Executive Board Minutes - January 2002 (Part 2)Jan. 19-24, 2002 (Continued)
18. National Science Digital Library.
W. Hein reported that he had attended the All Projects Meeting at the NSF. During this visit the National Science Digital Library (NSDL) program officers expressed strong interest in the development of a physics component. The AAPT under the supervision of Bruce Mason, the newly hired PSRC Director, and in collaboration with the American Astronomical Society (AAS), the AIP and the APS, is preparing a proposal to be submitted to the NSDL Program by April 17. The draft of the proposal will be presented to the Board for consideration and action during its April 13-14 regular meeting. Hein will advise the Board concerning the progress of the proposal during the interim.
Bruce Mason presented an overview of the proposal and its development. The planning committee, consisting of members from each of the participating societies, was currently trying to identify the people the digital library (DL) will serve and what resources these communities of people will want. It is the intent of the committee to build collections of materials that will serve these groups. The committee will develop the technical infrastructure for the DL that will be searchable and linked in such a way as to connect the users to the different collections. The committee also plans to incorporate the capability for users to build electronic rooms in which they can save information they find valuable in their search. Website doors will be provided and will be identified according to the user labels (for example, a door will be defined for astronomy teachers).
During subsequent discussion of the report from Mason, J. Tobochnik asked if the website would be available for students. Mason explained that the DL would be a resource for both faculty and students. Tobochnik also asked how the committee envisioned maintaining the quality of the materials to be placed in the digital library. Mason explained that the library will focus on sub collections of materials that will be reviewed but there would be a mass of materials that would not necessarily be reviewed. This mass would be indexed. In response to a question from C. Haas, Mason commented that users would be able to access the reviews of the materials and the Amazon.com model would probably be used for this feature of the library. A count of the visits to the reviews would serve as one indicator of success for the digital library, particularly if the user reviews were visited more than the “expert” reviews.
Mason added that in the initial stages of the development and design of the digital library the planning committee would focus on a few collections of resources currently available such as those produced by PIRA, the Teacher Prep Committee, and the Undergraduate Quantum Mechanics Group. Jack Hehn, a member of the planning committee, added that an important group to be included in the digital library is the SPS as this is the only physics group who diligently tries to engage students.
No action was taken.
19. Report on PhysTEC.
The PhysTEC project is a collaborative effort of the AIP, the APS, and the AAPT. In August 2001, NSF awarded the APS $5.76 million dollars for the three member project and in September 2001 the project received an additional $500K from FIPSE. The AAPT will be receiving funds from the grant for salaries and fringe benefits for both John Layman (AAPT CoPI) and Warren Hein (AAPT Senior Staff), as well as some indirect costs.
Layman reported on the progress that the project had realized to date. The Second Annual PhysTEC Conference was held at the ACP on September 28-30, 2001 and initial planning had begun for the Third Annual Conference to be held on the campus of one of the six primary program institutions. Ed Lee, an APS employee, was hired as Project Coordinator and Hal Richtol, retired NSF program officer, was hired as the Project Consultant. The Momentum Group has been contracted to serve as the project’s external evaluator. During the year, the principal investigators will conduct three-day visits to each of the six program institutions. Layman and Hein will each participate in two of these visits.
Layman explained that he and Hein were identifying aspects of the PhysTEC project for which the AAPT could assume responsibility. These include organization of the Teacher in Residence (TIR), mentoring and induction activities, the relationship of PhysTEC with the PTRA program, and the interface with the AAPT Committee on Teacher Preparation. Layman further added that as the PTRA program and the PhysTEC project were supervised by the same program officer at the NSF, it would be wise to show signs of collaboration between the two.
In subsequent discussion, J. Nelson asked how PhysTEC would interface with other disciplines. Layman responded that one goal of the project is to develop models for collaboration, appropriate for review by other disciplines, from their studies of interactions between physicists and educators at the program institutions. The findings from the project will be shared with members in the physics community and other disciplines. Hehn contributed that the engagement of physics departments in the science preparation of teachers provided a strong interface with other disciplines. Fred Stein also added that the project will eventually impact a large pool of teachers, spanning not only high school teachers but also all pre college teachers. In closing J. Stith reminded the Board members that the PhysTEC project was born from the idea that the science preparation of pre college teachers is the responsibility of every member of the science community.
(Before moving to the next item on the agenda, F. Stein gave the Board special greetings from Judy Franz, Executive Officer for the APS.)
20. The AIP Physics Resource Center.
Jim Stith, AIP Director of Physics Resource Center, gave a progress report concerning the AIP Physics Resource Center. The AIP publication, Preparing Physicists for Work, will be available in April or May. The document explains to students how to get a job and helps them to view physics as a good preparation for many careers, not just that of a university professor. The APS Centennial Collection, the Selected Papers of Great American Physicists, is now available on the web. In addition, the Physics Today online has been launched and is available to all society members who register online. While the electronic version allows members in other countries to receive the journal approximately three months sooner, the AIP is not sure how the electronic form will affect income from journal advertisements. The Institute normally receives about $ 6 million from advertisements in the print version of Physics Today.
Stith expressed special thanks to the Association for allowing the Society of Physics Students to present the SPS Outstanding Faculty Advisor Award during the AAPT Ceremonial Session. He also reported that the AIP was successful in getting a news release into the Philadelphia papers concerning “physics first” that coincided with the meeting of the AAPT and its special sessions addressing this topic.
21. Networking Upper Division Laboratory Initiatives (NUDLI).
One of the strategic goals for 2001 adopted by the AAPT Executive Board addressed increasing the physics content within meetings of the Association. The Board appointed a Task Force, the Committee for Enhancing the Role of Physics (EROP) within the AAPT, to formulate ways in which the AAPT could realize this goal.
Dick Peterson, EROP Chair, presented to the Board for consideration and discussion the suggestion that the AAPT host a small conference for about 50-100 participants dealing with “upper division labs (UDL)”. He defined these as lab activities following the introductory, first-year physics laboratories. The lab-focused conference, similar to the one hosted in 1990 by the APS, would include papers within topical/course divisions and would ultimately aim at fostering the creation of a web-based network of curricular and physics information on these topics. Specific examples of topical areas that would benefit from networking communication include electronic labs within physics departments, modern physics labs, laboratories in both basic and applied optics, atomic and nuclear labs, and measurement labs at the intermediate level.
Peterson expressed a personal interest in developing a proposal seeking external funding for such a conference as well as start-up costs for the development of a well-organized networking capability for workers in the UDL physics areas. He volunteered to organize a small steering committee of active AAPT members, experienced in teaching upper division laboratories, to respond to a rough draft proposal during the AAPT meeting in Boise. Subsequently during the Fall 2002, he would coordinate the effort and write the full draft of the proposal.
In response to this suggested AAPT activity, C. Holbrow inquired as to the intellectual status of the advanced labs. Peterson responded that the status varies greatly across the country, from university to university. He added that as students are being prepared for many different careers, more thought needs to be made concerning the advanced labs. Therefore, he strongly suggested that this lab conference should not address introductory physics labs.
The consensus among Board members was that Peterson should proceed with the plan as outlined in his memo to the EROP Committee, the Committee on Laboratories and the Executive Board.
22. Role of the Election Teller.
Monroe reported that during the AAPT elections in the Fall 2001, votes received for one position had been so close that Joe Meyer, Election Teller, had requested a recount by another AAPT member, traditionally a past president of the Association. Before any action was taken, however, Meyer found an error in his recording of the votes. Upon making the correction, the difference in votes received was increased to a comfortable level, thereby not requiring a second count.
However, this incident along with a reoccurring problem concerning late ballots received from members in foreign countries prompted Meyer to ask the Board to reconsider the way elections are held within the Association. Meyer also expressed that he was concerned that some members did not vote on all positions, leaving some ballot boxes blank. He recommended that the Board look at how other professional organizations, such as the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), conduct their elections.
In reaction to the concerns expressed by Meyer, all Board members expressed complete trust and confidence in him as Election Teller. In the discussion that followed F. Peterson proposed that separate cards be used for each position on the ballot and a second person, local to Meyer’s institution, be present when the actual count was made. However, it was pointed out that this was a short-term solution. Hubisz asked the Board members to consider this report and send him their suggestions. This discussion will be a future agenda item.
23. Electronic Balloting.
Khoury explained that with the large percentage of electronic communication occurring these days, it would be appropriate for the Board to begin discussions concerning electronic balloting by the AAPT members for the selection of Board members in annual elections. (See Board Packet Item III.L) The APS Divisions, for example, conduct their elections electronically but the national APS elections are conducted using regular mail ballots.
Khoury suggested that if the AAPT decided to use electronic balloting in the annual elections, email notices would be sent to AAPT members with a link to a secure website. At the secure website, the member could read the candidate information and cast their ballots. The traditional paper ballots would be mailed to members without email addresses or without web access. The Announcer would continue to publish the resumes for the candidates along with their statements and would also publish the announcement of new election procedures with the option to members to request paper ballots. Only one email voting notice would be sent to each AAPT member having a valid email address.
Possible advantages to the new election procedure include reduced costs of printing and postage, elimination of time delays in getting ballots to and receiving ballots from non-USA members, automatic counting of ballots. Possible disadvantages include expenses incurred in purchasing and developing the software to conduct the electronic balloting, concerns from members about the security of individual votes, expenses associated with the need for redundant electronic and paper voting systems and the lack of availability to email or web access to all AAPT members. In addition, corporate law governs how a member can vote. It may be necessary to provide a paper trail for electronic votes.
In response to a question from D. Rice, Khoury reported that the AAPT has email addresses for approximately 6000 of its 10,000 plus members. The estimated cost for a mail ballot is about one dollar to process in addition to the postage. Savings realized with electronic balloting should be able to pay for new system.
C. Holbrow made the motion that the AAPT staff make a serious study concerning the implementation of electronic balloting and associated costs. Karl Mamola seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Khoury commented that the study would probably be farmed out and the staff would also investigate if the new voting system would be implemented internally or by an outside contractor. The report to the Board would be ready for the Summer Meeting in Boise. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
24. Recognition of AAPT Commercial Exhibitors.
In a report from Khoury, he explained that exhibitors and the AAPT members mutually benefit from the exhibit shows at the national meetings. Physics teachers have an opportunity to learn about current products and materials available for the classroom and laboratory. Exhibitors are given the opportunity to display their products and services, while remaining connected to important customers.
During the last several years, AAPT attendees have been given the opportunity to vote for the “best new product” displayed during the exhibit show. However, some exhibitors have expressed concern that the current competition could turn into a popularity contest. Therefore, the AAPT staff suspended the contest for the AAPT Winter Meeting in Philadelphia. The new products were advertised on special signs that were placed within the meeting area according to the exhibitors’ wishes and descriptions of the products were prepared for a special “New Products” flyer distributed during the Philadelphia meeting.
In a letter addressed to Khoury, Jonathan Reichert, President of Teachspin Inc. and longtime AAPT member and exhibitor proposed an alternate way “for the Association to support and encourage the creation and teaching of new apparatus designed for teaching physics”. Reichert claims that the most difficult part in developing a new product was in the marketing of it and he suggests that the AAPT could do much more to encourage the development of new and affordable teaching apparatus by working with the exhibitors to better market their products.
Reichert proposed that new apparatus competition should be developed providing for categories such as (1) high school, (2) introductory college course, (3) intermediate college and (4) advanced and graduate lab. The criteria for each category should set high standards that must be met before any award could be given. In addition, he urged that the judges for each category should come from college and high school faculty and that the judging process should provide sufficient time for the faculty to work with the apparatus and study any accompanying apparatus manuals and suggested student lab activities. He also proposed that the winning apparatus should be the focus of a special session during the summer meetings and should be described in the Announcer and the American Journal of Physics.
In subsequent discussion of the proposal from Reichert, Howes expressed agreement with the AAPT recognition of new products but did not feel that the Association should sponsor such competitions. Holbrow pointed out that the proposal involved an evaluation and judging process using a lot of intellectual energy that the AAPT might want to use elsewhere. F. Peterson commented that the review of apparatus did have merits and possibly the Association should encourage more reviews of this type. He suggested that the Board might want to seek input from the Apparatus Committee.
Holbrow moved that the AAPT continue the labeling and advertisement of new products employed during the Winter Meeting and that the Apparatus Committee be asked to consider ways in which the Association can recognize and commend companies that develop new apparatus. C. Haas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
25. New Strategic Goals.
Chiaverina reported that in anticipation of new strategic goals to be identified by the Board during the Winter Meeting, he had asked the chairs of the AAPT area committees to review the progress made by the AAPT in addressing these goals and to suggest new goals for the coming year. The discussions converged on two items: (1) assisting crossover, poorly prepared, teachers and (2) outreach to other disciplines.
Following this report, the Board members accepted the two recommendations from the chairs adding that the goal addressing crossover teachers ties in nicely with the mentoring program of PhysTEC and potential benefits to be realized from the Rural PTRA program. The Board also affirmed that the AAPT should continue to work on the five 2001 strategic goals. Holbrow proposed a third goal for consideration: the AAPT would support “physics early” programs meeting certain criteria, as yet to be defined, and would develop a policy statement of endorsement. It was generally agreed that it would be wise to postpone any Board action concerning the third goal until the Wednesday Board meeting, giving members an opportunity to attend the two AAPT sessions on “physics first”.
Dickison moved that the Board add the two goals recommended by the Area Chairs to the five current strategic goals and accept these seven as the strategic goals for 2002. Howes seconded the motion. The motion passed with 10 yes and 1 no. Therefore the seven strategic goals for the AAPT to address during 2002 are:
Assess Member Needs and Effectiveness of AAPT Services Promote “Physics for All” Assist the PER Community in Disseminating the Results of Their Research Increase the Amount of Physics Content (and Its Visibility) within AAPT National Meetings Assist Teachers in Meeting National and State Science Standards Assist Crossover Teachers Promote Outreach to Other Disciplines
Hubisz called the Board into Executive Session. Following the completion of this business, the Board was recessed until 4:00 PM on January 23.
26. Bauder Fund.
Chuck Robertson, incoming Treasurer, reported that the Bauder Fund Committee approved $1000 to help support the travel expenses of the first ten registrants ($100 each) to the PIRA Lecture Demonstration Workshop in Boise. The Committee did not receive a request of support for the PIRA Resource Room but will provide support up to $1000 if the request does come in. In addition the committee voted to increase the allotted support to the 2003 Summer PIRA Demonstration Workshop to $2000 ($200 to ten registrants). Appropriate letters will be mailed to department chairs and lab supervisors.
In other action the New Jersey section appointed Brian Holton (03) and Raymond Polomski (04) to the Committee and Robert Beck Clark was appointed until 2005. The term of the PIRA representative expired but PIRA was not prepared to appoint a replacement. In addition, Chiaverina as incoming President will necessarily need to appoint a member to this committee.
No action was taken.
27. Venture Fund.
There was no report and no action was taken.
28. Publications Committee.
Monroe reported that George Horton, Ernest Kuehl, and Mark Silverman have completed their terms as members of the TPT Editorial Board. Therefore, the Publications Committee recommended the three-year appointments of Joan Mackin (East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania) and Greg Puskar (West Virginia University) to the TPT Editorial Board and the reappointment of Mark Silverman (Trinity College) for another three-year term. The motion passed unanimously.
The Publications Committee also recommended the three-year appointment of Amy Bug (Swarthmore College), David Goodstein (California Institute of Technology) and Peter Reynolds (Office of Naval Research) to the AJP Editorial Advisory Board. These appointments will replace James Evans, J.D. Jackson, and Jonathan L. Rosner, whose terms expire in January 2002. The motion passed unanimously.
The Publications Committee recommended that the Board approve the request from J. Tobochnik, Editor of the American Journal of Physics, to approve allocations up to $30,000 to support the hiring of a 1/3 time assistant editor. Tobochnik explained that the additional editorial help would free him and Harvey Gould, Associate Editor, to perform activities such as the extra editing needed for electronic publications and outreach to the general physics community. The editor believes that he possibly could hire a person from a small college or a junior-level professor for less than the $ 30K. He also suggested that some money could possibly be realized through unspent AJP allocations. Dickison asked if additional funds would be requested to pay for the PER Editor. In response, Tobochnik stated that Joe Redish would continue as PER section editor and his $3000 stipend would be paid from the current AJP budget. (Hein inserted that the AAPT budget had an editors’ line item and it needs to be made clear which editors will be paid from this budget item.). After additional discussion concerning the source of the stipend for the assistant editor, the question was called. The motion passed unanimously.
Monroe reminded the Board that they had authorized the publishing of the 64 page PER Supplement as a special section within the AJP for the coming year 2002, but no specific action had been taken regarding its publication in 2003 and after. Therefore, she asked that the Board consider authorizing the publication of the PER Supplement for a longer time frame. Holbrow made the motion that the Board approve the publication of the 64 page PER Supplement for five years with a review of this arrangement in four years. The motion carries the understanding that the AJP Editor could call for an earlier review of the PER publication. The PER Supplement will appear as a separate section with AJP once a year (approximately 64 pages) or twice a year (roughly 32 pages each). Howes seconded the motion. In subsequent discussion of the motion, Tobochnik suggested that the Executive Board agree to review the PER publication at some future time and in the interim a serious study should be done to define options for publishing these articles. Based on his discussions with Joe Redish, he believes that members of the PER community feel the 64 pages will not be large enough to accommodate future PER publications. He also requested that the five-year review of the AJP and the review of the PER publication be treated as individual issues. The motion passed with 10 yes and one no.
Discussion followed concerning the cost of publishing the PER Supplement. The Board members asked Khoury to alert them should he sense a growth in the number of PER publications that could not be accommodated by the 64-page allocation within the AJP. S. Iona contributed that since the PER community had never developed a business plan supporting the publication of the PER articles that the Board should conduct a study to address this issue. Holbrow then proposed that the AAPT might want to establish a pilot electronic program in anticipation of the growth of PER
The revised High School Guidelines had undergone substantial changes from the previously submitted document and reviewers of the new document recommended its publication. Therefore, the Publications Committee recommended that the Board authorize the publication of the revised High School Guidelines, allowing for minor editorial corrections. J. Nelson expressed some concerns regarding the quality of the document in its current form. For example, he expressed that the list of periodicals should be updated and the statements regarding school administrators should be rephrased. He clarified that he was not questioning the content of the document nor the target audience, but felt that some changes should be made and he did not know if these constituted minor editorial changes. F. Peterson moved to table the motion until the April Board meeting allowing members of the Executive Board time to review the document. Iona seconded the motion. The motion passed with 10 yes and 1 no vote.
The Publications Committee recommended that the Executive Board authorize the publication of the revised brochure, “Planning for Graduate Studies in Physics and Related Fields”. The revision was prepared by Dennis Henry and brought to the Publications Committee for its consideration by B. Khoury. The AAPT staff had requested feedback on the material from the Graduate Study Committee but had not received any response. During the revision process, Richard Jacob and Ken Krane, past members of the graduate study committee, reviewed the brochure. Khoury reviewed the submitted brochure and felt that it was ready for publication following some minor changes, primarily editorial, to be incorporated by Henry. Upon request from Monroe, Roger Stuewer reviewed the document and his comments paralleled those of Khoury’s. The motion passed unanimously.
As information items, Monroe reported on the status of the revised Resource Kit for New Teachers and The Tiger and the Physicist by Robert Bauman. Monroe reported that the Publications Committee has delayed the publication of the Resource Kit for New Teachers. Three AAPT members, with input from the high school editors, will be appointed by Monroe to help redesign the philosophical focus of the document. Nelson commented that the first Resource Kit was developed to help the new teacher through his/her first month and added that evidently the vision was now different. Iona suggested that a major electronic component of this resource kit should be put on the web making it more accessible to teachers.
Upon authorization from the Pubs Committee, Monroe reported that she had talked with Bob Bauman concerning his submitted manuscript and he had accepted the committee’s recommendation to work with an editor to enhance the market appeal of the book.
Iona noted that the product in the Publications Report, prepared by Sina Kniseley, which sold the most copies and brought in the most money was Used Math by Cliff Swarz.
29. Report from Section Representatives.
Iona reported that there are still very strong feelings among the Section Representatives concerning the printing of abstracts separate from the Announcer and the increased electronic availability of Announcer. In addition he and other Section Representatives were disappointed that the representative from Alberta had not been asked to make a presentation to Council as had the representative California concerning the selection of a site for the Summer 2004 AAPT meeting. He requested that Alberta be given a rationale why the AAPT decided to go to Cal State instead of Alberta.
30. Lotze Scholarship Committee Report.
L. Adair reported that there were 36 applications for the Lotze Scholarship this year. The Committee requested that the Board approve the one scholarship award to Christine Marie Litoborski. The Committee also requested that the AAPT give the seven Honorable Mention recipients free one-year membership to the Association (each $22 with TPT). The Board approved the request with a unanimous vote. Honorable Mention recipients are Ryan C. Atkins, Ashley Jill Atkerson, Gerard J. Jennings, Ian Edward Marino Rausei, Matthew R. Parlee, Lisa Johnson, and Kevin Christopher Daum.
Members of the Lotze Scholarship Committee for the coming year will be Ed Neuenschwander, Mary Fehrs, John Lewis, Debbie Rice, and Chuck Robertson. Maria Elena Khoury added that Barbara Lotze had attended the meeting as well and that Barbara was very pleased with the recipients for the scholarship. She plans to increase the endowment enabling the gift of two $2000 scholarships. Conversations are occurring now with the Treasurer.
31. Awards Committee.
R. Howes reported that the Awards Committee had identified winners for the Undergraduate and Pre College Teaching Excellence Awards, the Millikan Award and the Klopsteg Award. The current president was in the process of notifying the recipients of their selection.
32. Investment Advisory Committee.
Dickison reported that the Investment Advisory Committee is currently discussing the possibility of changing investments and obtaining a more managed portfolio. The incoming Treasurer will necessarily need to appoint two new members to replace Sandra Harpole and Leonard Jossem, whose terms end in January. There was no specific action or discussion to bring to the Board at the present time.
In subsequent discussion of the Current Investment Schedule included in the Board Packet (Item IIB), F. Peterson asked if money were moved out of the CD’s. Dickison explained that the AAPT was slowly cashing in some of its many $100K CD’s. Some of these funds were moved into the Operating Fund and some other funds were converted to other liquid investments. In addition, Dickison pointed out that some money was moved from the short term to the long-term investments, but the Executive Board had to authorize money moved from the long-term reserves. He added that the AAPT did not realize income from the mutual funds. Peterson then asked if the report could be designed to show losses from and additions to accounts while differentiating between the shifting of monies and losses and gains realized. Hein contributed that the purpose of the Summary was to report the location of the money at one moment, not to track the movement of the money.
33. Ninth Grade Physics Activities.
Khoury summarized activities in which the AAPT had been involved regarding ninth grade physics. He reported that he and Chiaverina attended the November workshop organized by Leon Lederman for teachers of physics before the twelfth grade level. The workshop was lively and reaffirmed that “physics for all” and “physics first” were attracting a lot of attention. In addition Khoury expressed that it would be valuable to get written statements from each of the participating teachers regarding how they were teaching their students, what problems they encountered, and what solutions they devised. The workshop was the first in a series of workshops that Lederman is organizing for the April NSTA meeting in San Diego.
Upon request from the Board in October 2001, Khoury prepared a written statement for the Winter 2001 issue of the Announcer explaining that while the AAPT supports teaching physics to all students, the Association does not have a policy statement regarding ninth grade physics. However, the AAPT does view teaching physics in the ninth grade as an important experiment and believes the results need to be monitored and evaluated. A related commentary prepared by the President, John Hubisz, was included in the same issue.
In response to discussion by the Board in its October 2001 meeting, Chiaverina, Holbrow, Hubisz and Khoury prepared a draft resolution concerning teaching physics early in the high school. Copies of the resolution were distributed among the Board members. Holbrow, in discussion of the resolution, expressed that he felt that the “physics early” (meaning teaching physics to students before their twelfth grade) movement carries some real potential to help the AAPT carry its goal of “physics for all”. He reminded the Board that some folks in San Diego had inaccurately accused the Association of promoting physics early so as to improve the market for the AAPT product, Active Physics. In an effort to convey to the physics teacher community that the AAPT realizes that there is a very serious problem regarding teacher preparation, the resolution defines the criteria that the physics early programs should contain and some specific goals that the Association could address during the next year.
In subsequent discussion of the resolution, Nelson remarked that the resolution should be more explicit regarding the level of physics targeted. Tobochnik expressed that he did not get a sense that the AAPT was promoting anything about the course other than it should help biology and chemistry. He also expressed that the resolution should provide more guidance regarding what the course should cover or have as content. Iona stated that the document does beg the argument, “What is appropriate and what is cognitive development?”
34. Reports from Area Committees.
The Board members presented reports concerning discussion and action within meetings of the area committees they attended. Resulting Board action and highlights from some of these reports are given below.
K. Mamola reported that the Apparatus Committee anticipated bringing a proposal to the Board concerning the new apparatus competition among commercial vendors.
The History Committee specifically asked Dickison to report their concern regarding the publication of paper abstracts separate from the Announcer to the Executive Board.
Following a short discussion, the Board acted on the motion from the International Committee that the AAPT endorse the development of the InterAmerican Conference to be held in Cuba in 2003. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board then considered the motion from the International Committee to subsidize travel of the AAPT members up to $1500 to the meeting of the planning committee of the InterAmerican Conference scheduled for April 2002 in Cuba. Khoury will work out the details with the AAPT appointments to the conference committee. The motion passed unanimously.
In additional action brought to the Board from the International Committee, Juan Burciaga asked if the National Society of Hispanic Physicists could meet jointly with the AAPT during the 2003 Winter Meeting scheduled for Austin, Texas. The motion passed unanimously to honor this request.
It was also reported that Gordon Albrecht had volunteered to set up an international website. In response, Board members advised that Albrecht should talk with Hein concerning his offer. Holbrow pointed out that the proposed website constituted an AAPT publication and would therefore need review and appropriate criteria would need to be defined. Hein suggested that the new website management system might address this interest from the international committee.
The Committee on Laboratories endorsed Dick Peterson’s tentative proposal for an AAPT conference on advanced laboratories.
The Minorities Committee reported that they wanted to continue hosting the multicultural luncheon.
The Two-Year College Committee requested that the revised TYC Guidelines be mailed to community college presidents as was done in the past.
35. Staff Request to Purchase Laptop.
B. Khoury asked the Board to allocate up to $2000 to purchase a laptop for the Treasurer to facilitate the preparation of spreadsheets and other financial documents, particularly during meetings away from the national AAPT office. The Board expressed support for the purchase and clarified that this action did not require Board authorization.
36. Review of the Meeting.
Khoury reported that there had been good representation from the press during meeting, including the New York Times. The final head count for the meeting was 1153. He also reported that he had had conversations with Gerry Wheeler concerning a repeat of an AAPT Day at a NSTA meeting.
37. High School Course Content Booklet.
Khoury reported that he had received a letter from the High School Committee asking for money from the AAPT to convene a meeting of five teachers to reexamine the course content booklet and to begin revisions aligning the document with the national standards. The Board members agreed to delay discussion and action on this request until the April Board meeting.
Dickison, reflecting on the actions taken by the Board in Philadelphia, expressed concern that a lot was money was being spent, some with little discussion and some requests for money were granted without written documents to explain how the money would be spent. He advised the members to exercise caution.
Hubisz called the Board into Executive Session II (with B. Khoury).
Following Executive Session II, Hubisz adjourned the meeting.
Mary Beth Monroe, Secretary