Submitted by Bob Eberlein
July 11, 2004
This year the Newsletter is being published four times. Two times electronically only and two times both electronically and as a mailing. The ones that are being mailed are kept small, and we will be using these to send out membership renewal forms. For the fall it will be the first renewal notice. Then in the winter we will send out a reminder to anyone who still hasn’t renewed.
Wiley Contract Outline
We have renewed the contract with John Wiley and Sons for the publication of the System Dynamics Review for a period of 7 years retroactive to January 1, 2004. The new terms have us managing membership and paying a fee of $30/person to Wiley for publication. We receive from Wiley an editorial cost allowance of 5000GBP/year , and and 20% of revenue excluding individual membership payments. The motion to adopt this was approved by electronic vote in May and the final contract signed at the end of June. For the year 2004 Wiley actually collected membership dues and will pay the Society 5/12ths of these (the editorial cost allowance will also be 2500GBP for 2004).
Financially, the implications of this are an increase in Society Revenue of approximately 35 to 40 thousand dollars per year in revenue along with an increased cost from managing the membership of 10 to 15 thousand dollars. Though this does make it easier to develop a long term balanced budget, there is still significant work to do in aligning the priorities of the Society with the budgeting process. In addition to the steady state increase in income, because of the way our two Wiley contracts are structured, in 2004 we will receive membership income for both 2003 and 2005 while in 2005 we will receive membership income for both 2004 and 2006. Thus we will also receive a helpful increase in our cash balance.
Scanning of the SDR
Thanks go out to Becky Waring who, in response to the last Society Newsletter, offered to scan older issues of the System Dynamics Review. The current plan is to compile these into a DVD as was done with the D-Memos. We are also looking into making them available via Wiley Interscience. The first step in this process is the scanning of the Pre-Wiley issues. We still need to discuss with Wiley how to handle the Wiley/Preelectronic issue and also what kind of indexing work would be appropriate before including them in InterScience.
Nominating Committee Appointment
The nominating committee is appointed during the Summer Policy Council meeting with a mandate to nominate the officers and Policy Council members who will take office in two year. The committee then supplies a slate to be voted on in the Winter Policy Council meeting. The openings for 2006 are: President Elect, VP Publications, Secretary and four members of the Policy Council.
I would move that a nominating consisting of myself, Yaman Barlas, Deborah Campbell, Bob Cavana, Pal Davidsen, Isaac Dynaer and Qifan Wang be appointed to recommend the slate of nominations for 2006.
Membership Dues and Collection
During the 2004 meeting we had extensive discussions on reformulating the membership dues structure and tentatively approved a three tier dues structure. That dues structure was not implemented because the details of doing this through Wiley were not ever finalized. Now that we are directly managing membership, it will be much easier for us to implement a dues structure that better meets our needs. At the same time, the new financial arrangements, along with two years of double income, have also made the need for an increase in membership dues less urgent. For 2005 I would recommend that we maintain our existing dues structure without change as we make the transition to managing our own membership.
As part of the transition to managing our own membership we plan to make available an automated web renewal process so that, using a credit card, members can renew online. Roberta and Jen are still working out the details of how to do that. There is also, in our contract, the possibility for members to receive only electronic access to the journal and not print copies. There would be a $10/member decrease in cost for people not electing to receive print copies. For 2005 I would recommend that we do not make this option available as I am afraid it will complicate the renewal process.
Finally, it is specified in our contract that the Editors of the System Dynamics Review will receive a free subscription. This includes the Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Associate Editors. Wiley also sometimes makes free subscriptions available to people who are involved in editing or indexing related journals. To date these subscriptions have been provided in addition to the subscriptions individuals receive as members. That is, the Executive and Managing Editors have received two copies of the Review. Going forward I would recommend that we adopt a policy of giving Editors the option of receiving an extra copy of the Review at no charge if they want. If not, they would just pay the regular membership dues and receive a single copy of the Review. I do not believe that offering a discounted membership price to those who would receive the Review without charge is a sensible notion for two reasons. First, it effectively disconnects Society membership from the Review and that seems counterproductive. Second, it is effectively a discounting structure officially endorsing it is likely to lead to more discounting structures which would just make managing membership more complicated than it needs to be.
Web Repository for Models
Alex Schmidt has made significant progress on this and created a prototype website at http://www.systemdynamics-database.ch. At this point I think it makes the most sense to constitute a committee that will look help Alex to revise this to best meet the Society’s needs. I would recommend that we include Brian Dangerfield to think about the connection with SDR papers and myself but I am looking for more people who have enthusiasm around this.
Last year I wrote up something recommending some changes to the way conference programs were developed. There were two motivations for this. One was to improve the quality of the conference through improved continuity and some restructuring of sessions. The second was as a means of decreasing the demands on the central office for program support. I have revised this write-up based on discussions and feedback and, though it is still a preliminary document, I would recommend that we tentatively adopt this as a set of working guidelines for program development. The most important implication of this is the immediate appointment of a number of Thread Chairs who would serve for three year terms in order to provide continuity to the program committee.
Conference Scholarship Committee
For every conference the central office routinely receives requests for financial support. Everything from reducing or waiving the registration fee to requests for accommodation and travel expenses are received. Most of these are, of necessity, declined, but a small number of people do sometimes receive something. Usually this takes the form of helping out with registration and on site support for a waiver or decrease in registration fees.
Supporting scholars and students who are not able to pay the full costs of conference attendance can help to broaden the conference audiences and let us hear from people we otherwise would not. This seems like a very valuable thing and therefore it makes sense to formalize the process for requesting and receiving scholarships. I would recommend that we create a scholarship application form that identifies the types of scholarship opportunities available, and give people a chance to let us know why they feel they deserve a scholarship. These applications would then go to a committee, who would review them and then select the most deserving candidates.
The details for executing this are probably best worked out by the committee that is appointed, though they would likely involve a web application to simplify the review process. It is of paramount importance that this committee act in a timely manner, just as the program committee must. It may make sense to have one committee that looks at both this issue, and the issue of complimentary membership. The mandate of both seems to be the same – an increase in the breadth of the community.
Budgeting Priorities and Timing
In our current budgeting process requires we submit a budget for approval at the summer policy council meeting. There are three disadvantages to this process. First, we are voting on a budget nearly one half year in advance which means we don't really even have a good understanding about how current performance compares with the budget. Second, because we are approving an already prepared budget we don't have any real chance to discuss priorities and general direction as a group. Third, Roberta needs to produce the budget at exactly the time of the heaviest load on the Central Office.
I would like to make the motion that going forward the Administrative Committee present a general overview of the staffing, University at Albany Contract and overall budget for the next fiscal year and use this as a basis for discussion. This will be followed by an electronic vote to approve the budget to be completed no later than November 15th.
In addition to the process for approving the budget I think that more conscious thought needs to go into our prioritization of activities and the appropriate amount of subsidy that one activity should have on others. Right now, my feeling is that the annual conference is too heavily burdened, but that is not completely thought out. These issues are complicated and deserve development and discussion in a forum that allows serious reflection. I think it would be appropriate to charge the Past President's with this duty on an ongoing basis and ask from them a report and recommendation for changes annually at the summer Policy Council Meeting.
This council has endorsed electronic voting in the past. Currently the mechanism for doing this is through email which is somewhat cumbersome. My plan is to integrate the voting process into the same web architecture used to support conference paper submissions and review. This would allow people to see posted motions and the voting status of all PC members by name as voting occurs. Discussion would continue to be done via the policy council listserve. We don't really need to vote on doing things this way but I would be interested to hear any objections or concerns.