Some Information and Questions for AMS Members[*]

by

C.A. Doswell III and H.E. Brooks
NOAA/ERL National Severe Storms Laboratory
Norman, Oklahoma

In a recent article in the AMS Bulletin (June, 1994), Professor Fred Sanders made a number of points about the current financial situation of the AMS. In recent years, according to the published financial statements in the Bulletin, the AMS has had a consistent "excess of income over expenditures" (which the AMS refuses to call "profit"). In response, the Bulletin editors claimed that the "Most of the issues presented ... by Professor Sanders are addressed either in the editorial by Warren Washington ... or in the reformatted 'Report of the Auditors'". It is not clear to us that the editorial or the auditor's report really answered most of the issues raised by Professor Sanders. We have been developing a history of the AMS' financial situation (as presented in the annual financial disclosures in the AMS Bulletin) independently of Professor Sanders, and now have it available in spreadsheet form, which we can provide to any member, on request. Based on our assessment of the data, we have a number of questions that we want to pose to interested AMS members.

1. Conference Costs

Registration fees and page charges for conferences have been rising at a rate that exceeds inflation, and certainly exceeds that of the hotels where the conferences are held. As examples, consider the inflation-adjusted costs (base of 1995) of member registration (pre-registration when applicable) and single-occupancy, non-governmental daily room rates (before tax) at the conference hotel for the AMS Annual Meeting and AMS Severe Storms Conference. The basic registration package is used for those years for which the package has been offered. Costs converted to $US for the 5th Workshop on Operational Meteorology of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) to be held in 1995 are included for comparison. (Note that some changes in the AMS costs result from changes in abstract/preprint volume distribution, which were not always described in the Bulletin announcement of the annual meeting.) CMOS costs include a banquet ticket and preprint volume. In contrast to the AMS, there are no page charges for submitting a manuscript to the CMOS Workshop preprints.

What is the reason for this rapid increase in costs, beginning in the mid-1980s? The financial structure of conferences is quite mysterious, and unavailable for inspection; there is no information provided about the disposition of income from conferences, collectively or individually. The AMS claims that most conferences lose money. Which conferences lose and which ones turn a profit? Why do some conferences lose money and others make money, in each case? In the last fiscal year (1993), "Meetings" produced $895,764.91 of income, but there is no way to know how that income was distributed among the different conferences nor is there any information about how it was spent. Would you like to know how conference income is spent, conference by conference? Why do the AMS executives travel to most of the conferences and who foots the bill for their airfare and expenses? How much does their conference attendance cost our society? How are they contributing to the conferences? Recently, there has been a growing emphasis by the AMS on "workshops" at major conferences. These workshops are put on by the members but the AMS collects the workshop fees. Is the income from workshops included in the income from conferences? How much income do these workshops generate? What expenses does the AMS incur from them? What arrangements has the AMS worked out with the hotels, in each case? Are our interests as members being protected in these deals with the hotels?

2. Investment of profits

From our examination of the auditor's reports, it seems that the growing "excess of income over expenditures" (known hereinafter as "profit") is being put into investments that yield a substantial financial reserve for the AMS. At the present time (the 1994 statement re FY 1993), this unencumbered investment reserve (i.e., the "General Fund" of $8,956,909.68) is such that the AMS could continue to operate at present expenditure levels ($6,881,782.13) for about a year and a third with no income at all! In President Warren Washington's editorial (June 1994 AMS Bulletin), he suggests that this is appropriate for "nonprofit organizations." This is not necessarily a valid comparison, since many nonprofit organizations depend on the largess of their members, whereas scientific societies have reliable income generated from dues, conferences, and journal subscriptions. Hence, having one and a half times the yearly operating budget may not seem so appropriate when the proper comparison (to other scientific societies) is made. By way of contrast, the Royal Meteorological Society of England (not exactly a fly-by-night organization characterized by extensive risk-taking) has end-of-1993 investments of £345,776 versus expenditures of £379,431. Therefore, the investment reserve for the RMS is less than one year's worth of expenditures. Is there some unknown compelling reason for the AMS to have this large an investment reserve? In 1993, the interest income to the AMS from these investments ($701,935.48) was more than sufficient (by $525, 156.03) to offset the operating "losses" ($176,779.45). Is there some compelling reason not to spend most of that $525, 156.03 in "profits" on behalf of the AMS membership? What might that reason be, and would you like to know what it is? Could the AMS afford to reduce the conference registration and page charge costs, for example? Could the AMS afford to support students, beyond the $150,000 conceded by the AMS Council according to Professor Sanders, without asking members to contribute to Project ATMOSPHERE?

3. Accounting practices

The AMS did not really answer Professor Sanders' question about the valuation of AMS property. If the auditors are required to include in this qualification in their statement, then they have a legal concern; the statement says, in fact, that this method is contrary to accepted accounting practice, President Warren Washington's reassurances notwithstanding. The effect this has on the financial statement is, according to the auditors' qualification, unknown, but the effect seems to be that expenditures for such assets as office furniture cannot increase the assets of the society; the acquisitions can have no value and only serve to increase expenditures. Hence, it appears that the true "profits" of the AMS may be even larger than those reported. Is the position of the AMS executives on this issue consistent with your feelings about how the society should respond to Professor Sanders' concerns? Have they asked you about your opinion?

4. Decision-making

The AMS now has a substantial permanent staff, but elective officers serve for one year, and councilors for three years. The Council is described in the AMS Constitution as "the principal governing body of the Society." The Executive Committee is the "executive arm of the Council" and is "empowered to interpret and execute Council policies when the Council is not in session." Basically, this suggests that the Executive Committee really runs the AMS, because Council meetings are not frequent (a formal business meeting once a year, and an ad hoc get-together at the AMS annual meeting). Given the relative transience and formal nature of the Council membership (more so for the elective officers of the AMS), policies are dominated by the Society's permanent staff. Is this really the way you want your society to be run? Would you like more say-so about AMS policies? Are you willing to participate in the process rather than abdicating the responsibility to the AMS bureaucracy? Do you think the society's decisions should reflect the needs and interests of its members rather than those of the permanent staff? Are you aware that it only takes the signature of 50 voting members on a petition to introduce AMS Constitutional Amendments onto the mail ballot? We have a few suggested amendments (below) for you to consider, depending on the responsiveness of the AMS to your concerns.

5. Alternatives

We suspect that many of you are unhappy with the AMS for reasons that vary widely, but there is this pervasive sense of helplessness, since the AMS is the "establishment" that one has to deal with in a meteorological career. We believe it is important to consider what a scientific society is, and what its purpose is. Basically, the AMS puts on conferences and symposia, publishes journals, and gives out awards (nominal, as opposed to financial). Its activities outside of these three main areas are not significant: it underwrites little or no research, its support for students is trivial, it has no formal teaching, forecasting, or research capabilities of its own. The members do all the scientific work and support their own teaching, forecasting, and research. The members, in the form of program and local arrangements committees, already do most of the work of putting on a conference. In fact, many of us have put on conferences with no help at all from the AMS, except pro forma recognition (perhaps), and done so at very reasonable costs (less than half the typical AMS conference registration costs, for instance) to the participants. If you as a member wish to take back control of your scientific society and the AMS powers choose not to respond positively, it is possible to do virtually all that the AMS does, but without them! We can put on conferences, recognize scientific contributions, and even publish our own journals in these days of desktop publishing. All that it takes is for most of us to take on some small part of the total responsibility, rather than allowing the AMS bureaucracy to make all our decisions for us. What do you think? How much are you willing to contribute to have a society that reflects your needs and interests and concerns more faithfully than the AMS does at present? The choice is yours!

6. Some ideas for AMS Constitutional Amendments

a. Require the AMS to take any "profit" and use it in ways decided on by the membership, with an annual mail ballot being used to decide among alternatives (submitted by the membership).

b. Require the AMS to conform to standard accounting practices, reporting any asset acquisitions and depreciating them according to standard practice.

c. Require the AMS to report the financial accounting for each conference and symposium individually.

d. Limit the travel and attendance by AMS executives at conferences, especially at non-U.S. locations, unless they are willing to support the travel themselves.

e. your suggestions?

If you want to have the data spreadsheets about the AMS financial reports, or wish to share your reactions, opinions, or ideas, contact either:

Chuck Doswell (cdoswell@gcn.ou.edu), or

Harold Brooks (harold.brooks@noaa.gov; ph: [405] 366-0499), or

National Severe Storms Laboratory

Norman, Oklahoma 73069