A Report by
Chuck Doswell
on my activities as a
Councilor of the
Last update: 28 October 1997 What's new? I've added some AMS links of interest.
Disclaimer: Everything contained herein is
associated with me personally, and has no connection with my employer
[NOAA/ERL/NSSL] or with the AMS. That is, these are my personal
observations, opinions, and recommendations and have no official
standing or sanction. If you are offended or bothered by any part of
this, take it up with me,
not with either my organization or the AMS.
If you've not seen them before, I have other writings concerning
the AMS at this Website. Please consult my
campaign
statement for some of this, with links to other pages with more
AMS-relevant pages.
My election to the
Council -
and yours?
It might be of some interest to AMS members to understand the
process by which I came to be elected to the Council. Assuming you
have read my campaign statement (link provided above) and related
materials, you will realize that I, like many other AMS members, have
been unhappy with certain aspects of AMS operations. Although my
input cannot be said to represent all the members of the AMS, the
feedback I have received (during the several years since
Harold Brooks and I
first became aware of some of the unsettling financial operations of
the AMS) has been overwhelmingly supportive. I decided I should run
for Councilor (a 3-year term of office) and carry my concerns (and
those of the people who supported me) directly to the AMS Council.
This would give me a chance to learn more about AMS operations, as
well, so that I could approach the issues as someone who has seen the
AMS system in operation, and carry some of that information back to
the membership.
I began simply by contacting the AMS (Dr. Hallgren) regarding how
I would go about being nominated. As some of you may know, the AMS
has a Nominating Committee for such things. The current Nominating
Committee members are [see the August 1997 issue of the Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc. -- sometimes called the "Bull. of the AMS"
:-)]:
- Kenneth C. Crawford, Chair
- Robert L. Gall
- James E. Hoke
- Paola Malanotte-Rizzoli
- James R. Mahoney
- Soroosh Sorooshian
These folks work together with the Executive Committee:
to produce the ballot you are now receiving (mid-October 1997).
When I inquired about serving on the Council, of course, these
committees had different membership. My request apparently was passed
on to Dr. Bonner (then Chair of the Nominating Committee), who told
me that I needed to obtain letters of recommendation to be considered
for entry on the ballot for the Council. I obtained the needed
letters from two reasonably well-respected local meteorologists
(names available on request, to protect their privacy) and, some
months later, I was informed by Dr. Hallgren via a phone call that my
name had been approved for the ballot. I don't recall his specific
words, but I'm sure my candidacy was discussed by the Nominating
Committee, which led to them recommending my candidacy to the
Executive Committee, who presumably approved it. It is not yet clear
to me that the Council itself approves the list of candidates for the
Council, but as I read the Constitution and By-Laws [see below], we
do. Presumably, this will be done by mail ballot but I have not
served long enough yet to validate this.
Just for the record, I made it clear to as many of my colleagues
as possible what my intentions were in running for the Council.
Apparently, there was some support base for my disaffections, as I
turned out to be the top vote-getter in the Council election! I
believe that if you make your goals known, and there is general
agreement on those goals, you stand a good chance of being elected.
More on this later.
According to the Constitution (Article VI):
1. The Council shall arrange for the nomination of
candidates for each elective office and Council position to be
filled.
Nominations also may be made by petition signed by at least 50
members eligible to vote on the preceding 1 May, provided the
petition is received by the Secretary-Treasurer together with the
written consent of the nominee no later than 1 September.
...other sections of Article VI deleted. In Article VII.2, the
Constitution goes on to say:
2. Five Councilors shall be elected each year for
a term of three years. Four of said Councilors shall be elected by
members eligible to vote in accordance with the procedure set forth
in Article VI of the Constitution. One of said Councilors shall be
elected by the Council of the Society by the majority vote of the
membership of the Council eligible to vote or by mail ballot by an
affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the entire Council
eligible to vote. The ballot shall be mailed to each member of the
Council by the Secretary-Treasurer and, to be counted, shall be
returned to the Secretary-Treasurer not later than 30 days after the
ballot was mailed. The term of office shall commence upon adjournment
of the Annual Meeting and shall end when his or her successor takes
office.
I'm assuming that the mail ballot of the Council regarding the
5th annual Council member rarely, if ever, takes place. The By-Laws
(Article I.5) also state:
5. The Council shall arrange for the nomination of
candidates for each elective office and Council position to be
filled. A report of the recommended slate shall be submitted by 1 May
of each year to the Secretary-Treasurer for transmittal to the
Executive Committee for its approval. The Secretary-Treasurer shall
then give the report, not later than 15 July, to all members eligible
to vote.
See the Organizational issue of the Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc. (usually the August issue) for more complete contents of the
Constitution and By-Laws. The wording here is rather vague - what
precisely does "arrange" mean? It appears to me that the way things
really work is some sort of interaction between the Nominating
Committee and the Executive Committee. Does giving the report to the
Council members eligible to vote then mean that we vote on it? I'm
not entirely certain of this. Presumably, I will find out by next
July.
To my knowledge, volunteers for service on the Council are pretty
rare; most Council candidates are contacted by the AMS and asked if
they are willing to run. My case at least suggests that some sort of
procedure is in place to deal with volunteers, outside of the typical
procedure of asking for volunteers or the apparently
rarely-used method of nomination by petition. Thus, I assume that
anyone could do what I have done and have some reasonable
chance of being put on the ballot, apparently subject to the approval
of the Nominating and Executive Committees, naturally. Obviously, it
would be something that would please me if someone seriously
interested in changing things would volunteer for service on the
Council. My reason for being pleased with "activist" folks taking
such a course of action will become apparent, below.
In view of all that I have been saying, I guess I find the current
process of election to the Council to be rather bland. The current
process certainly doesn't suggest to the members what is really at
stake when considering for whom to vote. At the very least, I would
like to have nominees to the Council provide some sort of statement
about their intentions regarding their service on the Council. What
sorts of issues do they wish the Council (and the membership) to
consider? Why should the members elect them? Presumably, election
would then put some onus on the new Council members to live up to
their campaign promises. The current biographical summaries are
boring (at best) and perhaps might be more apropos to a purely
scientific society than one seeking to be a truly
professional society. To my knowledge, my Web-based "campaign
statement" was a first, sadly. In future AMS elections, it would be
nice to know what we are voting for, besides a
condensed biography!
The Council - as of September 1997
The Council consists of (see Article VII.1 of the Constitution):
- The officers of the AMS (Pres., Pres.-Elect, Ex. Dir.,
Sec.-Treas.; see above for e-mails)
- Past presidents: Paul D. Try and David D. Houghton*
[e-mails: see above]
- Councilors:
The asterisk (*) denotes Council Members not in attendance
at this meeting.
Thus, there are 21 members on the Council (four AMS officers, two
past presidents, and 15 Councilors). The Executive Director and the
Secretary-Treasurer are appointed by the Council (Article IX
of the Constitution), not elected by the membership as a whole; they
are ex officio members of the Council, not eligible to vote.
Therefore, there are 19 voting members, and so a two-thirds majority
is 13 members if all voting members are present at a meeting. A
quorum is a simple majority (10) of the voting members.
My First AMS Council Meeting - Impressions
My trip to the AMS September Council Meeting (held at
AMS Headquarters on 18-19 September 1997)
included a number of impressions. In what follows, no one should
interpret these impressions as constituting the official minutes
(which were taken by the Council's "parliamentarian" and Chair of the
Investments Committee, Werner A. Baum) from the Council Meeting.
A bare quorum was present by the end of the second day, as
Councilors Avery and Curry had to leave before the end of the
meeting. Also attending for the purpose of making presentations to
the Council (but not eligible to vote) were various Commissioners (in
this case, the STAC Commissioner, the Publications Commissioner, the
Planning Commissioner, and the Head of the Board of Meteorological
and Oceanographic Education in Universities). The minutes will appear
in a future issue (likely in January 1998) of the Bull. Amer.
Meteor. Soc, suitably sterilized for publication. I actually
recommend that you read these minutes. There is information in
them, but you can be sure that some of the entries are not so brief
as they appear in the minutes! I will state right now that there will
be aspects of some of the discussions that (rightfully) will
not be in the minutes and will not appear here, either.
An assortment of impressions follows, in no particular order;
- I was told that a major function of the Executive Committee is
to "make things easier" for the Council. This is an interesting
perspective that might well be the belief of the Executive
Committee members. I reserve the right to assess the validity of
this statement at some future date.
- Before the meeting even started, I was informed brusquely by
the Chair, who did not address the remark specifically at me even
though I believe I was the intended recipient, that the Council is
not a "rubber stamp" for the recommendations of the
Executive Committee. After having sat through one Council meeting,
I am ready to agree with that statement, much to my surprise. On
some issues, there was much discussion, not all of which was in
accord with the Executive Committee's wishes. Two examples come to
mind:
#1. A new name for Monthly Weather
Review: It was made clear by the [outgoing] Publications
Commissioner, Dr. Joanne Simpson, that sentiments expressed in a
flood of e-mail and snail-mail correspondence were overwhelmingly
against the changing of the name of Monthly Weather Review.
The Council approved releasing Dr. Simpson from her obligation to
seek a new name. I do not know the history of this situation, but it
was apparent that Dr. Simpson previously had been charged to change
the name. I am happy to see this outcome, by the way. I hope this is
the last we shall hear of it!
#2. A recommendation to come from the Council to the STAC
Committees that every third "specialty area" meeting be held in
conjunction with the Annual Meeting. The Council was
overwhelmingly opposed to making such a recommendation to the various
STAC Committees, leaving it up to the AMS to try persuasion in
their goal to have some specialty meetings coincide with the Annual
Meeting. This topic was tabled. Again, I am quite in agreement with
this outcome, and hope it will not arise again.
On this basis alone, then, I conclude that the Council is indeed a
viable opportunity for individuals to make a difference in the
operation of the AMS. More on this later.
- There was considerable discussion of the situation regarding
conferences during the
STAC
Commissioner's Report (Richard D. Rosen). Many of the members felt
that conferences were not very satisfactory when they included
large numbers of papers, forcing such things as parallel sessions,
very short oral presentations, abbreviated preprint papers, and so
forth. A number of interesting suggestions were put forward, but I
felt the most important thing we can do for the various conference
program chairs is to inform them of their options (probably
via a Website), and to urge them to be innovative. Let's try
different things and see how they work out! If it is felt that
something works, it should be included in the list of options.
Most conference program chairs are serving for the first time, and
have only previous conferences as models of how to run things. In
the absence of an awareness of the options, conferences tend to
fall back on old formats, even though most participants are
unhappy with them. When I mentioned that, as a program co-chair
for the 1990 Severe Storms Conference, we had been pressured by
the AMS to not reject any papers, there was considerable angst
over the notion. I was informed that there is no such policy in
the AMS ... nevertheless, I stand by what I said: we were
pressured not to reject papers by the AMS (Evelyn Mazur)! I
understand that rejecting a paper potentially can prevent a
presenter from attending, since many funding agencies do not
support someone's attendance at a conference unless they are
presenting a paper. However, I do not believe it is always
inappropriate to reject papers. It is a valid option for the
conference program committee and there should be no pressure
(unofficial though it might be) by the AMS to prevent the program
committees from exercising their choices for their conferences. In
my view, the conferences are by and for the STAC committees, and
the AMS should facilitate the wishes of the program
committees, not oppose those wishes.
It's my impression that the AMS and the membership are still
pretty far apart on many issues related to the conferences. As
noted in some of my earlier writings (links can be found in my
campaign
statement), it is not at all clear that registration costs
(and other financial aspects of the conferences) are satisfactory.
Fixing this is likely to require some pretty strong actions on the
part of the members to make their feelings and intentions
absolutely clear to the AMS. At the very least, I urge the members
to communicate their concerns to the AMS via their favorite
representative (above) and to take whatever actions they feel are
necessary to make it clear that they are not satisfied with the
status quo.
- I was informed that full financial disclosure for
individual conferences is coming! I was not told when or in what
form, nor was I provided any details about the precise nature of
this disclosure. I am willing to wait until the January meeting of
the Council (at the Annual Meeting), to see what they are
proposing. If I don't hear anything by then, I will act
accordingly.
- There was considerable time [mostly on the second day] devoted
to the
"10-year
Vision" statement that is being prepared under the direction
of Prof. Charles Hosler (Chair of the Planning Commission). This
is an attempt by the AMS to decide what sort of organization they
want to be in 10 years. As noted by Prof. Hosler "Plans are
worthless, but the planning is priceless." I concur with this
notion; it is unlikely that any vision we have of what our
profession is going to look like in 10 years will turn out to be
correct in all aspects. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to consider
trends as we now see them and attempt to deal with them
before the Society becomes hopelessly irrelevant. The main
item of concern was stated in terms of the difference between a
"Professional" and a "Scientific" Society. My interpretation: the
latter is solely concerned with purely scientific issues
(journals, books, scientific conferences, etc.), while the former
attempts to serve operational practitioners of all sorts, as well
as research scientists. The clear consensus during the discussion
is that the Council favors developing the AMS as a
professional society, embracing the growth of professional
applications of meteorological science. There will be a session
open for audience participation on this topic at the Annual
Meeting. Presumably, this "Vision Statement" will be finalized
within the next year or so. Get your input to the AMS via your
favorite AMS representative or
the AMS
homepage (see above).
- Another interesting topic was the issue of AMS "lobbying" on
behalf of the profession of meteorology. Apparently, the IRS does
not smile upon "lobbying" by non-profit organizations. It seems
that there are some pretty heavy-handed rules about what the AMS
can and cannot do in terms of promoting our science in the halls
of Congress and elsewhere in the political arena. It is
permissible to provide information, but putting pressure on
members of Congress to vote for/against specific bills is
apparently forbidden. Dr. Hallgren says he is doing whatever he
can, on his own recognizance. I suggest that members wishing to
offer their views on this topic should send e-mail to Dr. Hallgren
directly [see above] or use the AMS homepage.
- I was curious about the "constituencies" associated with the
Councilors. Since we are not elected by specific regional or topic
area constituencies, so I was curious about the Executive
Committee's view of whom we individual Councilors represent. What
I was told ended up being rather vague ... basically, I was told
that I represent the folks who elected me! Since I do not know
(and have no way of knowing) the demographics of the members who
voted for me, I guess it is up to me to guess who they
might be. For the moment, I am going to assume that I represent
the members who have grave concerns for how the AMS operates, and
try to act accordingly.
- The appointed member of the Council is chosen to
represent "under-represented" minorities within the AMS. Thus,
unlike the elected members, these members actually have a formal
constituency [see above]. This somewhat odd way to go about making
up the Council apparently has a long enough tradition to have been
enshrined in the Constitution. Apparently, the tradition includes
nominating replacements for the three appointed Council members
from the same constituencies every time. How this nomination
process might take place, I have no clue. As a Council member, we
are presented with a recommendation, and have precious little
information upon which a negative vote might be justified. It
certainly does not appear that the nominations are arrived
at via some democratic process from among the respective
constituencies (I now have forgotten what those constituencies
are!).
- As noted earlier, I no longer believe the Council to be simply
a "rubber stamp" for the wishes of the Executive Committee. This
is a good thing, and my reading of the current Council membership
is that there is a reasonably healthy diversity of views, some
pretty feisty members who are not afraid to express their views,
and an opportunity to have an impact on the Society. This is a
somewhat comforting finding, and I want to urge all the members to
consider seriously their roles in AMS operations. If you are not
willing to get involved, to learn about what is being done, to
help change what is being done if that is what is needed ... i.e.,
to accept some responsibility for how the AMS operates ... then I
hope I will not have to listen to your complaints about how the
AMS is failing you! I believe that another place to be involved is
in the various
STAC
committees ... if you want to become an involved member
of a STAC committee in the future, contact the committee (either
the chair or someone on the committee). The committees seek new
members every year to replace old members rotating off the
committees, and if you don't get asked to serve this year, keep
volunteering! Service can also involve being on the program or
local arrangements committees for a particular STAC conference.
There are many ways to serve [see the next item] and if you choose
to avoid the inconvenience of service or if you serve but choose
to contribute little or nothing in the process, please also choose
to hold off on your griping about the AMS! You'll get no sympathy
from me, anyway.
- Much of the agenda at a Council meeting is focused on
approving the recommendations of the various committees. Thus,
when the Council does not approve a recommendation, they are in
effect going against the wishes of at least a majority of the
membership (mostly volunteers) of the committee that voted in
favor of the recommendation. I found myself very loathe to take
issue with the volunteers serving on the committees unless there
was a very good reason. It is intriguing to me how this works ...
most contrariness on the part of the Council is thereby directed
at the volunteering members, not the Executive Committee (or
whomever). I believe, therefore, that the service that members
render on the various committees is very important. Such service
can be a vehicle for change, at least within the relatively narrow
confines of a particular committee's responsibility. If you agree
to serve, then do not do so without actually having something you
want to accomplish during your tenure. I have been on the Severe
Storms STAC committee twice, and both times I was depressed to see
that several members contributed little or nothing, even when
given the chance. If all you want to do is pad your "curriculum
vitae" (CV), then do us all a favor and pad it some other way,
please. Don't take up space on a committee when someone who wants
to achieve something is thereby being barred from service.
- I was somewhat frustrated with the volume of material
we were expected to go over before arriving at the Council
meeting, especially given that we received it about 10 days before
the meeting! Many of the topics of discussion revolved around
specialty areas where my knowledge base upon which I might base a
negative vote against the recommendations was limited. To this
extent, we did become something of a "rubber stamp" ... if
I did not know very much about the topics and people discussed (as
was often the case), there certainly would be no basis for going
against a committee's recommendations. CV's are not always a very
useful way to illuminate someone's qualifications for an award,
especially when the nominees are way outside my own arenas. I
believe that the process for bringing recommendations to the
Council for awards approval should include presentations with
something more substantial than a packet containing a CV for the
nominee. I also believe the whole awards procedure should get some
re-consideration.
- Speaking of the agenda at the Council meeting, I am somewhat
depressed to see how little control over the agenda the Council
members have. This may be a result of inadequate effort by the
Council members ... it remains to be seen how many items I can put
onto the Council agenda. The agenda itself is pretty voluminous,
and it took a huge effort to plow through it all, so there was a
lot of debate that got choked off in the interest of time. One
item I am going to consider is the process of setting the agenda
itself. It seems to me that many items could be handled outside of
the formal confines of a Council meeting ... I admit that more
substance was covered than I imagined, but there also was a lot of
more or less "routine" business that could have been omitted, in
my opinion. Time will tell, but I believe that the Council should
take more responsibility for setting its own agenda, and not
simply accepting the agenda served up [at the last minute]
by the Executive Committee [see the item after next].
- Just for the record, I want to remind all AMS members of the
contents of AMS Constitution, Article XIII:
1. No part of the Constitution shall be amended or annulled
except by mail ballot in the following manner: A proposed
amendment shall be approved by the Council or submitted to the
Secretary-Treasurer in a petition signed by at least 50 members
eligible to vote on the preceding 1 May. The proposed amendment,
with the reasons therefor, shall be published in the official
organ of the Society [ Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc.] at least 90 days before the ballots for the
amendment are mailed.
2. A proposed amendment, accompanied by a ballot, shall be
mailed by the Secretary-Treasurer to each member eligible to vote
at least 60 days prior to the date the ballots are to be counted.
The ballots to be counted must be received by the
Secretary-Treasurer not later than 60 days after they are
mailed.
3. The adoption of a proposed amendment shall require the
affirmative votes of at least two-thirds of all members
voting.
and of the Bylaws, Article VIII:
No part of the Bylaws shall be amended except in
the following manner: a proposed amendment shall be submitted to each
member of the Council for his or her notice and comment at least
thirty (30) days before the Council meeting at which a vote on the
proposed amendment is to be taken. After notice is given, the
proposed amendment must be approved by a vote of the Council of at
least two-thirds of the Council members eligible to vote.
I am providing this as a response to members who wish to affect
change in the operation of the AMS. If all else fails, a proposed
amendment to the Constitution or Bylaws is possible. Please see the
organizational issue of the Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. for the
complete contents of the Constitution and Bylaws. You should
read them sometime!
- It's my belief that newly-elected Council members are not
given much information about how the Council works, what to
expect, or how to go about achieving something of import while on
the Council. My putting this information out on the Web is one way
to overcome this, so that newly-elected members have some
idea of what is coming. I also believe that in this electronic
age, Council members should be prepared to have considerable
discussion via e-mail in the lengthy period between the Annual
Meeting and the September Council Meeting ... the only two formal
meetings of the Council. If the Council is to live up to its
Constitutional mandate ... please read the Constitution!
... it is absurd to expect all of that to take place in the total
of about two working days per year of formal Council meeting time.
- A search is ongoing to replace Dr. Hallgren as Executive
Director. The importance of this position to the membership cannot
be overstated. I urge AMS members to consider whom they wish to
fill this very important position and to make their feelings known
to the AMS, perhaps to Dr. Hallgren directly [see above for
e-mail], to the Search Committee:
- Dr. Susan Avery, Chair, U. of Colorado [see above for e-mail]
- Dr. Robert Brammer, Applied Sciences Corporation
- Dr. Bradley Colman, NOAA/NWS [see above for e-mail]
- Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA/GFDL
- Dr. John Snow, U. of Oklahoma
or via the
AMS homepage.
- Boston is a terrific city, but it's tough to navigate in, if
you're driving and have never been there. Bring a detailed map and
get clear instructions ... and be prepared for a mess, anyway.
Construction is an awful problem and parking is tough. I left my
rental car at the hotel! I had an awful time finding the hotel
coming in from the northern side of town on the interstate. The
hotel is reasonably close to AMS Headquarters and there is a nice
coffee shop on the corner of Beacon Street after crossing the
Boston Commons area, headed toward AMS Headquarters. For supper at
the end of the first day's meeting, we went to a very nice place
with a great view of the Boston
Skyline. [Commercial names omitted to avoid giving endorsements!]
- I am very concerned that the image of the AMS is one of an
oligarchy that is not responsive to the needs and concerns of the
membership. No professional society can function well if a
significant fraction of its members have that impression, rightly
or wrongly. I believe that in this age of the Internet, the Web,
e-mails, etc., there is no excuse for the AMS to allow these
perceptions to continue. The perceptions are a problem,
irrespective of their validity!
Not all the problems that people perceive are real problems.
Many members are unaware of what good things the AMS is doing. How
many members actually read the items about various topics in the
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.? However, I also believe that the
AMS is unaware of the concerns of many members. It's my opinion
that many concerned members feel it is pointless even to
try to change things. If the AMS is to "belong" to the
members (as well as vice-versa), then we need to bridge these
communications gaps. I believe the AMS should pursue electronic
means of interaction (see the
"contacts"
part of the AMS homepage) with the members, as well as their more
traditional surveys, and such. Surveys are tainted by a number of
problems ... such as underrepresented minorities, lack of
responses, questions slanted to give biased results, etc. Although
surveys certainly are worth doing, they should not be the only
tool to canvas the membership. It's my impression that the AMS is
willing to try to respond to many of the gripes people
have, but if they think it's just one or two disgruntled members
griping, then it's easy for them to dismiss it as not a real
problem. Griping to each other is not a useful exercise if we do
not make those disaffections known to the AMS in clear terms.
- Keith Seitter is doing a terrific job developing electronic
journals and so on. He is a creative, innovative person who is
working behind the scenes very hard to create a good environment
for the AMS to participate in electronic publication. Send him an
e-mail sometime and chat
with him about what he is doing. I think you'll be impressed.
- It now appears that the AMS is committed to using their annual
"excess of income over outgo" whenever available, to support
"worthy projects." Now the questions are: What constitutes a
"worthy" project? By what process can members contribute ideas for
consideration as worthy projects? Some examples from the current
budget include supporting exploration of electronic publishing,
funding a Sigma Xi Distinguished Lecturer from the meteorology
community, etc. Perhaps this will be a specific budget item in the
annual financial statement? I believe that members should consider
sending ideas to their favorite AMS representative [see above] or
via the AMS homepage (links above) for consideration. The Council
has ultimate approval authority, it seems. I assume the Executive
committee will screen these ideas and make recommendations for
Council approval. This is not entirely democratic, but it may be a
workable solution, short of changing the Constitution.
- I'm curious about the "free" items that occasionally appear in
our AMS activities. For example, the little canvas bags given out
at the larger conferences. Or the membership directory
"supplement" to the Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. Or the "free"
issue of Weatherwise we received on the 75th Anniversary of
the AMS. How do you members feel about these unapproved "gifts"? I
can assure you that they are not free; we are paying
for them! Recently, Sigma Xi has been developing a membership
directory, and we members have been given the option of receiving
it or not. If we want it, we pay for it. If not, we pay nothing.
Is that closer in spirit to the way you members want to do things?
Pick your favorite AMS input method (above) and let them know what
you think about this.
- Finally, I have an item I want to broach to the members. The
costs of AMS services have been structured in such a way that our
home institutions are bearing by far the majority of the financial
burdens, whereas we members have been relatively protected from
the costs of supporting the AMS. Travel to and from conferences,
conference costs, page charges, institutional subscriptions to
journals, etc. ... all these costs typically are covered by our
employers. These are the costs that have soared in the last 20
years. Individual membership dues, journal subscription
rates, and so on ... items that come from our personal pockets ...
have not seen much increase in the past 20 years. It seems
to me that we professional members (not the
students and others less able to pay!) have off-loaded too much of
the financial burden onto our home institutions. I realize this is
not necessarily going to win me any popularity contests ... but it
seems to me that the AMS might be more responsive to us as
individuals if more of the Society's financial support depended on
our good will!
As it stands, our institutions are providing most of the
financial backing of the AMS ... that money is, effectively,
subtracted from our institutions' financial bases that support the
meteorological science we do. How do you members feel about
increasing your personal financial commitment to the AMS, in
return for increasing the resources available at your institution
in support of your science? How much are you willing to bear in
order to have a greater individual impact on the Society? The
current dues and subscription costs are really artificially low
... how much more might you be able to take on in return for
having a more responsive AMS? I am interested in your responses
... send me an e-mail
and let me know what you think! My impression of the Council's
reactions to these ideas was that they were very reluctant
to inquire about increasing costs to the individual members, as if
they somehow might be threatened by a negative reaction from the
membership.
Thus, on the whole, it appears to me that my first Council meeting
(a) convinced me that the AMS is not the Great Satan, and (b)
convinced the AMS that I am not the Great Satan. This might bode well
for the future. I think I'm going to have fun carrying out the tasks
I committed to in my
campaign
statement. With any luck at all, I can retire from the Council at
the end of my term having set the wheels in motion for most members
to feel that we have "taken back the AMS" in a positive way.
