American Philatelic Society -- Board Minutes August 2004

August 11, 2004
Sacramento, California
Called to order at 3:23 p.m. EDT

All directors present: Janet Klug, President; Ken Lawrence, Ada M. Prill, George Fekete, Vice Presidents; Lloyd A. de Vries, Secretary; Nicholas G. Carter, Treasurer; John B. Flannery, Ronald E. Lesher, David L. Straight, Stephen S. Washburne, Directors-at-Large; Peter P. McCann, Immediate Past President.

Others present at start include Robert Lamb, Executive Director; Virginia Eisenstein, Society Attorney; Jim Dempsey, Dealer Liaison.

Klug: Opening remarks, including that there will be no power point presentations (applause).

Society Attorney's Report:
There is presently no litigation against the Society. The last was the Russell Case case, which APS won. His reconsideration was denied. Eisenstein says she gives legal advice when asked. Major work recently included refinancing the American Philatelic Center with Omega Bank, and the sponsorship agreement with eBay. Takes issues with costs for APC "legal costs and other." Says the share for TWO YEARS was just $6,000.

Executive Director's Report:
As one of major consumers of the Society Attorney's services, Lamb says she was well worth the money.

Lamb said last time that the APS might have turned the corner financially, and that is confirmed by the new audit statement. The combined net assets of the Library and the Society have gone from $4.3 million to $5.9 million. Most of this gain was on the Library side due to the sale of the former headquarters building, but the Society also gained $81,000.

Membership is continuing to go down, but the good news is that the APS has recruited about 100 more members than last year at the same time. The rate of decline not as severe, but still going to be down for the year.

Major personnel changes: Comptroller Scott Frazier left for a job in Minnesota that paid much more than APS. His replacement is Rick Banks, who has good credentials: He worked for a private company that was downsizing.

Helen Bruno, Complaints/Executive Director's Secretary, moves to advertising sales. Wendy Masorti, from Accounting, takes Complaints, Executive Director's Secretary, and adds Building Manager responsibilities (tenant relations).

Director of Administration Frank Sente's job will be filled shortly; Lamb is still considering candidates.

American Philatelist editor Barbara Boal adds Design Coordinator for the APS: Ads, literature, public image.

In Services, Internet Sales were up about 8% for the year, while the regular Sales Division is flat; Expertizing was doing fairly well, but very slow during the move (people held off submitting items) and was also slow this month, possibly because of the Philatelic Foundation's advertising campaign. The staff is considering whether APEX needs its own ad campaign.

The Education Department is extremely active, probably as active as it's been in some time. Summer Seminar was down to 50, probably the worst in awhile, but a whole series of seminars is planned, taking advantage of the new facility to have more of a year-round education program. There was a recent seminar on using stamps in the classroom. "A seminar on pricing and expertizing is planned for November."

There are continued good reviews of the new building, and lots of requests for tours. Guided tours are only offered at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., self-guided tours are available at other times. The Library Board will consider some options on keeping the momentum going on building expansion.

International Federation of Philately (FIP):
McCann: This is the first time in years he has had to have a report back to the Board. He is head of the APS delegation to the FIP congresses. Stephen Schumann is the alternate delegate, overseeing other U.S. appointments. Lesher is chairman of the Revenue commission. All serve at their own expense; no APS money is spent. McCann distributes an overview of recent FIP activities.

The total assets of the FIP are less than $500,000; it's a "very cash-poor organization." APS pays only $4,400 a year. FIP gets money from such dues and from fees from international exhibitions, but there are many fewer international exhibitions now than in the past.

There is a proposal on the FIP congress agenda to delay single-frame exhibiting for a year, until after Washington 2006; McCann would like to see it approved as a full class this year, from its present experimental status, so it will be in effect for Washington 2006.

The FIP is looking to reduce size of its board, but delayed the proposal, which ensures Charles Peterson's re-election as a director. Klug asks why it was delayed. McCann explains it was because the Europeans would have lost one of their positions and didn't want that.

Number of international shows is dramatically decreasing, largely because postal services are not putting forth money. In the U.S., there's indirect support, but in others, the postal service pays for everything.

McCann notes that he is running for the only contested position, Vice President Americas. The other candidate is from South America, Ruben Otero.

Lawrence: Glad to hear about economies. As things stand now, Washington 2006 is probably last international in North America, probably in the Western Hemisphere. Lawrence asks if there is no U.S. volunteer yet for the next one (2016)? Klug confirms.

McCann: The U.S. probably has more influence on and activity in the FIP than in years.

Lawrence: Wants to recommend launching a diplomatic offensive within FIP and continental federations to turn around the business of "stamps-only" and partner with other hobbies that overlap philately's interests. Wants McCann and APS' other representatives to press this.

Carter: What is APS doing to find a successor to Washington 2006? Is it waiting to see how 2006 goes?

Lawrence: In the past the APS always had competing applications. Now no one wants it.

Lesher: A continental federation show is being discussed. It won't pay full expenses for judges and others, but he thinks that will be acceptable. It may be piggybacked onto an existing show.

To accept the FIP report moved by Washburne, seconded by Lesher. Passed Unanimously.

Dealer Liaison:
Dempsey: There have been some profound changes in the dealer population, particularly in the last 5 years. It's about 25 years since the crash of 1980-81, and the dealer pool has shrunk greatly, including many ne'er-do-wells. Those dealers today are survivors of "the dark days of the 1980s," when you could fire a cannonball down an aisle at a show and not hit anyone. The market seems to be doing better now, probably due to the Internet. It's getting much tougher for stamp show and stamp store dealers, though. He guesses that at least 20% of all stamp sales are on Internet; whatever it is, it's significant.

In the past decade, local stores have closed in large numbers. Eight of 22 existing store and show dealers in Oregon have quit in the past two years. There are no more stamp stores in Sacramento.

The largest promoter of stamps shows in 1993 was putting on 50 then, but was down to 5 in 2002 and has now retired. Many dealers are really struggling at shows. One dealer said "I brought just two things with me that I didn't need: My stamp stock and change for a $20."

Collectors interests have changed and broadened. Trash has proliferated, topicals has grown prolifically, to probably 15-20% of sales; he lists other areas with "a challenge and at a nominal cost." APS needs to work to promote the hobby. It's important to keep up the two shows a year. "It's just as important to do Grand Rapids and Biloxi as it is Atlantic City or San Francisco," despite those who say otherwise. The biggest bucks may be in metro areas, but the hobby flourishes nationwide and that is money well spent to get the hobby to those places."

He believes the point system APS uses for dealer assignments at its shows is fair and equitable. The dollar booths do a lot to attract collectors who love the hobby but don't have a lot of money.

Dempsy says he has a problem with dealers who pack up early and leave at noon on a Sunday. Praises NAPEX, Westpex for running a tight ship and not allowing dealers to come back who do that, but a show needs strong waiting list to do that.

Another hot issue for dealers, although there are mixed opinions, is phony badges that allow non-dealers in early, saying they're working for a dealer.

Security: always a problem for shows. Theft is always a problem, at any show. Realizes APS cannot give legal advice to dealers on how to handle thieves, but cites Santa Clara Police Department flyers given out at the ASDA show there. In one state, concealment is theft; in another, it's leaving the booth, and in still another, it's leaving the building.

Dempsey says the dealer liaison position is two-way pipeline; APS should direct NSDA, ASDA to go through the representative.

Carter: Requests copy of the Santa Clara Police Department flyers to give out at NAPEX. Irv Miller had something stolen at NAPEX, thief was prosecuted, NAPEX paid Miller's costs to come down to testify.

Fekete: Is there an avenue to lodge a complaint about leaving early to ASDA - they're breaking the contract. Can show/bourse chairmen lodge a complaint?

Prill moves to accept Dealer Liaison's report, Carter seconds. Passed unanimously

Hall of Fame nominations:
McCann moves to accept, Fekete seconds. Passed unanimously

March 1 was the Quebecor magazine printing contract; June 22 the American Philatelic Center loan, June 26 the meeting at Bellefonte.

Ambassador Committee:
Klug has found chairman. It will set up network of people who will go out and act in a public relations capacity for APS. She nominates Jeff Shapiro.

Klug: We all love it, but wonders if APS can continue if the winter show keeps losing money. Asks Martin to talk about whether it will make or lose in the near future:

Martin: Doesn't expect it to make money in near future, may be difficult to break even, depending on what overheard/office operations are included. If APS selects venues carefully, it could make money. Norfolk might make money, and is about as low cost as any. Can't add dealers without going to a larger venue, increasing costs. He expects the winter shows to break even for the next 5 years. Atlanta will need outside funding to break even.

Lawrence: What's the financial impact of the Committee on the Accreditation of National Exhibitions and Judges (CANEJ) proposal (coming up next)?

Straight: It seems to be coming fairly close to breaking even. It promotes the hobby, goes to cities, reasonable expenses.

Past President Joseph E. Foley: Asks Carter about incremental versus fully-allocated costs.

Carter: There's still a running deficit in most years for the winter shows, taking the overhead out.

Klug: She has heard a lot from people about going to Biloxi, other seldom-visited places.

Washburne: How can the winter show be tied in with National Specialized Exhibitions (NSE)?

Triggle: It's very different. Only one show has asked for it, Apple Harvest in Spokane.

Carter: Only show that ever made money on direct costs was Norfolk. Shows cost about $15,000 in direct costs, not counting overhead (answering Foley). Notes later that Riverside (2002 winter) lost $2300 in direct costs.

CANEJ Proposals:
Martin: Board would just have to change single-frame medal requirements to five levels for World Series of Philately (WSP) shows. He would not want to require that shows give "medals" [literally] for single-frame exhibits because he doesn't think the majority provide medals for multi-frames — some do, but many don't.

Triggle: Thought most shows did give actual medals, so she amends motion to "The APS Winter Show and all WSP shows should give a minimum of five national medal levels for their one-frame competitive exhibits."

Prill: Should do away with platinum for one-frames: It's silly to have six levels for one-frame exhibits, and only five for multi-frame.

Carter: That's going to raise frame fees. NAPEX loses money on single-frame exhibits, paying $43 per medal.

He's told it doesn't have to be medals, just five levels of awards, and the physical item can be almost anything.

Lawrence: The platinum issue needs to be addressed. It's confusing. He thinks the committee should make recommendation.

Triggle: It's a matter of points. If 96 points or higher, the exhibit is eligible for the Champion of Champions competition.

Martin: It's currently 96 points or a single-frame grand. WSP shows are not required to give a single-frame grand.

Triggle: In line with the winter show being an experimental venue, CANEJ decided it would be appropriate to set up a showcase of a specialty society each year, and each year it would be different. Perhaps just gold, vermeil and silver exhibits. The winner of the showcase would receive an invitation to the Champion of Champions at Stampshow. The awards for this showcase would be purchased by the specialty societies, so it wouldn't be a cost to APS. No society would be able to sponsor the showcase more than once every four years.

Washburne: Confused whether this is a salon or showcase? He thinks it's a wonderful idea. The original proposal for National Specialized Exhibitions was that that winner would be admitted to the Champion of Champions competitions; was voted down.

Triggle: NSE could be same society every year, but winter showcase could not be same society more than once every four years.

Klug: Some specialties are more represented in the Champion of Champions competitions, such as Topicals, because of the National Topical Stamp Show (NTSS). But perfins — there's a small chance a perfin exhibit would ever get to the Champion of Champions competitions.

Prill: Could be more than one NSE in a year, but just one Showcase, so this only adds one to the Champion of Champions competitions beyond NSEs.

Washburne: Why does it have to be at winter show. Why can't it be at other shows?

Triggle: We want to give winter show a shot in the arm; it's our experimental show.

Klug: It's where APS does experiments. Asks Triggle how long the experiment would last?

Martin: Only potentially if the APS has to make a decision on what classes/divisions would be accepted otherwise. The APS may no longer have space for other special exhibits or will have to go to bigger halls. Otherwise, it could be a savings.

Triggle: It's probably a function of how many frames they can come up with. Shows will probably go with whoever could fill the most frames. It should be at least 100.

Lawrence: Likes proposal, but both CANEJ and Martin will have to get more discretion than at present. Some exhibitors may try to slip in exhibits from one specialty in another's showcase. The Board has to give CANEJ and Martin discretion on that.

Triggle: Would also ask specialty societies for a list of 3 judges that they would like to see on the jury, giving them some input.

Foley: Might be an impact on WSP shows, particularly those that might be having trouble getting a convening society to come in. If the Air Mail Society has a showcase, it won't want to go to another show for its convention.

Fund-Raising Committee:
Klug wants talk about an action item in the report, on adding a new staff person.

The Fundraising Committee recommends that an appropriate amount of donated funds be used to hire a Development Office staff person whose duties would include handling donor relations and incentives, timely acknowledgment of donations, keeping donor statistics, identifying potential new donors, identifying and writing grant proposals, handling donor mailings, and organizing charity dinners, seminar weekends and related events. (Presently such functions are being handled by a variety of staff as time permits.)

Currently it's spread around many people at HQ. Takes their time away from other important jobs. Have a 10-year commitment on fund-raising — $10 million; going to make the goal this year. But feels staff person is needed to devote full-time attention to this. Either Director of Development or Support Person.

Lawrence: Supports adding a staff person, but APS has tried several Directors of Development with unsatisfactory results. He would like it to be understood that the job description includes an accountability mechanism to evaluate success of that position — some sort of criteria.

Klug: In terms of money raised? Staff people are not evaluated this way, but a Director of Development may be.

Prill: In a related matter, she asked for input from the committees. The chairs gave reports, but not many requests. But Barth Healey, chair of the membership promotion and recruiting committee, saying that these are not things that can be done on an ad hoc basis, can't be done by overworked staff, needs at least 2 days a week.

Klug: She thinks Director of Development, fund-raising, is a full-time job. If that person does fund-raising and other tasks, then neither job is getting done as well as it should be.

De Vries: If development work now being done by various staffers is given to a new position, that would free up time for those staffers to do some of that membership promotion and recruitment work. Also, the APS must give the Director of Development position some time to get going and prove itself. Thinks APS has been impatient in the past. It needs a year at least.

Lesher: He's in favor of having a Director of Development. At least one past Director of Development had no development experience; the APS must get an experienced person, a professional. If not, the APS shouldn't establish the position.

Lamb: Agrees fund-raising has been very time-consuming operation because it's so important. The APS needs additional staff to cope with it. If you expect experienced fund-raisers, they come from departments and are often specialized. He thinks the solution is to bring in an additional person as a staff director, with all the functions covered at headquarters. He cites graphics for pamphlets and mailings. The paper value of in-kind contributions runs $1-$1.5 million a year. "We're running a factory there processing stamp collections!" The job also involves recording pledges. So he proposes a coordinator (event planner and writer, with a sense of design) in Boal's shop, working for Boal. He has a candidate in mind. It's cheaper, but also more of what the APS needs.

Straight: He likes the proposal. Points out that in #4, United Way, if an organization takes money, it can't fund-raise during certain periods of the year, and in some neighborhoods, which can be very unreasonable.

McCann: The APS can't afford to hire a very good development director, because that person would expect probably twice what Lamb is paid. He or she would also need a support staff. He thinks full-time person is the answer.

Straight: Headquarters would not gain back all of the time now spent on development; some staff time would still be used.

Carter: Agrees with going with a staff person. Must make sure donors can designate different funds.

Lesher: The APS should make it clear how money is split up, but not go after designating where money goes. He feels the cost of a full-blown development director is worth it, and has to be eventual goal. Personal contact is absolutely essential, and executive director is one of those people who needs to be introduced by the development direct to big donors. That's how APS will succeed.

Lamb: Agrees, but greatest success is from members Directors have found and funneled donations into the system. Most recent mailing, by the way, brought in $70,000, against a cost of $17,000.

Lawrence: The APS should bring people to Bellefonte; that has been the biggest success.

Lawrence moves, Carter seconds, to approve the Fund Raising report. Passed unanimously.

APS-APRL:
Klug: The Society Attorney recommends waiting until it's put in legal terms.

Flannery: That's fine with him. He wants more input from the Board, then will sit down and write final document with Eisenstein's input. He wants Peterson to supply someone from APRL. He agrees to stay with the job.

Election Proposals:
A committee of all of the living APS past presidents (Bud Sellers, Joe Foley, John Hotchner, Peter McCann, Randy Neil and chaired by Bill Bauer) presented a report that suggests several APS election reforms.

Klug gives background. McCann had written President's columns about election functions and campaigning issues. She figured past presidents of the APS had the least conflict of interest on this issue.

Bauer: Didn't realize the complexity. It boils down to two problems: Freedom of Speech, and enforcement. The committee ended up more with Code Of Conduct and generalities. It wanted to avoid excessive expenditures in campaigning, where good potential officers would say they didn't want to spend $5-10,000 for a job with no recompense. Also wanted to avoid turning campaigns into cat-and-dog fights.

Not recommending restricting advertising. Any rules should stick to more use of American Philatelist and other APS services. The committee thinks candidates can put comments and positions on Internet. The committee didn't understand why some candidates in last election advertised in small specialty organization journals.

Another question was how to control advertising by a committee. The past presidents stepped around it, just called for a "reasonable standard."

Most of it is really a question of ethics, and the committee came up with guidelines: Candidates are expected to maintain a high level of civility in all aspects of campaigning. This is a hobby; we're supposed to be friends. Candidates are expected to present facts only, and material they can verify as facts. [Continues reading the proposal.]

Reads a minority opinion, that if there is not a consequence for violating these precepts, it may tend to penalize candidates who do follow them. However, Bauer thinks the public will realize candidate is violating these rules and will react negatively.

Klug: Takes a straw vote of the Board on not limiting advertising dollars. It's unanimous.

Lawrence: He has qualms about this. Greatest participation in an APS election is when there's a controversy. That's the positive side of controversy.

Bauer: This doesn't rule out controversy, but it doesn't have to be mean-spirited and nasty.

Foley: There's also a concern for truth. If a person lies, that's an unethical act.

Bauer: He would hope that threat of censure would slow down unethical behavior. Doesn't know if these suggestions will work or not, but worth giving a try. The direction of the last election wasn't a good one.

Lamb: He's concerned about the function of this committee. It could easily become a politicized body. Now, if there's violation, it goes to the Board. If membership thinks there's something in the election that they think is unfair, it's reflected in the voting.

Foley: He thought that this committee could function somewhat independently. Doesn't think any group can disqualify someone from being a candidate, but the possibility of citing ethical violation may keep candidates honest.

Carter: Doesn't think limiting expenditures is a good idea. Thinks there should be a disclosure of who's on election support committees.

Lamb: It's been the policy that at least one person must be an APS member and must be named in ad.

Lawrence: Thinks members have any right to support or oppose a candidate, without asking a candidate's permission. That's how politics works.

Washburne: If APS makes it a condition for running that candidates must accept the ethics board's ruling, then it has teeth.

Bauer: The time delay problem is serious, but the thought was anyone who wanted to be a candidate would sign onto the Code of Ethics.

Lawrence: Thinks any member of APS has the right to campaign against any candidate, and endorse the opponent, whether that person accepts that or not.

Bauer: The committee didn't put restriction in on that, but the name ought to be on the ad. However, he agrees with Lawrence.

Lamb: He has a problem with #3. If a candidate says something is fact, then how is the staff to enforce?

De Vries: If the staff has a problem with a statement, it goes to the ethics board, no?

Klug takes a straw vote
In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, Washburne, McCann.
Opposed: Carter
Abstained: Washburne

Bauer reads proposal. Would have liked to have the club mailing as single mailing to all chapters at the same time. In the past, some candidates have sent out individual solicitations to clubs.

Lawrence: Does not believe that editorial control and responsibility can be taken away from the editor and publisher of the journal. Can't defame someone under guise of confidentiality.

Eisenstein: Just because it's in an ad or something written by someone else doesn't absolve publication. Cites Times v. Sullivan (1964 Supreme Court decision).

Eisenstein also says the Bylaws speaks to some of these things, so would have to amend them. The Bylaws say ballots are returned to a "board of elections," which in effect has been headquarters.

Lamb: The ballots go to special post office box. The janitor picks them up, takes them to the receptionist, who checks membership and that no one is voting more than once. Accepted ballots are picked up by women's group at a local church in batches of 100. On election day, there is a three-person elections committee from the Lancaster, Pa., area club which has been doing it for years and years. It compares the tally sheets. The committee also gets the damaged/invalid ballots, and can decide what to do with them.

Lamb gets the results about 5 p.m., and posts them very quickly on the Internet.

Lawrence: Thinks there are issues more important than candidates' rights, such as the welfare of the Society. Two of the candidates in the last election attacked the Society, and he felt it was duty of the executive director to say no, they're wrong.

Carter: He disagrees. It should go in the June issue, after the election, not May issue.

Lamb: He didn't like the attacks on the Society, so he called President McCann, who felt Lamb should address it in his column. Lamb sent the column to McCann for review before it was published. He would rather it had been in McCann's column, but it was important that the record was corrected. Candidates' statements come in from half the length to twice the length. Boal deals with them. If one is too long, she sends it back to the candidate. Sometimes candidates say they can't cut it any more. Either APS runs them as is, penalizing those who abided by the rules, or doesn't run them at all. Boal usually edits. 95% of the candidates can be counted on to do this the right way.

Klug: She is hearing problems with this section. The points have to be taken individually. There is no consensus.

1. "Ballots should go directly from members to a neutral party, which should be provided the means to verify entitlement to vote, and eliminate duplicate ballots."

In favor: Lawrence, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, McCann.
Opposed: Prill, Washburne.

Washburne: Points out that the Director of Administration is employed by the executive director, so this might not solve the supposed problem.

2. Charged the Director of Administration with the mechanical process of the nomination procedure. This point received no votes.

#3. "The editing of the statements of candidates is to be done by Central Office staff. Should they exceed allowed length, the candidate must do the required editing.
This was deemed unworkable and was stricken.

#4. First sentence only: "Until published, candidate statements should be treated as confidential within the Central Office, with access limited to those with a need to handle them. Unanimous.
" Access will be controlled by the Director of Administration, who will be accountable for their privacy." To remove this line: All but Flannery, who abstained.

#5. "No editorial comment on elections statements by Central Office staff acting in their official capacity is permitted, and such comment in a private capacity is strongly discouraged."
In favor: Carter, Flannery, Washburne.
Opposed: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Lesher, McCann.
This point fails.

#6. Assigned the 1997 election policy paper functions from the Executive Director to the Director of Administration. This point was stricken.

#7. "It is suggested that the election materials printed in the May election issue of the AP should be placed on the public portion of the APS web site, both for information of members and to serve as a hook to interest non-members in joining the APS. Passed unanimously.

Lamb: Tries to be responsive in election process to the wishes of the Board. If the Board wants changes, let him know.

Fekete: Wants committee to consider in #5 what happens if nobody with such experience wants to run.

"Given that the Society's operations are ever more complex, the Board should consider imposing a requirement that at least one member of any Board of Vice Presidents slate should be required to have had prior service on the APS Board of Directors. This is required of a presidential candidate and we believe that the Vice Presidents should be equally competent in APS Affairs."

Lawrence: Moves to express gratitude to the committee. Second by de Vries. Passed unanimously

Straight: moves to approve parts that passed straw votes. Second by Lesher. These are all of Section I and II, III #1, first sentence of #4, and #7.

Klug: Jackson says "the destruction of stamps by any museum, especially our own National Postal Museum is harmful to the future health and well-being of the APS and to the world of stamp collecting. (I know that sounds familiar to you because it is from your recent letter to the APS membership, but it says it all.) Klug says the recent letter to the APS membership was the fund-raising letter, which was nothing about the National Postal Museum and the quote is "$10 million is an ambitious goal, but we're certain that our members understand the importance of this campaign to the future health and well-being of our Society and to the world of stamp collecting."

Klug: Right, but it sounded like she had made said in her letter... It's just a clarification.

Jackson: The majority of people oppose destruction. Not everybody is in favor of the sale.

Klug: She received e-mail yesterday from National Postal Museum Director Allen Kane:

1. "Less collectors will participate in the auction and the NPM will get less dollars to buy new stamps that visitors want to see.

2. "Arthur [Morowitz, of Champion Stamp Co.] and Eric [Jackson] will have an opportunity to buy the stamps at a lower price and thereby increase their profits.

"I think your Board's decision basically will influence who makes the money and will it be used for the good of collectors or to create individual wealth."

Jackson: Doesn't see how he's connecting destruction of these stamps with those who can participate. Will allow more collectors to participate. Chances are he won't be the buyer of the entire collection. His resolutions aren't about purchase/sale, but about destruction.

Be it resolved, that the American Philatelic Society opposes the destruction of stamps for any reason by any group, individual, or organization. The only exceptions are government stamp issuing agencies which routinely destroy excess stamps in their normal course of business, and the discarding of damaged, uncollectible stamps by collectors and/or dealers.

Lawrence: Point of order: He says APS has not been silent on this. There was a full discussion at the Norfolk meeting. He feels this is a settled issued, and can only be moved by someone who voted on the prevailing side in Norfolk.

Prill: The Board did not vote on destruction, just on whether certain stamps should be offered for sale.

Carter: This is a bad precedent for the APS Board. It did not get involved in the Legends of the West error.

Washburne: Agrees with Carter. Like Boy Scout resolution, the APS should steer clear.

De Vries reads Norfolk resolution (off the APS Web site). Eisenstein is asked if that's significantly different from the new proposals.

Eisenstein: Resolution 2 can't be considered without someone who voted against the Norfolk resolution moving to reconsider.

Lesher: In other organizations, if you're going to pass a resolution of this sort, you must have an action plan to implement it. If you pass a resolution and don't let the world know about it, it isn't very practical to pass a motherhood-and-apple-pie resolution. He thinks this is so broad that it covers all sorts of court records, that have revenue stamps in their records and archives, and cannot be implemented.

Jackson: Corporations and agencies about to destroy such records and stamps also can be made aware that it is wrong.

Fekete: He is opposed to destroying stamps, but there may be unintended consequences. An owner has right to destroy something he owns.

Washburne: Offers a friendly amendment to substitute "philatelic materials" or "stamps and philatelic materials."

Prill: This resolution imposes no sanctions, just expresses the Board's feeling.

In favor: Prill, Washburne.
Opposed: Lawrence, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Flannery, Lesher, Straight.
Abstaining: McCann, who explains he is on the NPM board, but would have voted against it.
Motion defeated 2-7.

Be it resolved, that the American Philatelic Society opposes the planned destruction of revenue stamps and inherent manipulation of the stamp market by the Smithsonian Institution's National Postal Museum.

Prill moves (she was on the prevailing side in Norfolk).
The question arises whether the second has to be by someone who was on prevailing side. Eisenstein says it does not; checks Roberts.

Lamb: The Board did take a position on the Legends error. Then-President Randy Neil wrote the letter, it was voted upon by Board by telephone and approved, and was sent.

Jackson: There is a big difference between the Legends of the West error and these revenue stamps. These stamps are held by a museum, outside of the stamp issuing agencies, they are strictly collectible item. There is no value for the original intended purpose. It's a completely different issue.

Klug: Neil's letter to USPS Stamp Services Executive Director Azeezaly S. Jaffer on Legends supporting the Unicover-Mystic position that the recalled panes should be placed on unrestricted sale for an entire month and then the balance destroyed.

"I am so very disappointed with the way this has been allowed to play out. How can the nation's museum, supported by the precious tax dollars of the American people, condone spending a small fortune to preserve these valuable much-sought-after stamps for nearly half a century, and now simply consign a majority of them to be shredded? All the money that was spent to preserve and protect these stamps for the past 5 decades will have been wasted. Instead these stamps, all of them, belong to the people of the United States. Collectors around the country who desire them should be given every opportunity own and enjoy them. You don't logically destroy something that others might want. You would only destroy something that isn't wanted. Offer them all for sale. If they don't all sell, then make your case for destroying the remainders. That makes sense. What has been proposed does not make any sense at all. I'm only thankful that my name, and that of my father who acquired these stamps for the Smithsonian, is not associated with this ill-envisioned destruction plan."

Eisenstein does not believe there is a restriction on who may second such a motion.

Be it resolved, that the American Philatelic Society opposes the planned destruction of revenue stamps and inherent manipulation of the stamp market. The American Philatelic Society urges the National Postal Museum to indelibly mark and thus identify their provenance, all revenue stamps so disbursed." [material in red is new]

Jackson: Smithsonian may not get as much for the stamps if they are marked. It will cost money to mark them; NPM may stop the sale.

Lesher: The reason for substituting his wording is that original resolution was on manipulating the stamp market. Releasing the stamps manipulates the market. Indelibly marking them won't affect the value of stamps already in the market, enables people to own these stamps, albeit with marking, and the people that own the originals won't lose value, and it's possible that those who own originals will also buy the marked ones.

Klug: Says she's on NPM's Council of Philatelists, but only because she's President of APS. She represents APS to NPM, but also NPM to APS. Kane could not come to this meeting for legal reasons, because it's in a bidding process now.

NPM has been curating these 8,000,000 stamps for 50 years. It costs a lot of money to keep them. The IRS was going to destroy them, but thought the Smithsonian could make use of them. The bidding process is far enough along that anything APS does will not make a "particle of difference."

Klug thinks, her personal opinion, that the NPM is doing best it can under the circumstances.

Fekete: What was Kane referring to when he said APS was being offered a donation?

Klug: Was in the ad in Linn's; Morowitz said he'd make a donation based on sale of stamps that would be destroyed otherwise.

McCann: The NPM is in a difficult position. He feels if the resolution is approved, The Board would be playing into hands of dealers trying to make a profit.

McCann: Says Jackson is manipulating the collectors by soliciting these e-mails.

Jackson: The 1956 letter from IRS only says Smithsonian and IRS should be held beyond reproach. Museums don't destroy objects; it's not beyond reproach.

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Lesher.
Opposed: Flannery, Straight, Washburne.
McCann recuses himself.

On the amended motion:
In favor: Prill, Fekete, Lesher.
Opposed: Lawrence, de Vries, Carter, Flannery, Straight, Washburne.
McCann recuses himself.

Fortunato explains the idea of banner/signboard that could be sent around the country.

Fortunato: MaryAnn Bowman's local stamp club group in Wisconsin thinks it can do it for about $250.

Fortunato: It would stay most of the time with the Milwaukee group. The panel costs about $100.

Budget:
Carter: His report is based on unaudited numbers; he did not receive the audit report until today.

He will be looking into PayPal, and has asked Lamb to look at Education and the issue of sending staff to shows

Proposal to eliminate the discount on the dues:
Proposal to eliminate the timely payment discount on the annual dues of the American Philatelic Society

The annual dues payment for members of the American Philatelic Society is currently $35 with a $5 discount for timely payment. It is recommended that the APS Board of Directors agree that the $5 discount be eliminated, commencing with the fall 2004 dues cycle.

The Finance Committee, in its June 2002 meeting recommended that dues be increased to $35. In August off that year, a dues increase to $35 was voted unanimously by the American Philatelic Society Board, but with a $5 dues rebate for early payment [by December 31], effective in the fall 2002 cycle.

In its meeting on June 24, 2004, the Finance Committee reviewed the APS budget for 2005, and noting a projected operating deficit of $258,000, voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of the APS that the $5 early payment discount be eliminated. It is estimated that taking into account the number of members who currently pay on time, and including the number of members who might, as a result of the increase, drop their memberships, that the net gain to our revenues for 2005 would be approximately $150,000.

Background
The dues of the Society have been periodically increased over the past decades. They were $5 in 1960, $10 in 1980 and $21 in 1990, before being increased to $25 in 1994, with a $3 discount for early payment, which was eliminated from 2002. The periodic increases have been necessary to meet the rising costs of running the organization, particularly the personnel costs and the costs of mailing the Society’s publication, the American Philatelist. In 1960 it cost 4¢ to mail a first class letter, now it costs 37¢ - using that yardstick, the dues would now be $45. The consumer price index for the US is now at a level close to seven times that of 1960, suggesting that the dues should be over $35; looking at the CPI for leisure activities suggests a rate of close to $50. Looking at the Linn’s index of US stamp prices since 1960 again suggests a level of dues close to $50.

There are many other comparisons that can be made, and other base years that can be chosen, but the point is that our dues have fallen behind not only our costs but also the costs of everything that we as consumers purchase. The increase from $25 to $35 (with a $5 discount taken by 75% of our members) two years ago, addressed some, but not all, of the shortfall. An increase to a full $35 just to bring our finances to a more stable position; and several Finance Committee members feel that further increases will be necessary. The resulting level of dues, $35, is less than $3 per issue of the American Philatelist.

In the late 1990s the returns from the Society’s investments provided as much as 5% of our expenses, but by 2001 this had turned to a negative 3%. In 2002 we shifted our resources to more fixed income assets both to avoid future deterioration of capital as well as to provide more stability of earnings, but the earnings from this are unlikely in the near term to cover more than 1% of our expenditures. We also raised dues by more than one third. However, since 1994 our membership has declined by almost 17%, so dues collections (which are one-third of our entire revenues), in spite of recent increases, are projected for 2005 to be less than 5% above the 1994 level. In addition, mindful of the rapid depletion of the Life Membership Fund, the Society, in 2002, decided to pay the dues of those whose memberships were free (Article 2.5(b)) from the General Fund rather than the Life Membership Fund – this means that an additional $100,000 per year must be found.

In response to this shortfall the Society carried out significant cost cutting – across the board. StampShow expenditures are dramatically lower than they were in 1998-2000. The American Philatelist, now costs us 90% of what it cost to publish in 1998. Our staff count is 12% lower this year than it was in 2000.

But, on a per employee basis, personnel costs have risen by 18% since 2000 and 38% since 1994. We can expect to have to increase these costs by at least 2.5% per year in the future. Since 2001, health and insurance costs have risen rapidly.

Staff is pursuing additional revenue sources, including the eBay relationship, but the reality is that, despite our best efforts to control them, expenses are increasing faster than revenues.

It is recommended that the Board of the APS agree to eliminate the $5 timely payment discount on dues, commencing with the fall 2004 dues season.

Carter: This year there is a $143,000 deficit in operating net. Next year, $108,000. The APS needs funds, and needs funds quickly.

The previous board voted to raise dues to $35, but gave a $5 early discount. The Finance Committee feels APS should eliminate the discount. Some members of the Committee wanted to raise dues even higher. The Committee believes eliminating the discount would bring $150,000 in additional funds.

Carter: There are some on the committee who feel the APS should raise its dues even more.

Lawrence: Commends Carter for pointing out the value of membership, $50 value for $35.

Carter: Yes, but there were other things going on then. His feeling is it's less than 1,000.

Klug: Yes, APS will lose members, but there's just no other place to get money right now.

Lamb: He is not enthusiastic about this. He does think members are getting good value, but there is more price sensitivity than APS has recognized. He is pleasantly surprised that recent increases have not had as much of an impact as in the past, possibly because of realization that APS didn't raise dues for so long and is now catching up with inflation. Not all of the operating deficit is the Society's money. Last year, there was a gain in the operating account of $46-47,000. The total assets of the Society are about double that, and that's because of money coming in from other places: Some income from investments that doesn't show up. Historically, APS has not tried to have all its activities pay for themselves. He is very uncomfortable about the impact of another dues increase this quickly.

Lamb: Says he doesn't know, but many are on fixed incomes. Also, if dues are low enough, it's an impulse decision.

Carter: Agrees he would be uncomfortable if it gets much higher. Royal Philatelic Society of London (RPSL) has $95 dues and just 1,500 members. But if APS has a deficit, it has to take it out of the accumulated capital. "We do need to be fiscally responsible here and try to address this."

Some of the deficit will disappear next year. Actions taken by the Finance Committee last year included not taking earnings on the investments in the ex ante budget, but now, a year later, that has been amended and $30,000 is in the budget now, which represents the Committee's guess on earnings from investments — not capital gains. It may be more. Last year, it was $100,000, if you included realized, unrealized and income. Also, the change in Life Membership Fund accounting is helping, to not pay for those receiving free life memberships. That is now being funded by the general fund.

Flannery: Did Lamb mean to say some of the asset base can be liquidated to free up some operating cash?

Lamb: Personnel costs will go up in the 4th Quarter, but he thinks APS will come in under that $143,000. If the Board doesn't vote for this, APS will just be one year behind — but it can manage.

Carter: If the Board doesn't raise it, next year's deficit will be $258,000, not $108,000.

Lawrence: Projections of loss are never as bad as reality. The Board should raise dues when it's fairly confident and the economy is in decent shape, and not wait until the APS' backs are to the wall.

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Flannery, Lesher, Straight
Opposed: McCann
Absent: Washburne
Passed 8-1.

Carter: The problem is that membership is declining while the unit cost of APS' employees is going up (2½% a year). One possibility is to increase membership, but that takes a long time to get the money APS needs. One estimate is 10,000 new members are needed.

Third possibility is to cut staffing and services. APS has already done quite a bit of cutting of staffing.

The APS' "money-making activities" are not really making money, just making cash. Few are really making a profit.

Fourth possibility: endowments. The APS has about $2 million in endowments now. To make up difference, it needs $4 million more.

Lamb: Notes that a staff director at the APS makes less than a starting policeman for Centre County. He has protected the 2% cost of living increase, but the major cost has been in health care costs. The APS has increased deductibles, but health care is still going up 15-17% A YEAR.

eBay:
Lamb: He thinks this is one way to address long-term cash problems. The APS is starting a "Stamp ID" program, promoting it on eBay and elsewhere. For a fee, if you've got a stamp image, and want to send it to APS, it will identify that stamp as much as possible from an image. He thinks it will be a service to both buyers and sellers. Won't be a big money maker, but Expertizing Director Mercer Bristow gets too many requests now that he has to deal with for free.

The second part, which should be profitable, is to offer members who post things on StampStore for that item to be listed on eBay for 7 days before it goes into StampStore. It will cost APS about $50,000 in software, but the average annual cost over 5 years is $10,000. The APS will do a mailing to everyone putting stamps in StampStore. First year cost is estimated at $18,000. If sales in StampStore increase by 7%, the program will make money the first year. Lamb thinks sales will increase much more than 7%, because the items first will go before a non-member audience. In auction format, lots will get extra money on some items. He would like to start this program by the first of next year.

Lamb: Buyers submit information in unstructured ways. StampStore is highly automated. This eBay/StampStore system would also be automated so that APS won't have to add a person to StampStore staff with this software, unless the volume of sales goes up so much, which would be wonderful.

Lamb: No, APS scans items now. Scanning won't take any more time than it does now.

Washburne: Scans used on eBay are higher quality than what is on StampStore. He would hope new software/system would producer higher quality scans.

Lamb: The present system could employ higher quality scans than are used on StampStore now, but download time for prospective customers is a concern.

Lamb: Doesn't think it will have any impact; it's like sending sales books to a club where non-members can buy stamps. If there is any tax liability, profit will cover it. APS would be doing it as a service for APS members. If IRS did find it taxable, the APS would file.

Carter: There would have to have an awful lot of income from this before there would be any problem.

Carter: The Finance Committee recommended it come out of Insurance Fund, so it would need a vote.

Straight: Thinks APS should settle on an operating platform before committing to new software.

Lamb: The StampStore software is very good, and he does not see a need to replace it. This would be an enhancement to it.

Fekete: His company does this sort of thing. $50,000 sounds like a good deal. The same programmers worked on original StampStore software, so it will likely work.

Carter: He can't vote for it unless specific agreement where money is coming from and how it's going to be repaid.

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Flannery, McCann.
Opposed: Carter, Straight.
Abstaining: Lesher, Washburne.
Motion passed 6-2.

Philatelic Advisory Council:
Klug: This proposal sounds very much like the Shaping the Future of Philately summit conference. The Board might want to thank Les for his idea and say it's being done.

Logo Design:
Klug: The APS told members the simplified logotype was only being used for the capital campaign, but it's showing up everywhere. If there is a new logo, the Board should vote on it.

Klug: Reads some derogatory comments members have made, among them, "Philatelic American Primper."

Lawrence: Likes this version more than previous logo, but that's damning it with faint praise. He again points out that the old "Lady Philately" logo is just old 19th Century clip-art that has nothing to do with philately. Logo has to be something that can be used in any size. He favors it.

Fekete: Doesn't think this one reproduces well at larger sizes. If APS sticks with this one, it needs work.

Flannery: Year ago, the APS said it was just for the capital campaign. What happened?

Lawrence: Along the way, there was a logo for the American Philatelic Center that doesn't work.

Klug: The new logo was intended just for the capital campaign, to get attention, which it did, and that was all it was supposed to be used for. When you have an organization named "APS," where most people don't know what "philatelic" means, you need a logo that makes it clear it is stamps.

Carter: Agrees with Lawrence that the APS needs to move ahead, but he thinks this new logo is bad art. Logo was 19th Century art used as allegory. Doesn't think 19th Century young woman looking at stamps is who the APS is. Thinks the Inverted Jenny on the credit card does a better job of explaining who the APS is.

Lawrence: That was what he said to Heavy Creative, that the Inverted Jenny is one universal design everyone would recognize right away.

Lamb: He went back to an ad agency owner-member about this logo. He said logo design is not a simple task that any designer can do. Have to identify market strategy first — how to be identified: modern, conservative, young, old. Come up with 6-8 designs, do market research. If the Board wants it, Lamb will find a logo firm, but APS has already spent so much on this

Klug: Wants a vote to either adopt or not this new logo, or go back to the old one.

Prill: If the APS does go back to previous, it should not destroy all already-printed stationery.

New logo: Lawrence, Fekete, de Vries, McCann
Abstained: Prill, Washburne
Tied 4-4.
Klug breaks tie with vote for old logo.

Hotchner: Thinks about looking at how to position the society is still important regardless of logo controversy.

Policy On Selection Of Auction Houses:
Straight: He was approached by a vice president of an auction house that hasn't gotten some of the collections donated to APS. APS doesn't have clear policy on how such donations are handled, how firms can bid on and compete for APS' business. It should have one.

Carter moves to have a committee report back in Atlanta. Lawrence seconds. Passed unanimously.

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, Washburne, McCann.
Opposed: None.
Abstained: Carter.

Whereas Frank L. Sente has had a 32-year career with the American Philatelic Society; and

Whereas he was recognized for outstanding service to the Society with a Luff Award in 1999; and

Whereas he has provided his considerable talents as librarian of the American Philatelic Research Library, in the Sales Division, as Assistant Executive Secretary, and most recently as Director of Administration; and

Whereas he has responded to countless inquiries from thousands of members about every imaginable subject; and

Whereas he has served the membership with unfailing courtesy, good humor, and respect;

Therefore be it resolved that on behalf of the entire membership of the American Philatelic Society, its Board of Directors does hereby record its sincerest gratitude to Frank L. Sente for his creativity, dedication, patience, and hard work that have enriched the Society and benefited the members for 32 years; and

Be it further resolved that the Board of Directors of the American Philatelic Society does hereby bestow our very best wishes and congratulations to him upon his retirement.

Conduct Unbecoming A Member:
The Board of Vice Presidents proposes a more-specific definition of this.

Lawrence: This is needed because "Conduct Unbecoming" is determined by the Board, not the Board of Vice Presidents, so this BVP came up with this definition for the Board's approval. Also, there are certain abuses that are chronic; in particular, abuse of the staff, often by attorneys who are not members and are beyond the reach of discipline. This resolution says if you hired 'em, you're responsible. Every member has pledged to abide by the Code of Ethics, but then when a charge is brought against them, they try to get out of it. This is a list of specific violations. He wants to be able to announce this from the podium, print it in the AP, publicize it widely.

Klug: At the initial meeting of her BVP, those vice presidents talked about it. Isn't abusive language covered under item #12 of the Code of Ethics? She thinks #1 is all that is necessary. She is afraid if the Board adopts a list, it will grow to 40 or 50 pages.

Eisenstein: Yes. She explains the three ways that someone can commit Conduct Unbecoming. One is by resolution, but there isn't any right now. If an expelled member were to take it to an outside court, there's nothing spelling it out.

Lawrence: Hopes so. But is following Eisenstein's advice that a board resolution is needed. Then, if the Board approves it, he then hopes to take it to the membership. No, the Code of Ethics doesn't cover all this. He cites attorneys representing a member. It's not as unusual as people might think.

Lawrence: He knows of instances where exhibitor has been told and understands that a claim in his exhibit is not true.

Washburne: All exhibit judging is subjective. He sees #8 as too vague, leading to a deluge of complaints.

Lawrence: A dealer says a stamp is coil, Lawrence gets it expertized, returns it, gets money back, then the dealer sells it again as a coil. That's fraud. Lawrence thinks that should be true for exhibits.

Resolved that Conduct Unbecoming a Member shall consist of, but is not limited to, the following types of unacceptable action on the part of any APS member:

2. Use of abusive or obscene language in any communication, spoken or written, with any director or member of the APS staff acting in an official capacity;

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, McCann.
Opposed: Carter, Washburne.
Passed 8-2

3. Use of violence or a threat of violence against any APS staff member, director, or other APS member;

Passed unanimously.

4. Use of falsehood, trickery, or misleading tactic to obtain a judgment against anyone in the course of an APS disciplinary process, including proceedings before or adjudicated in a court of law if those proceedings become part of an APS disciplinary hearing;

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, McCann
Opposed: Washburne
Passed 9-1

5. Abuse of the APS complaints procedure, including, but not limited to, submitting a frivolous or groundless complaint against a member;

Klug: Who decides if something is frivolous or groundless?

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, McCann
Opposed: Washburne
Passed 9-1

6. Harassment or retaliation against a complaining party for sanctions imposed by the APS, including the filing of counter-complaints against the original plaintiff after the decision of the Board of Vice Presidents or Appeals Tribunal becomes final, for matters related to the original complaint.

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, McCann
Opposed: Washburne
Passed 9-1

7. Failure to provide pertinent information or documentation requested by the Board of Vice Presidents during an APS disciplinary investigation, membership application review, or hearing;

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, McCann.
Opposed: Washburne.
Abstention: Carter.
Passed 8-1-1.

8. Intentionally deceptive or misleading claims in sales, purchases, or exhibits.

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries
Opposed: Carter, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, Washburne, McCann
Defeated 4-6

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Lesher, Straight, McCann
Opposed: Flannery, Washburne.
Passed: 8-2

Washburne: Opposes the resolution in its entirety. Thinks #1 is sufficient. Thinks others will bring derision about the board when these are publicized.

In favor: Lawrence, Prill, Fekete, de Vries, Carter, Flannery, Lesher, Straight, McCann
Opposed: Washburne.
Passed 9-1.

Future Board Meetings:
Carter: Proposes next meeting be in two days, not in one continuous session. 13-1/4 hours is too long. Sense of board is agreement; the President calls meetings and sets their format.

Membership Promotion:
Objective:
1. To recruit new members from a pool of people who are interested, active stamp collectors.
2. To assist APS Chapters with their own promotions.

Plan:
Offer all 632 APS Chapters two free APS memberships to give within one year, stipulating that memberships may only be given to those in the USA who are not now APS members.

Promotion should be attractive, clearly written, and designed to generate excitement. It should suggest ways the Chapter could use the memberships to promote their own club. Examples: As a club or show door prize, as a service award, as a fundraising item for auction, etc.

Cost:
Based upon the 50% cost of membership allocated to American Philatelist production and distribution, the baseline cost of membership is figured at $15. If all 632 clubs give out both memberships, the cost is $18,960. It is unlikely that all clubs will give out both memberships.

A more realistic number is half that, or 600 memberships at $15 = $9,000. If 20% renew and remain members for a second year, that is 120 members @ $30 = $3,600 or at $35 = $4,200. The value of the public relations to APS Chapters cannot be calculated.

Comparison:
The cumulative cost of lodging and travel expenses for “Recruiting and Promotion” at shows in 2003 was $26,775 (does not include comp time). How many new members were recruited?

Lamb: The APS is already giving away free memberships on a member's 5th anniversary and 25th anniversary, and if it gives away too many free memberships, it deflates the value of membership. Two free memberships is two-thirds of the membership of some clubs. He instead suggests offering a discount on a club's membership.

Foster Miller: Why not offer free memberships for those chapters that have enough to qualify for free membership. Might be incentive for clubs to get more APS members.

Lawrence: Would like to try a pilot project first. Many club members already get APS benefits by being members of the club/chapter; they don't need individual membership and won't renew.

Hotchner: He would like some sense from Lamb what percentage of these free memberships renew.

Lamb: Why not make club do something to earn the free membership? Such as recruiting 3 or 5 new members, then get a free membership to give away.

Additional Points for Discussion [from same report]:
The visibility of APS at WSP shows is important, but should APS be present at EVERY show EVERY year? Could we eliminate a few shows for one year to fund this plan? Should APS consider sending a staff representative to shows on a rotating basis of every other year as a cost-saving method?

Prill: As a show person, she opposes this. Those attending shows are eager to talk to APS representatives. The APS thus reaches a lot of members who don't come to big shows, don't go to Bellefonte.

Lamb: There's a big difference between eastern and western shows. If the staffer has to fly, $800 each. If a show is drivable, it's $300-400.

Straight moves to accept the Kehr nomination; seconded by Lawrence.
Passed unanimously.