Well, the AMS has responded to our Essay! Those of you who have received the June 1995 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society should take note of two items:
1. On p. 1084, it appears that the auditors are now satisfied with the policies of the AMS regarding the "...accounting for depreciation for improvements and equipment to comply with SFAS No. 93 as amended by SFAS No. 99 effective as of January 1, 1994 ..." What all this means apparently is that the AMS has finally seen fit to make an open accounting regarding their capital assets, apart from their historically significant land and building. This change we applaud, and we hope that is the end of this questionable practice, which we called attention to in our essay.
2. On p. 1023, the following item appeared:
13. Internet Posting by Members
The Executive Director called the attention of the Council to the fact that two members had just posted on the Internet a document critical of Society conference costs, investment of "profits," accounting practices, and decision making. Copies of the document, which were discussed by the Executive Committee, were distributed and Council discussion was initiated. The Council agreed with the Executive Committee's conclusions that there were significant communication problems, not substantive shortcomings, and that it was necessary to work on ways of increasing communication, through the Bulletin, of issues related to policy direction and financial health of the Society.
We wonder who the "two members" were! Well, it certainly appears that there was a communications problem. We were both conspicuous by our presence at the Annual Meeting in Dallas (handing out copies of the "document" to anyone willing to look at it) and no one from either the Executive Committee or the Executive Council saw fit to convey to either of us anything about the "Council discussion." This "communication through the Bulletin" is the first response we've had to our essay. We definitely agree that this represents a failure to communicate; perhaps AMS management forgot who posted the document?
Of course, the fact that the Council agreed with the Executive Committee should come as no surprise to anyone! Moreover, simply asserting that there were and are no "substantive shortcomings" does not make it a valid assessment of the situation, irrespective of who agreed to what. We continue to believe that the needs and interests of the membership as a whole are not necessarily the consuming passion of AMS management. The Council minutes are not holy writ and do not constitute proof of the absence of "substantive shortcomings." Nor do we accept that some form of "increased communication" through the Bulletin is the way to solve the issues that we have raised in our essay. It's a shame that the AMS management has taken this imperious stance, although it's perhaps understandable that they might feel a bit defensive.
We note that on p. 1022 of the June 1995 issue of the Bulletin, the notion of increasing the dues was raised and then tabled. We continue to believe that as long as the contribution to the Society budget from membership dues declines as a percentage of the overall budget, the Society management will continue to be relatively unresponsive to the members. Often, the only recourse to dissatisfaction with the Society is to drop out. As it currently stands, if everyone dropped out of the Society, this would have only a modest impact on the Society budget. If you think anyone cares whether you drop out, mull these facts over: in 1994, out of an income of $6,861,037.85, the dues income was only $352,992.50, or just over 5% of the income. The year's annual "excess of income over expenses" (profit) would have covered a loss of more than three-quarters of the member dues! There can be no doubt that increasing dues would generate some modest pain on the membership, but we believe that an increasing responsiveness to member concerns would be worth that relatively modest pain, which could be specifically put on the professional part of the membership most able to pay and not impose any additional burden on students or others unable to absorb the increased cost. We personally would be willing to pay twice the current dues, if we could obtain a more responsive Society management in the bargain.
The lion's share of our annual renewals is associated with journal subscriptions, anyway, which also continue to be an artificial bargain, in our opinion. We would not be particularly opposed to increased costs for individual journal subscriptions, especially if the institutional costs could be managed in the process. At present, the inflated institutional costs for journal subscriptions are resulting in reducing the breadth of research institutional libraries, which otherwise allow even the poorest students to have ready access to journals. Why not make individual professionals bear a larger proportion of the journal costs than at present? Research institutions (especially Federal and academic ones) no longer have the "deep pockets" they once had, and this causes an erosion of the resources available for research.
We have waited patiently for the AMS management to respond. They have responded, in the manner of their choice. Given the nature of their response, it seems we have relatively little choice but to answer them. Now comes the part where we are going to ask you to respond. We would like to propose some constitutional amendments and, therefore, we are interested in your reactions to our proposals. If you wish to offer comments, suggestions, encouragement, or whatever, please take advantage of the e-mail response form we are including with this. Remember that it only takes 50 signatures on a petition to get amendments added to the annual ballot, so even if you only wish to vote "yea" or "nay," it would be of considerable use to us to get your reactions. Including your comments would be even better, though. We have no desire to act against the wishes of the majority of the Society members ... but this is a chance for you to take back control of your Society, if you wish to have that control. Please tell us what you think! Of course, if you wish to voice your opinion directly to the Society as well, you are encouraged to do so, even if you disagree with us. The following amendments have not been written in "legalese" and are only intended as rough guidelines of intent.
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution:
1. If there is an excess of income over expenses in any given year, the Council is charged with developing an plan for disposition of this excess and submitting it to the membership, specifically seeking additional suggestions for what might be the most satisfactory way of dealing with this excess. The excess of income over expenses would not include any interest and dividend income needed to offset any deficiencies of general fund receipts over income. Any final plan would have to be approved by a simple majority vote among the membership as a whole.
2. For each conference sponsored by the Society, for which the Society handles the financial aspects, the Society is required to submit a separate final accounting to be published in the Bulletin, detailing what income and expenses were generated by that conference, and that conference alone. This would include any income and expenses from workshops and any other Society-sponsored activities during that conference, and any travel and lodging costs associated with the conference that are covered by the Society. Contracts signed by the Society on behalf of conferences should be available for inspection upon request of any Society member.
Charles A. Doswell III doswell@nssl.noaa.gov
Harold E. Brooks brooks@nssl.noaa.gov