report of Nominating Committee
Wissbrun gave the report of the Nominating Committee in the absence of the Chairman, Quinn.
Nominations for Chairman and Secretary of the Governing Board
Ramsey turned the chair over to Koch. Ramsey and Grant were excused for consideration of the following motions.
The following motion was made by Clark, seconded by Wilson, and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that Norman F. Ramsey be elected Chairman of the Governing Board for 1985-86.
The following motion was made by Lazarus, seconded by Boyce, and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that Roderick M. Grant be elected Secretary of the Governing Board for 1985-86.
Ramsey and Grant returned to the meeting room following this action.
Nominations for Member-at-Large of Governing Board.
The following action was unanimously CARRIED, on recommendation of the Nominating Committee.
MOVED THAT C. Kumar N. Patel be elected Member-at-Large of the Governing Board for a two-year term.
Report of Nominating Committee on Other Nominations
Wissbrun presented the names that were being nominated for other AIP Policy Committees, the Nominating Committee, and the Executive Committee. There was no discussion.
The following motion was made by Wissbrun, seconded by Clark, and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the complete report of the Nominating Committee, as distributed on 14 March, be accepted.
The complete committee list is attached herewith. [as of 9/85]
Appointment of Chairpersons of Committees
Ramsey read his appointments for the chairpersons of AIP committees, as noted in the committee list. No appointment has yet been made for the chairperson of the Committee on Educational Policy. [Subsequent to the meeting Ramsey appointed Joe P. Meyer to this position.]
7. Report of Committee on Constitution and Bylaws
Gerhart presented the Interim Report of the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws. (The Committee last met in January 1985.) He noted that AIP has a multi-level scheme of governance instruments: 1) Articles of Incorporation; 2) Constitution; 3) Bylaws. In addition, there are several other levels: 4) record of previous Governing Board actions: 5) contracts; 6) New York state law (this covers certain things which would be redundant in the Constitution).
The Committee divided the proposals for change into three categories: 1) proposed changes that need discussion at a meeting of the Committee; 2) changes which seemed to be unanimously agreed upon so were not discussed at a meeting; 3) proposed changes which it was agreed should not be considered.
Gerhart opened discussion by referring to questions regarding the size of the Governing Board. Proposals include (a) maintaining the status quo, and allowing the size of the Board to grow as society membership increases, or new societies are added, or (b) using a formula, based on the square root of society membership, but corrected for fractions. He stated that the AIP attorney had expressed concern that the total number of Board members was not a fixed number.
Havens said he disagrees with the use of a mathematical formula. He favors retaining the present means as stated in the Constitution.
Wilson thought it was better to consider questions of society representation separately from the overall size of the Governing Board. If the Governing Board should decide in the future that it is too large, a separate decision can be made on the size of the Governing Board.
Lazarus felt that in the present formula the small Societies are overrepresented relative to the large ones; any rationale for representation should represent commitment to the Institute.
After further discussion, a straw vote of the Board members present indicated a preference for retaining the present system as stated in the Constitution.
Gerhart reminded the Board that there is an existing lid in the Articles of Incorporation, as the size of the Board may not exceed 40 members without changing that document.
Duke suggested that this issue be separated from the rest of the package when it is brought to the Governing Board in the Fall, as it alone may slow down what other much needed changes.
Gerhart next discussed the "at cost" provision in the Constitution. The attorney says this is not a useful term. The Committee suggests replacing this term with a statement that requires the Governing Board to make "equitable charges." There was no discussion.
Koch noted a point previously raised by Quinn regarding membership on the Executive Committee. Both feel that it is inappropriate to have too large a fraction of persons on the Executive Committee who are staff members of Societies as there could be conflict of interest. After a brief discussion it was agreed that it would be helpful to have a statement developed concerning the fiduciary responsibility of Editors and of members of the Governing Board, Executive Committee, Policy Committees, and Subcommittees.
Lazarus felt that the Director and Secretary of the Institute should be voting members of the Executive Committee.
Gerhart said his understanding is that there could be a conflict of interest; if paid officers of the Institute are voting members, they could act in their own personal interests. The non-voting status is a protection for these officers.
Lazarus said that the Secretary represents the Governing Board. He suggested that the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws further consider this issue.
Ramsey said he could see advantages and disadvantages, and asked for a straw vote on this question. The majority of those present felt that we should maintain the status quo (the Director and Secretary serving ex officio with no vote on the Executive Committee).
Ramsey said that a final report of the committee would be expected at the October 1985 meeting of the Governing Board.
8. Report of Committee on Society Services
Boyce (Chairman of this Committee) said that the main item of business at their recent meetings was the revision of the Memorandum of Agreement. The Committee felt that the agreement does not have to be the same for every society. An enumeration, in an appendix, of all current services offered would be useful.
Complications are added to the accounting system by the legally vague term "at cost." It is difficult and costly for AIP to get prorations and Societies do not know costs of their services. Also, when billing is spread over several months, it is difficult to know the price and to compare with outside vendors. A fixed price contract is preferable, at least for small jobs. The point under discussion is how far to carry this. A number of accounting practices are done by AIP for the Societies; it is good to discuss these and to determine what can be simplified.
Marks said that the list of services in the draft Memorandum of Agreement was included as a result of suggestions made by Member Societies, so that people would understand what AIP does and that the educational services are funded out of AIP's earnings. There is little commonality among the Societies for services desired. He said that this is only a starting point, and he wants suggestions.
Boyce said that the Committee did not like the arbitration statement. Marks replied that the wording here dates to 1930 and has not been reworked at all. It has never been invoked.
9. Report of ad hoc Committee on Space Needs
Havens said that the Committee had met and examined the space needs for AIP. The critical need for space is in New York. There is no critical need at Woodbury at the present time, as a second shift can be added if necessary.
The Committee asked Management what could be transferred from New York to Woodbury. The conclusion was not much. One-half a floor might be gained by transferring Accounting, but that's about it.
The possibility of erecting a new building on the 45th Street site was discussed. The Committee plans to get professional help on the real estate and business possibilities of such a venture. If a new building were erected on the site, it would have to be much larger than AIP alone would need. The site alone is worth about $8-10 million. All the new buildings in the area are about 30 floors and are elaborate and expensive. The committee wants to get rough plans of what is needed to erect a building that AIP could use itself while renting the remainder of the space to others, such as, e.g., a 501(c)(3) organization from the Engineering Center.
AIP and APS now share an office in DC. It was agreed to investigate further what should be done by AIP in DC. The trend seems to be for more societies to move or at least to maintain offices there.
10. Annual Report for 1984 and Authorization to Publish in Physics Today
Koch asked for comments on the AIP Annual Report for 1984, which was included as an attachment to the agenda for the meeting. None were forthcoming.
The following motion was made by Clark, seconded by Lazarus, and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the annual report of the Director for 1984 be accepted and authorization be given for its publication in Physics Today.
11. Plans for Joint Sponsorship of 1987 IUPAP General Assembly in Washington, DC.
Koch referred to a statement regarding the 1987 IUPAP General Assembly which had been included as an attachment to the agenda. He then invited Havens to supply additional information.
Havens reviewed the history of the proposal that APS organize the meeting, and that AIP help with fund-raising. It is planned that this meeting would take the place of the 1987 Corporate Associates meeting. He said that the Corporate Associates Advisory Committee would have some members on the planning committee.
Boyce said he has a strong philosophical disagreement regarding the fact that the National Academy of Science (NAS) was abrogating its responsibilities as a contributing member to the IUPAP meeting, and also of the International Astronomers' Union (IAU) which is to meet in the U.S. next year. NAS had assumed such responsibility for past meetings. NAS says that the AGU and APS are doing this for similar functions, why not AAS for the IAU? The AAS has withdrawn from this conference due to lack of support by NAS. Although he thinks the IUPAP plan is good, this puts the AAS in an awkward position. He would appreciate support for their position.
Ramsey thought that this was a good point and that NAS does seem to be shirking its responsibilities as host. The Academy is and appears as the official host, but someone else has to pick up the tab.
Havens said that the 1972 IUPAP Assembly was run by the Academy. He was shocked when the letter came from Frank Press to Dresselhaus, asking APS to assume corporate responsibility. Ramsey also expressed his surprise.
Clark asked if AIP could convey some sentiment regarding this matter, that the astronomers are not alone in their dismay over this development.
Koch said this discussion was after the fact, as APS has accepted the corporate responsibility and AIP would assist them in fulfilling this.
Boyce said that the timing on this was unfortunate for astronomers. They would prefer delaying acceptance of the proposal that AIP assist this venture. Clark asked if the AAS purpose could be better served by a letter rather than by delaying.
Ramsey thought an objection should be voiced and that he could prepare a letter expressing concern over the position of the NAS.
Havens further explained that the Academy is investing $40,000, which was left over from the last meeting. The APS is liable only for amounts over that, and for no Academy expenses. There is no Academy staff in the budget.
The following recommendation of the Executive Committee was CARRIED, with 14 YES votes, 2 NO votes, and 2 abstensions.
MOVED that the Governing Board authorize AIP's co-sponsorship with APS and NAS of the 1987 IUPAP General Assembly to be held at the National Academy of Science.
Clark then made the following motion, which was seconded by French, and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the Governing Board instruct the Chairman to send a letter to Frank Press at the National Academy of Science, expressing its concern over the financial arrangements for the hosting of the 1987 IUPAP General Assembly.
Report of Compton Award Committee
Koch distributed the 11 March 1985 letter from Seitz which reported that Norman F. Ramsey had been selected as the recipient of the Compton Award by the Committee. The announcement was greeted by an ovation from the Governing Board. Koch suggested that it would be appropriate for Seitz to present the award at the next Corporate Associates Meeting.
Plans for Gemant Award
Bauman discussed the policies which could be adopted for this award; he read a rough draft concerning this, which will go the Executive Committee. It is proposed that the award be given no more than once a year.
Gilbert noted that funds available for the award would amount to about $10,000 per year.
13. Report of Activities of Committee on Educational Policy
Bauman reported that the sentiment of the Committee on Educational Policy was that there should be continuing oversight of SPS activities and their relationship to the Governing Board. A small committee for this purpose has been appointed to report back to the Governing Board. Members of the committee are: L. W. Seagondollar (Chairman), Raymond Askew, and Anthony P. French.
(The meeting recessed at 5:30 p.m. Dinner was served at the Plainview Plaza at 6:00 p.m., continuing until 7:45 p.m.)
14. Licensing Agreement with FIZ
Marks first spoke about the typesetting for AIP-published journals, from which the "head" is used in a number of ways, first in producing the journal, then in retrieval tools such as PR Abstracts, GPAA, CPI, and PB. DOE gets about 9,000 articles a year. We send them a tape every two weeks and our contract is about $150,000 a year. Physics Briefs gets a tape every two weeks. We contribute about 28,000 abstracts per year; we receive about $11.00 per article. $3.00 per article goes back to the original journal. The remainder is spent for processing and production of the tape and adding the keywords. There are other organizations which re-keyboard our material and make use of it for profit.
The draft of a new contract with FIZ provides for a royalty of 20% of the gross sales pertaining to our part of the tape and contains a cost of living increase. Market research on on-line tapes indicates that this gross revenue could be about $1 million per year. AIP acts on behalf of all the participating Member Societies, so any Society journal gets its share of this royalty.
Management had hoped to have a signed agreement with FIZ, but it is not yet completed. Two representatives from FIZ will be at AIP next week and will continue the negotiations. AIP has had a relationship with FIZ for five years and has an existing contract.
Duke asked how these agreements fit into the long-range objective of AIP for a consortium to produce a single product of the world's physics literature.
Marks said that INSPEC has the online abstract market for physics abstracts sewed up at present. However, our price is one-half theirs and our material is more timely.
Protection of Copyright on Abstracts
Boyce asked why we can't improve our position with a proper marketing approach if our service is much better and cheaper? Marks replied that this is a tough market; there is nothing to indicate that we are in a position to make any inroads on the market as yet.
Wissbrun asked if we have an exclusive contract. Marks said it is a non-exclusive contract. INSPEC has up to now been reluctant to consider any royalty on sales of our materials, including the abstracts which they re-keyboard.
Koch asked if the Member Societies would support AIP if we were to make a test case of this. We also need to protect our full text. He noted that we have a copyright committee and would be eager for them to investigate this if encouraged to do so.
Boyce encouraged pursuing this. He is concerned to hear Marks say that we are in competition with INSPEC for what would be a large market. We need to be ready to protect the viability of our publications.
A motion was made by Wilson, seconded by Beyer, discussed at length, deferred until Saturday morning, and reworded on the basis of further discussion. (The final motion is given following the discussion.)
Wilson noted that non-member subscriptions are decreasing. Now that technology will make it possible to disseminate full-text literature in electronic format, if we don't protect the journals, we won't have much left to protect.
Koch said he is in favor of the idea of making a proposal coupled with the concept that there could be a possibility of a suit.
Clark called for the question. Following discussion of the wording and restatement of the proposed motion, Ramsey asked for a vote on calling the question. The vote was as follows: YES: 8. NO: 8. As it was a tie, Ramsey allowed the debate to continue. He noted that a well-phrased motion is important.
Geballe thought that all questions raised in the original motion will be made clear in the investigation of the matter with the attorney.
Beyer then MOVED that the issue be deferred until Saturday morning. This was seconded by Strasberg. This motion was CARRIED, with one NO vote.
(The meeting recessed at 8:30 p.m. and was followed by an informal reception. The meeting resumed at 8:30 a.m., 16 March.)
Grant read a proposed motion dealing with the matter of copyright.
Wilson said that if you have specifics in the motion, you limit the latitude of the attorney. He thinks the attorney is the one to decide the scope. However, if the consensus is otherwise, he will agree.
Koch differed with this approach. He thinks the issue here is computer abstracts. If the motion is very general, it may be interpreted by some that the staff has decided to focus on abstracts.
Strasberg spoke in favor of limiting the motion to abstracts. This is a clear issue. He is in favor of restricting the field on which we approach the attorney for advice.
The motion, as stated below, originally made by Wilson and seconded by Beyer, was unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that it is Governing Board policy that AIP receive compensation for the use of its copyrighted computer-readable abstracts, and requests that in order to carry out this policy AIP management negotiate with users of these abstracts on the basis of existing contracts and policies, and investigate the feasibility of entering into litigation where necessary to accomplish these goals.
15. Financial Report
Estimated 1984 Financial Statement
Gilbert called attention to the statement which was included with the supplementary material distributed on 14 March (attached herewith). The Statement of Revenue and Expense excludes activities carried on for Member Societies.
He noted, under Publishing Revenue, that subscription income increased from $9.4 million to $10.1 million, resulting from the increase in non-member prices. Revenue from page charges dropped, due to the drop in page charge rates. Revenue from ad sales increased as a result of increased ad sales in PT. The heading "Other" includes IOP, DOE, and FIZ contracts.
Investment income included under General Operations involves only short term investments through our cash management plan. This increased from $884,792 in 1983 to $930,942 in 1984.
Finally, he noted that the estimated excess revenue for 1984 is $2.6 million compared to an actual excess revenue of $2.8 million in 1983.
Sale of Meggers Coin and Stamp Collection
Gilbert reviewed the history of the Meggers Collection. The auditors had recommended that it be revalued this year. Following this step, the Governing Board at its October 1984 meeting voted to sell the Collection at public auction. The terms of the contract specify that Harmer Rooke Galleries, the auction agents, will get 10% of the sale; they prepare the catalog and handle all aspects of the sale. It is considered a prime collection. Gilbert showed the catalog, just received from Harmer Rooke; it is a carefully prepared, illustrated catalog, and includes a biography and photo of Meggers. Limited copies were available for the Board. It will be mailed to members of the numismatic societies of the U.S. and Canada. Public viewing of the Collection will be from March 18-28.
Harmer Rooke will prepare another catalog for the stamp auction. This is being valued now. The sale will take place later in the spring.
Status Report on Investments
Gilbert noted that AIP has three types of investments: long-term, short-term, and mutual funds. The Committee on Investments met on 21 February and spent one hour with each of the outside investment managers concerning their past performance and outlook for the future. First Manhattan Co. emphasized that it is good to be ahead in a volatile market; their projection is for 3-5 years. The return so far on investments with this company is 25%. Drexel Burnham Lambert, with which we have an arbitrage account, reported that 1984 was an excellent year for arbitrage, and they expect 1985 to be an active year for mergers as well. Avatar Associates had a disappointing return for 1984, but made a dramatic recovery in January 1985. They said that 1984 was the most difficult year since 1976. Their current market outlook is bullish.
Gilbert read the recommendation of the Committee on Investments, which the Executive Committee approved by telephone ballot in February and confirmed at its meeting on 15 March.
Duke asked that it be entered in the record that he thinks it is inappropriate for an organization such as AIP to adopt as a long-term policy the placing of such a high percentage of investment funds into mutual funds. The return on a 10-year bond is a more suitable investment for the Institute. [25% of the total investment funds is invested in mutual funds.]
He went on to note that we are concerned about building a publishing reserve. These investments are not conservative. He has not heard an analysis of our investment portfolio. He thinks the investment posture is at variance with the reserve posture. He suggests better communication with the Committee on Investments.
Grant noted that such reports have been made to the Governing Board on a regular basis.
Gilbert said he would take these comments back to the Committee on Investments.
Clark said that he was on the Fiscal Policy Committee when the Committee on Investments was formed and it was then suggested that this Committee interact closely with the Executive Committee. He thinks it would also be wise to have the Chairman of the Committee on Investments report to the Board periodically and have him attend the fall Governing Board meeting.
Ramsey thought it a good idea to invite the Chairman for an extended discussion with the Board.
Approved 1985 Financial Budget
Gilbert reviewed the highlights of the budget as summarized in an attachment to the agenda and asked if there were any questions.
Clark suggested that an additional column be added giving figures for the year for which we have final numbers, for purposes of comparison.
Gilbert said this could be done. The procedure used at this meeting for reporting on the adopted budget is a first, and he wants to know what the Governing Board needs. He will be glad to furnish anything that is requested.
Financial Handling Charge for 1986
Gilbert said the AIP Constitution provides that Member Societies pay to the Institute a financial handling charge, not to exceed 1%, of the monetary value of business done on their behalf. This charge is fixed annually by the Governing Board; the suggested rate for 1985 has been in effect for a number of years.
On the basis of the recommendation of the Executive Committee, the following motion was unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the financial handling charge for 1986 be fixed at five-eighths of one percent of business done on behalf of Member Societies.
16. Report of Subcommittee on Journals
Plans for Journal of Materials Research
(This was taken up on Friday, to ensure a quorum for the required action.)
Duke, Chairman of this Subcommittee, distributed to the Governing Board an interim report of the 13 March 1985 meeting. He reported that they have a plan for a Journal of Materials Research ready for approval. Plans to start a computer journal are still in a state of flux.
The proposal for the Journal of Materials Research has been drawn up by the MRS and AIP. They would like to start publication in January 1986. The editorial and administrative structure has been decided. The ownership has not been decided, nor the filling of editorial posts. If the Board wants to proceed with the proposal, the following are required: 1) the proposal must be approved; 2) Management is to be authorized to negotiate on ownership, pending approval of the Executive Committee; 3) the Board needs to delegate approval of an implementation plan to the Executive Committee.
The following motion, as read by Koch, was made by Duke, seconded by Havens, and unanimously CARRIED, following discussion, as reported below.
MOVED that the AIP desires to publish a Journal of Materials Research, that the Director of AIP is authorized to negotiate an ownership agreement with the Materials Research Society, and that the AIP Executive Committee is empowered to approve an ownership agreement and a publication plan in time to enable initial publication of this journal in January 1986.
Wissbrun asked if there are any competing non-profit journals, noting an existing Journal of Material Science.
Duke said there are a number of competing private journals. He added that there would be some overlap, but there is no broadbased journal of materials research at this time.
Mattox suggests there is potential for overlap, and that the editors must be sensitive to this in choosing content. For instance, there could be an overlap with JVST.
Lazarus said that overlap with PR-B and JAP could be a possibility. However, he thinks there is no great danger. He thinks this journal will pull more papers from the private sector than from our other, society-owned journals.
Duke said that if there are any suggestions for editors, this information is needed by mid-April.
Proposed Co-sponsorship of Chinese Journal of Lasers with OSA
Koch said the proposal for a cover-to-cover translation publication of this journal with OSA is described in material distributed in an attachment to the agenda and is for Governing Board information only at this time. The proposal first will be brought to the Committee on Publishing Policy. He is now awaiting a response from the Chinese.
17. Report of Subcommittee on Books
Beyer reported on the new Books Division, of which Lerner is Manager. This Division will handle the AIP Conference Proceedings. One title has been published: reprints from PT entitled Astrophysics Today. Two new volumes are in preparation: reprints from PT on history, timed to tie in with the Niels Bohr Centennial, and articles on physics in sports. A contract has been signed for a Russian text on acoustics, and other titles are being investigated.
French asked if there was any information on how the astrophysics book is doing. Marks said this had been out for six months; it is moving slowly, but he has high hopes for the series.
18. Co-Sponsorship of Niels Bohr Symposium with American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Koch noted the letter from Feshbach to him regarding the three-day symposium commemorating the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Niels Bohr, to be sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. AIP has been invited to be an honorary sponsor. Koch suggested a motion approving this; there is no financial obligation.
The following motion was made by Duke, seconded by Boyce, and unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that AIP co-sponsor, without financial obligation, the Niels Bohr Symposium to be held at the National Academy of Arts and Sciences in Cambridge, Mass., in November 1985.
Barschall asked if this is to be an open meeting. Havens said it is not; it is by invitation only.
19. Status of AIP's Data General Computer System
Implementation of Accounting
Dolowich said that one of the most important things in the last six months was the hiring of a new Accounting Manager, William D. Attick. His knowledge in the area of computer applications has been helpful.
One area of interest is that of prorations, which currently are done manually. The general ledger software along with use of the Lotus 1-2-3 has facilitated the computerization of several prorations. The rest will be done after the audit is completed.
An Accounts Payable package has been installed; it has been modified to make it compatible with the general ledger. An Accounts Receivable package has been written in-house; advance payments can be put in the accounts with this software and it will accept on-line query and credit messages. The reserve for bad debts is now very low. The next areas to be addressed relate to invoicing. Pubs & Reprints, Advertising, and Single Copy Sales will be done in-house. The past year has seen a marked change to on-line systems.
- Status of Subscription Fulfillment
Hiring of Consultant
Koch offered introductory comments on this topic. For the last two years each meeting of the Executive Committee and the Governing Board have had reports on the developments in computer hardware and software. Because of the concern and the large investment, the Executive Committee asked Koch to obtain a report from an outside consultant, at an expenditure of up to $15,000. He hired Sid Gudes, who has produced a report in depth. Gudes met with the Executive Committee on 15 March, and his report was distributed to the Governing Board just prior to this meeting. (A copy is attached to the official minutes of this meeting.)
Dolowich reviewed the report. The contract with AZTECH was a fixed price contract. Some of the dilemma of a fixed price situation is that it gives us a known cost but it gives the contractor an opportunity to develop the project as he wishes as long as it is within the price limit. It is essential for AIP staff to be sure the project is efficient. Any change made to the vendor's plans has to be considered out-of-scope.
In August 1983, we decided to accept the computer hardware for use with accounting operations. AIP thinks we lost some bargaining power because of this.
In March 1984, adjustments were made in the contract to allow for more payments to AZTECH, as they had a cash flow problem.
The report notes that there was a longer period of research and development than had been anticipated. The report stated some caveats which would be helpful in more rapid completion of the project: 1) that AIP not delay procedures; 2) that AZTECH use three programmers.
The current status is that most of the system is fully designed. File maintenance is in the design stage now; this is a critical area, as it drives other modules of the system. The original proposal was for $88,000 for the software only. In March 1984, AZTECH requested additional money. Considering the additional payments, the price is still under that of other vendors who gave estimates.
Appendix A of the report deals with the software development process. AZTECH in the past had dealt with a narrative explanation, which is difficult to follow and understand; AIP had to flowchart the narrative, which caused delays.
Appendix C of the report gives the project history, with the problems stated by each side. AZTECH says they have had problems because of how AIP handled the project. AZTECH froze the data dictionary too early, resulting in a number of out-of-scope items. AIP felt that AZTECH did not probe our system deeply enough, and that their system lacked controls. AIP felt that AZTECH did not configure the hardware system adequately, so we had to add additional disk capacity. AIP had a problem with the response time in file maintenance, due to the proposed design of file maintenance and the use of indexes.
The conclusion of the report is that both AIP and AZTECH share responsibility for delays. Gudes says AZTECH bid on a more complicated project than they had done in the past. A long-term concern is that C-script (the program generator) is not documented well enough and that it will be difficult to maintain the programs.
He noted several options for AIP and AZTECH to discuss: Continue using C-script. Have AIP do more of the programming than formerly. Push AZTECH to use a third programmer. Produce ad hoc mailing lists by Selector; a decision has just been made on the procedure for this. Possibility of 4th-generation software, which is not yet available; a switch to this would be far down the road.
Dolowich said there is no guarantee that everything will go smoothly, but we think it will. AIP's role is now mainly review. He is optimistic about the results, and relations with AZTECH have been excellent.
Ramsey said the Executive Committee was favorably impressed with Gudes. The general conclusion of the Executive Committee was to go along with his recommendations and to follow them where they would help speed things up. They would like to have him continue to be involved in the project and he has agreed to do so.
Koch referred to the overruns and approvals for them. The various additional expenditures were within the bounds of the contract or were approved by the Executive Committee and Governing Board. He stressed that Gudes' report is proprietary information, FOR GOVERNING BOARD USE ONLY.
Boyce, a member of the ad hoc Committee on Computer Needs, said he had talked with the consultant and was impressed by him and his report. He has done a good job of summarizing. The best thing is to continue as is, using C-script, but taking care with some of the problems of C-script. He encourages developing a number of statistical reports inhouse. He recommends using a 4th-generation language as soon as possible, as he feels if we don't go to a higher productivity language, it could make a big difference, and would like the Governing Board to go on record as favoring this. He is concerned about the testing procedure, which has not been worked out as yet. He recommends hiring a consultant to oversee and have some authority in the use of testing procedures. He recommends using productivity tools to test equipment.
Dolowich said that part of the project has already been programmed. He thinks he could not convince AZTECH to go to 4th generation at this point. The consultant is estimating completion of the project within the December 1985 to February 1986 time period.
Boyce said the consultant told him that if we go to 4th generation, we can take the modules causing problems out of C-script and put them into 4th generation.
Ramsey said no action was called for by the Board at this time.
Analysis of Computer Hardware and Software Costs
Dolowich referred to charts which were distributed to the Governing Board on 14 March with the Gudes report; the charts estimate allocation of these costs (attached herewith). Analysis of the costs is complicated because we use the computer for both accounting and subscription fulfillment.
His chart shows how costs (total hardware cost: $598,000; total software cost: $467,000; total: $1,065,000) are allocated to these cost centers over a five-year period. Data General has utilities that allow measurement of use.
Thornton asked if there will be savings to AIP with the new system.
Dolowich said we have already reduced the subscription fulfillment staff by seven, even with all required monitoring of the new project. There are Data General terminals now in use which have query capability.
Boyce asked why subscription fulfillment costs are going up.
Dolowich said the subscription fulfillment costs had been low because staff salaries were very low and had to be upgraded in order to be competitive in the job market. We also have the two systems in operation at present. The keyboarding area and the control section will be reduced when the system is completed.
20. Request of American Geophysical Union for Member Society Status
Ramsey read the request recently received from AGU. Grant explained the procedure for the election of a new Member Society. The earliest date at which formal admission to Member Society status could occur would be one year from now at the next meeting of the AIP Corporation.
Spilhaus, the Executive Director of the AGU, gave a brief background on the AGU. It is a basic research society, consisting of a collection of subdisciplines, all using physics to study the earth and its environment in space. It presently has about 18,000 members. It publishes 17 journals and has an extensive marketing program.
Koch asked why the AGU is interested in this step.
Spilhaus gave several reasons:
- Its strongest interest is in AIP as a publisher and in the future of electronic publishing. AGU cannot do this well individually.
- It sees an important relationship in things that can be done better through AIP facilities. They have history programs, public affairs programs, and manpower statistics, but feel these can be much better in partnership with other societies and AIP. Funds would be better spent in this way.
- It is interested in AIP's successes in publishing: timeliness, cost, and quality.
The AGU now prints with Byrd Press. The only in-house publication is a weekly newspaper of eight pages. Their total publication output is about 30,000 pages per year.
Clark asked if Spilhaus had had an opportunity to get a sense of AIP operations. He would like to know how much interest AGU officers would have in serving on AIP committees and Governing Board. Spilhaus said probably 20-25% of its members are physicists. Their participation would be wholehearted and constructive.
In response to Sickafus' question, Spilhaus said the AGU has a staff of about 80 people.
Mattox asked if the AGU has local chapters. Spilhaus said it has only three; this is not a major portion of its activity.
In response to Strasberg's request for titles of some AGU journals, Spilhaus noted Journal of Geophysical Research (in four sections), Radio Science, Space Physics, Solid Earth and Planets, Oceans, Atmospheres, Water Resources Research, and Views of Geophysics. It is now starting two journals with no page charges to compete with European publications.
Spilhaus was excused at this juncture, to allow for further discussion.
Koch said that one question is what the increased costs would be to AIP of providing PT to the AGU members and how to make up the cost of $175,000 a year. The increased circulation would justify an increase of 8% in ad rates, which would then cover the added cost.
Sickafus asked for a clarification of the ad rates. Marks said that the ad rate depends on circulation. The normal rate of increase arising from slow growth and production costs is 10%.
Marks added that he thinks having the AGU as a Member Society would be an asset. Their publishing would be added to AIP's over a number of years and would fit in nicely. It would have a beneficial effect in terms of lowering page costs.
The following motion was made by Lazarus, seconded by Wilson, and was unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the American Geophysical Union be nominated as a Member Society of the American Institute of Physics, and that the Member Societies act upon this nomination.
Spilhaus returned to the meeting and was informed of the Governing Board action, which will be confirmed by letter.
21. Retirement Age for Compensated Officers and Editors
Ramsey read the proposed motion which was suggested by our attorney, as New York state law will forbid age-discriminatory retirement clauses effective on 1 January 1986. The Executive Committee recommends the following action, which was unanimously CARRIED by the Governing Board:
THAT the Governing Board rescind the following policy which it adopted at its 1 November 1980 meeting:
"It is Governing Board policy that no person may serve as a compensated officer of the Institute, or as an Editor of an Institute journal, beyond the age of 70."
22. Joint Sponsorship of U.S. Team for Joint International Physics Olympiad
Wilson explained his proposal that a budget of $10,000 be established to allow AIP to send two observers to the Physics Olympiad in the summer of 1985. The intent is to allow us to learn more about the Olympiad and then decide if we want to participate.
To mount a complete team of four students would require about $40,000; it involves making the selection and a 12-day training period followed by the competition somewhere in Europe. He would hope this would be jointly sponsored by AIP, APS, and perhaps AAPT. It has not been presented to Society councils yet. This would serve to generate enthusiasm on the part of physics students.
Mueller asked if the idea of observers is agreeable to the organizers. Wilson said that it was; this is the procedure the ACS followed before entering candidates. He distributed a handout which gave sample questions used in the competition and has additional material available for perusal. He has reservations regarding the types of students we could attract and the fact that European students are usually two years ahead of American students.
French said he would be in favor of observers, but would want to proceed with extreme caution beyond that because of the great variance in education. He questions whether a training period could adequately prepare the students.
Grant said a related problem is that a large number of students trying for the team will stimulate interest, but the message getting to the high schools would be that this is what should be taught in the high schools.
Wilson said that Texas has an exam of this nature, which he administered to high school students. It was graded by faculty, who also took the test. The students always did as well as the faculty.
Wilson moved the following, which Clark seconded, and which was unanimously CARRIED.
MOVED that the expenditure of up to $10,000 be authorized to pay the expenses of two AIP representatives to observe the Physics Olympiad to be held in Yugoslavia in July 1985.
23. Other Business
Ramsey asked that the Secretary's Office be notified of address and committee changes in order that the official records be kept up to date.
24. Next Meeting
As given in the agenda, the Governing Board will meet in Rochester, NY, beginning on Sunday evening, 20 October at 6:00 p.m. and continuing through Monday, 21 October, until approximately 5:00 p.m. The AIP Corporate Associates meeting will be held in Rochester on 22-23 October immediately following the Governing Board meeting.
Dates were discussed for the March 1985 meeting. The Governing Board will meet 7-8 March, with the Assembly of Society Officers on 6-7 March.
25. Executive Session
The Governing Board met in executive session from 12 noon to 12:50 p.m. Records of this session are reported in the official minutes only.
26. Adjournment and Lunch
The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m., followed by lunch.