The 1997 audited statements are now the official financial statements for the Society for the year 1997 and replace the 1997 unaudited statements.

The 1998 unaudited statements replace the 1998 interim statements presented by Andersen at the 1998 summer Policy Council meeting in Quebéc City, Canada.

In the case of the 2000 conference, Eberlein reported that Paal Davidsen has updated him on preparations for the 2000 conference and is concerned that, since the ex officio conference chair is the President-Elect, and since the President-Elect in 2000 (Ali Mashayekhi from Iran) may not be able to easily participate in preparing the conference program, conference preparations may not run as smoothly as possible. David Andersen suggested that, a way to alleviate the problem is to name David Ford program co-chair. The sentiment of the Council was that this was a good idea.

In the case of the 2001 conference, Eberlein reported that a preliminary proposal to host the conference in Atlanta has been received from Nathan Forrester. Eberlein's initial impression was that the proposed accommodations, at Emory University's Conference Center Hotel, were a little "pricey," but that breakfast and lunch were included in the price. He was also a bit concerned that the Conference Center Hotel was a little far from Atlanta's downtown area, but noted that public transportation to and from the downtown area is good. Lastly he noted that the Conference Center Hotel has "only" 350 rooms, and that this might not be enough capacity to accommodate the conference. His recommendation was that Nathan be encouraged to refine the proposal and report back to the Council in Wellington this summer. The sentiment of the Council was that this was a good idea.

In the case of the 2002 conference, Eberlein reported that a preliminary proposal to host the conference in Shanghai has been received from Quifan Wang and Saburo Kameyama.

The discussion then turned to general issues surrounding the Society's annual conference.

David Andersen noted that the Society should try to run the 2001 conference by following the new guidelines for the relationship between the Society's principal office and conference organizers, "from the ground up" (i.e., budgeting techniques, etc.). He also noted that, at present, no firms have agreed to post bonds guaranteeing that the Society will not take a financial loss at the 1999 conference and that this presents an increased risk for a conference organizer. He concluded that the Society needs to negotiated the contractual agreement for the 2001 conference with Nathan Forrester as soon as possible.

Bob Eberlein asked the Council for its opinion about holding the 2002 conference in Shanghai. The main concern is, of course, attendance. Attendance tends to be lower for conferences in Asia and this hurts the growth of the field and results in less revenue to the Society. Since the Society's principal office subsidizes its core operations with revenues from the annual conference (and from sales), the revenue question is not trivial.

In response to Eberlein's query, various ideas were put forth. A permanent three-city rotation between Boston or New York, London, and Tokyo was suggested, as was a permanent rotation consisting of a greater number of cities. Permanently holding the conference in Boston was also suggested.

The sentiment of the Council was that one of the most important things to consider when selecting a conference location is the number of enthusiastic system dynamicists (including student system dynamicists) in the area. The energy and volunteer person hours from these people is crucial for a successful conference.

With respect to the one (Boston), three (Boston/New York, London, Tokyo), or larger permanent city rotation idea, it was pointed out that this would mean that the system dynamicists in those cities would always be the persons responsible for putting on the conference. Although the Society's principal office is now handling more of the conference work, it is not doing all of it. Thus, the duties of the system dynamicists in the permanent cities would have to be established and made reasonable. In particular, fund raising has frequently been important for a financially successful conference. Would the system dynamicists in the permanent host cities be pressured to go to the same sponsors, year after year, and try to secure donations? Furthermore, the area of highest risk for the conference organizers is the hotel reservation. If minimum attendance requirements are not met, the organizers are on the line for higher per room fees. In the absence of firms willing to guarantee the conference, this is too much of a risk to ask anyone to bear, particularly year after year.

Based on the Council's discussion Eberlein announced that he would ask for more preliminary proposals to host the 2002 conference via the SD-List on the internet.

Paul Langley suggested that a frequently asked questions section be added to the new site.

Radzicki also noted that the Society has already reserved a domain name: www.systemdynamics.org.

At this point, Nan Lux pointed out that the server she runs for Jay's Road Maps program is approximately the same as the one on order and that her experience is that we will have to continuously upgrade the system.

David Andersen asked that he be regularly given accurate requests for funds so that he can budget correctly for the continued improvement of the site and the Society's electronic presence.

In terms of new chapters, Lux reported that there are presently several groups of system dynamicists around the world who are working to form chapters. One is an international group of students, one group is in Mexico, one is in Argentina, and one is in Canada. She also noted that the Indian chapter of the Society is quite active (e.g., they sponsor lectures, courses, and conferences), but is not yet formally recognized because they do not have ten members in good standing of the System Dynamics Society, Inc. She suggested that she and the Council need to work on getting the chapter formally recognized.

David Andersen suggested that Nan Lux be given a modest budget to help her get the Indian chapter formally recognized. Jay Forrester objected, however, as he felt this would open the door to requests from other potential chapters for subsidies.

Bob Eberlein suggested that Nan Lux propose modifications to Society Policy 8, which stipulates the requirements for becoming a chapter, so that the Indian and Chinese chapters can be formally recognized. Changes to the Society's Policies can be made by the Policy Council.

The document is to be merged with the new, generalized, "Memorandum of Understanding" document that was originally drafted by the Administrative Committee for the Quebéc and New Zealand conferences. Further, according to Society Policy 6, Section 1, this document is to be titled "Manual For Meetings."

Eberlein responded that the Committee would complete this task prior to the next Policy Council meeting in New Zealand.

After acquainting themselves with Radzicki's document, the members of the Council suggested a two-stage process of altering the Bylaws and Policies to make them consistent with the Society's current practices. In the first stage, Council members present at the meeting would carefully read through Radzicki's list and flag any sections of the Bylaws and Policies that have already been changed, but (apparently) have never been officially recorded. In the second stage, Radzicki would post the revised list of proposed changes on the Policy Council web site and solicit input from the entire Policy Council. Changes to the Society's Policies can be made with a vote of the Policy Council via e-mail. Changes to the Society's Bylaws require a debate at a meeting of the Society's general membership and a subsequent surface mail ballot.

David Andersen reported that, in late 1998 and early 1999, the Administrative Committee conducted an "asynchronous meeting" over the internet in order to arrive at its list of recommendations. The meeting was hosted by John Rohrbaugh, a social psychologist at SUNY Albany. Twenty-eight people participated -- approximately half of the people who were invited to participate.

The asynchronous meeting was conducted in three stages. In the first stage, participants were invited to post any recommendations they wished to Rohrbaugh's web site. In the second stage, participants were asked to group the master list of recommendations into categories. In the final stage, participants were asked to apply a subjective weight to each recommendation. David Andersen handed out a document that summarized the results of this process.

A discussion followed. Most of the comments were directed toward the asynchronous meeting process, rather than toward any specific recommendation.

David Andersen made "a pitch for the process, if not for the results." He further said that John Rohrbaugh was concerned by the lack of participants in the process and that Rohrbaugh suggested that the Society contact those who were invited to participate and chose not to, and find out why they did not participate.

George Richardson argued that the Society needs to think seriously about how to run electronic conversations in an accurate and reliable manner, regardless of whether Rohrbaugh's particular technique is judged to have been effective.

Jay Forrester argued that a broader group of participants is necessary for an electronic meeting such as Rohrbaugh's to be effective.

Khalid Saeed was disappointed that the electronic meeting did not generate any grand ideas.

David Andersen pointed out that the electronic meeting was a demonstration project and that it needs to be formally evaluated. He asked Roberta Spencer to hand out a questionnaire, prepared by John Rohrbaugh, to those at the meeting who participated, and a separate questionnaire to those at the meeting who failed to participate. He noted that these questionnaires were being sent to everyone involved with the project and urged all participants to fill them out and send them in to Roberta Spencer.