First Session -- February 22, 1999

Attendees:

Board of Directors: President, John Hotchner; Immediate Past President, Randy Neil, Vice Presidents: Dr. Peter P. McCann, Patricia Stilwell Walker, Gordon Morison; Secretary, Janet Klug; Directors-at-Large: Wayne Youngblood, Ann Triggle, Lloyd de Vries, and Jeanette Adams (arriving at 7:45 p.m.).

Staff: Executive Director, Robert E. Lamb; Director of Administration, Frank Sente; Director of Shows & Exhibitions, Ken Martin; Editor, Bill Welch; Society Attorney, David Flood.

Guests: Rob Haeseler, David Tilton, Marjory Sente, Foster Miller, Mary Ann Owens, Ada Prill, John Lievsay, Nanette Hotchner, Lucille Lamb, Steve Schumann (joining later).

I. Call to Order - President John Hotchner

The meeting of the American Philatelic Societys Board of Directors was called to order by President John Hotchner at 7:10 p.m., February 22, 1999 in the Signature Room of the Omni Rosen Hotel in Orlando, Florida.

President Hotchner welcomed the guests who were present and asked each to introduce him- or herself. President Hotchner stated that Treasurer John Apfelbaum's flight was canceled and he would not be present, and that Director-at-Large Jeanette Adams was scheduled to arrive later in the evening. President Hotchner thanked the local committee for the efforts they have made in association with Ken Martin to produce Americas 99.

Appointments: Jim Mazepa has been appointed as APS representative to FIAF. FIAF will be holding some informal meetings here at Americas 99.

Daniel Olson is being appointed as APS representative to Maximaphilly Commission of FIP.

We have appointed Jeanette Adams and Peter McCann as APS representatives to the Washington 2006 Board, together with Bob Lamb who has the Executive Director's seat on their Board. Steve Luster will be making a presentation on its progress when he addresses the Board at its Strategic Planning session on Thursday.

Announcements: President Hotchner noted that the Board had received a final report from Pacific 97 and stated it was a full report that had been covered by the press. Bob Lamb has spent a fair amount of time on the telephone making sure it got done. Lamb deserves our thanks for pushing to get this done.

At the last Board meeting Hotchner reported on the results of surveys he has been conducting through his column in American Philatelist. On the subject of should the USPS issue anymore semi-postals, the raw statistics are: Congress should direct more semi-postals -- 15.

Don't want any more semi-postals -- 71.

Makes no difference to me -- 22.

President Hotchner appointed an ad hoc committee on exhibiting and exhibitions. So far Hotchner has had responses from three people who have been asked to serve on the committee -- Jeanette Adams and George Shalimoff agreed to do so. Jack Harwood was not certain, and Hotchner has had no responses yet from others he has asked.

Motion: That agenda items may be taken out of order. Moved by Klug. Seconded by de Vries. Passed unanimously.

II. Society Attorney's Report -- David Flood

Flood: Presented a written report to the Board that stated the Society Attorney had been working on the following items:

1. Review and draft of Washington 2006 Agreement. Review and approval of revisions to Washington 2006 Agreement.

2. Assistance to Sales Division regarding various collection matters.

3. Conferences with Complaint's Manager relating to disciplinary matters.

4. Conferences with Executive Director.

5. The Society Attorney has rendered various opinions to the Board of Vice Presidents, Board of Directors and Executive Director relating to general Society business, agreements, complaints of members, expulsions, appeals and matters of a similar nature.

III. Executive Director's Report

Lamb: For the first time in four years the membership was down 1667 members on January 1. That was due in part to an accounting change that allows us to record resignations when received. Resignations now show up earlier than they would have in the past. We have made up 350 of those, 250 new members in January alone. It is symptomatic of what is happening throughout the hobby. If you look at stamp publications, their subscribers are down. No major philatelic organization is showing an increase in membership. Lamb was delighted there was an agenda item that addressed membership promotion. It is in the best interest of the Society for our chapters and affiliates to grow. All hobby groups need to work to turn this around.

There is one sector of the hobby that is growing and that is the Internet. We have had 170,000 hits on our website as of February 22. Klug will be reporting later on the priorities we have outlined for our website as a result of a report written by Randy Neil last year. We have taken some steps to implement this plan already. As of last Friday members could reach our website via www.stamps.org as well as our west.net address. We have added an employee to work on the website in house. We plan to add a listing of the judges soon. Lamb thanked Lois Evans de Violini and Joe Picard for the progress we have made on the Internet website. We owe them a vote of thanks. We are not replacing them, but augmenting what they do with our staff at State College. Lamb would like to look into a major redesign of the website in the fall.

Our finances are in good shape. Our total assets for the Society are in excess of $6 million. Our liability asset ratio is in excess of 2 to 1. If we were in the private sector our company would be in danger of a take over because we are so healthy. John Apfelbaum has served us well as treasurer and he has prodded us to keep our expenses down. He has pointed out that by efficient management in State College we can make more money for the Society than we can with a dues increase.

Bill Welch has looked at the printer for American Philatelist and this summer we will be moving the printing from Webcrafters after being with them for two decades. We have found a new printer who offers better printing techniques and better distribution system so we will be able to get the magazine out to the membership faster.

Our members were generous to us. Our revenue from cash contributions was in excess of a quarter of a million dollars. It was the second best year in our history. The only year that surpassed this was 1990 when we were in the height of a building campaign and we raised $290,000. We received $100,000 from the estate of Leo August. Those of you who have visited State College recently have seen the plaque we erected to Leo August in our foyer. It is a fitting recognition to a benefactor of the hobby. Most of the donations went to the building fund. -- $150,000. Another $29,000 went to the youth program and various library programs received $29,000. The growth of in kind contributions has been even more dramatic. Last year we got $390,000 of in kind contributions from the membership. We can use donations of all types of stamps that are contributed to us. The first choice goes to the Reference Collection. Mercer Bristow takes whatever he needs for that. The low end material goes into the youth programs and that has an insatiable demand. Everything else is processed and generally is sold through auction to benefit the Society. This year because the number of contributions has increased so much we have introduced a more automated system for controlling donated stamps.

The Reference Collection growth has been dramatic. Five years ago we barely had a Reference Collection. This year we expect the value of the Reference Collection to exceed $1 million. We need to think about better space so our members can use the Reference Collection. We also have to consider better security and climatic control. We talk about the need for space in the Library, but the Reference Collection has an even more pressing need for space.

We appreciate the donation by Scott Publishing of albums for the Reference Collection. Every time Scott issues a new album they donate one to the Reference Collection. Scott has donated thousands of dollars in supplies for the Reference Collection.

Lamb deferred the discussion on guaranteeing the Expertizing Certificates. He was pleased with the progress we have made, and the entire program is being revamped with newly redesigned forms and certificates. We have a mockup of the design for the Stamp Identification program. We have researched more into the guaranteeing of the certificates and should be able to address the concerns people have had about that. We should be able to present the package on Expertizing at our next Board meeting in Cleveland. We issued about 6,000 certificates last year, the second best year in our history.

Two years ago we began to revitalize our book publishing program. Spurious Stamps which appeared in 1997 is down to low inventory levels and will not be reprinted. Last year we published the EKU Handbook which was meant to be a limited edition publication. We sold out last year, but there were so many requests for it that we had to reprint it. We have about 100 left on hand and expect to sell out in the next few months. The Serrane Guide is now available and we have sold about a third of those. That will be a publication we will continue to reproduce over time. It is a standard reference. The new Judges Manual has come out. It is a very attractive publication and Lamb expressed his appreciation to the people in the room (Hotchner and McCann) who made the publication possible.

On February 12 Kitty Wunderly left her job as Education Director. She was in charge of book publishing and a lot of other programs. She left for personal reasons. We tried to persuade her to stay but she couldn't. Her departure left a big hole in Society staffing. The book publishing and many other programs that have been successful was due to Kitty's energy and ability.

One of the areas under her jurisdiction that has done extremely well is the All Star Stamp Clubs. They are off to a good start. As of last week we had over 60 clubs and over 1,000 children participating in the program. We didn't expect to reach 1,000 in the first year, but we actually reached it in two months. Every time we send out a package we get another group of clubs that apply. We charge $5 dues for each club and the postage on the first mailing exceeded the cost of dues. The first mailing included a package of stamps, first day covers, and literature for the kids in the club. The second mailing went out this week and included membership pins, cards, and certificates for each youth in the club, and an adult leader certificate. We are doing birthday cards for each of the children in the program. Irwin Weinberg has agreed to pay for the cards in memory of his wife Jeannie. This program has depended heavily on contributions. Scott Publishing has promised us album pages of recent US stamps for every single kid in the program. Linn's and Krause are sending us materials. The USPS has helped, and our own membership has sent donations.

Lamb was disappointed with the Youth Essay Contest. It will have about the same number of entrants as last year and we had hoped to have done better. Our energies were spent in getting the All Star Stamp Clubs up and running and perhaps the Essay Contest was more than we could handle at the same time. It will be a good program, but not the smashing success we had hoped.

We have worked a lot on preservation spray and watermark fluid since our last Board meeting. The testing was completed and the results were satisfactory. The preservation spray went on sale at a hobby show in Texas under the name Archival Mist. It went out without an endorsement from us. They felt the major market for the product was outside philately. They will market it within philately but without our endorsement. After consultation with Ann Triggle and David Flood the watermark fluid manufacturers will sell their product without an endorsement from the APS. This decision was supported by the other Board members Lamb discussed this with. The income from an endorsement would not have been great and there were potential liabilities for us. The income would not have covered the expenses of doing the sorts of tests we would have required to protect us from the liabilities. We did tell the manufacturers that when they sold the product they could say it was developed at the request of the Society because APS wanted a watermark fluid that was safe for individuals and the environment. That is factually correct. They are being authorized to use the APS logo that any APS dealer can use on their advertisements. Our service to the hobby was encouraging someone to produce a product the hobby needs. Lamb believes it is a good product for the hobby. We hope to encourage development of better philatelic products for our members. Lamb hopes to focus now on developing a good, peelable hinge.

Computerization of the Society headquarters continues. We have finished installing our upgraded membership system. It was a difficult time, but the change was fairly transparent to the members. Several Board members have asked if we have a Y2K problem. We do not have a Y2K problem in our main membership system, but all of us have a Y2K problem in Windows 95. There are fixes available for that but Brian Krasinski recommends we don't install them until later this year when the bugs have been identified and corrected.

There have been some major stamp thefts recently. We have devoted considerable attention to this problem in State College. You will notice increased security at Americas 99. There will be uniformed police in sight throughout the show and on the premises after the show. We cannot ensure the safety of dealers once they have left the premises, but we can make sure they are safe while they are here. President Hotchner revitalized the Stamp Theft Committee under the chairmanship of Merritt Jenkins, a retired FBI officer from Knoxville, Tennessee.

Triggle: Since neither Scott Frazier nor John Apfelbaum are here, do we defer questions we have on Finances?

Lamb: It depends on how technical they are.

Triggle: For example, books are not listed as capital assets for the APRL.

Lamb: We were inconsistent in valuing our capital assets and the auditor said that rather than continue reporting in an inconsistent way we should drop the listing. You will notice we also don't list our Reference Collection as capital assets. These are significant collections. It is almost impossible to value our APRL holdings. It represents millions of dollars more than the amount on our balance statement.

Triggle: Did the Society Attorney approve the use of the APS logo on the watermark fluid?

Flood: It is the same service we provide to any dealer who uses the APS logo in their advertising. We didn't want to endorse it, because we couldn't be certain what it would do to stamps ten years from now and nobody else could say for certain, either. Flood uses it himself.

Lamb: We have tested it for stability and know it will be safe for 25 years, but there are other issues with the watermark fluid.

Adams: Under what brand name will the watermark fluid be marketed?

Lamb: “Clarity.”

de Vries: Most of the headline grabbing stamp thefts have happened after people have left the shows. Two of them were at hotels, one at a motel, and one happened on a sidewalk. None actually happened “at the show.” It is beyond any promoter's control..

Klug: Inquired how many youths entered the Youth Essay Contest.

Lamb: It hasn't closed yet, but it will be about 100. Lamb was expecting hundreds of entries. We have about 35 prizes and a good selection to make the awards from.

Klug: Could we consider changing the contest from an essay contest to something else? Kids are put off by writing essays. It is too much like schoolwork for them.

Lamb: We tried to make the contest a little different. We limited it to 500 words, and we required the use of stamps to illustrate the theme. Lamb would not at this point recommend another essay contest. We expect the long-term impact on youth collecting to be much more dramatic from the All Star Stamp Clubs than from a one-shot essay contest.

Klug: The point Klug really wanted to make was that we put $20,000 into this program and we are reaching only 100 kids. It really is not a cost effective way to promote the hobby for youth.

de Vries: Confirmed that kids don't like writing essays. His 11-year old said it was too much like school work.

Youngblood: Is there any way to track the All Star Stamp Clubs with the Stampers program by the USPS?

Lamb: We don't know how the clubs in the program were formed. Some may have sprung from the Stampers program. We started with a list of 400 clubs that we thought existed. There was no inventory of stamp clubs or school programs. We have been getting letters from teachers who are saying they want to start a stamp club in their school. We were aiming to reinforce existing clubs, and now it appears we are also instrumental in forming new clubs.

Lamb agreed with Klug that $20,000 for a youth essay program was not a cost effective promotion. Sam Malamud donated $20,000 for the first contest. He had a vision of a stamp program that could be publicized worldwide and get kids from all over the world interested in stamp collecting. He did a lot to promote stamp collecting with that gift. The USPS donated $20,000 for the second contest. This generous donation from the Postal Service allowed the APS to use its own funds to get the All Star Stamp Clubs program up and running.

Motion: To accept the Society Attorney's Report. Moved by Neil. Seconded by de Vries. Passed unanimously.

Motion: To accept the Executive Director's Report. Moved by Neil. Seconded by Walker. Passed unanimously.

IV. Committee Reports

Triggle: Distributed a synopses of various Committee reports, and complimented Tom Fortunato (Chapter Activities Committee Chairman) and Jim McDevitt (Affiliates Committee Chairman) for excellent work on behalf of their respective committees. Guy Dillaway took over the Expertizing Committee from Rich Drews. Merritt Jenkins took over the Stamp Theft Committee.

Motion: To accept the committee reports. Moved by Klug. Seconded by Adams. Passed unanimously.

V. Approval of Phone Votes

Lamb: The Board voted unanimously by phone to approve the minutes of the Santa Clara Board Meeting.

Motion: To approve the phone votes. Moved by Adams. Seconded by Morison. Passed unanimously.

VI. Bylaws Amendments

Motion: To accept the wording of bylaws amendments 1 and 2 that would lower the age of eligibility for life membership from 21 to 18, and substitute an age-based scale of fees for life membership for the current “flat fee.” Moved by Triggle. Seconded by de Vries. Passed unanimously.

Adams: Suggested that bylaws amendment 3, which eliminates the time served as a committee chair from the categories of service that establishes eligibility for Presidency also change the age eligibility from 21 to 18 to correspond with changes we have made in amendments 1 and 2.

Flood: Wondered if that was advisable, because 18 year olds may not have the level of maturity needed to serve on the Board of Directors.

Adams: Indicated that members who vote for the Board would still have options. They could vote for or against a young candidate. All members should be treated equally, and 18-year olds, if they are eligible for life membership should also be eligible to serve on the Board.

Youngblood: Inquired when we dropped the “J” in junior memberships.

Sente: Replied that it is dropped when the member reaches age 18 or the age of majority in their state.

Motion: To change bylaws amendment 3 age requirement from 21 to 18. Moved by Adams. Seconded by Neil. Passed unanimously.

Lamb: There are three options for bylaws amendment 4 pertaining to term limits. We need a two-thirds majority of those voting in order for any of them to pass. With three options, it is likely that none will pass.

Morison: Suggested we first ask members to vote if they want term limits or no term limits. If they want term limits, then we could offer them a choice of two options.

[Note: Option A limits the number of terms a member may serve on the Board to a lifetime total of four unless (s)he is elected President.

Option B limits the number of terms a member may serve on the Board to a total of four in any twelve year period, unless (s)he is elected President.

Option C is to keep things as they are now with no imposed term limits.]

Flood: Indicated that was too cumbersome and would be confusing to the membership.

Triggle: Suggested we eliminate option C (no change in the term limits) because if it didn't pass, there would be no change to what we have now anyway.

Flood: We could stretch this out over a period of time. Ask the members in this ballot if they favored term limits. Then the next election we could ask them which option they preferred.

McCann: We have already stretched this out over too long a period of time.

Neil: Agreed and said we should pick one of the two term limit options to recommend to the membership.

de Vries: Option A was approved by the previous board but never came to a vote. Option B was approved by this board. If we chose A or B now we are in danger of ignoring our predecessors. We should have a two part ballot that offers term limits or not, and then another choice of how we want the term limits to be implemented.

Sente: To make it more practical it would be smarter and cleaner to pick one of the options. We could offer Option A and B as separate amendments with an up or down vote and if both passed, then we could select the one that passed by the wider margin.

Flood: The past Board's action regarding Option A was not legal because it was never voted upon by the membership.

Hotchner: Both Option A and Option B fulfill the intent of the previous Board. Hotchner asked for expressions of opinion from those present who were members of the previous Board. President Hotchner called on Mary Ann Owens, member of the previous Board, who was present as an observer.

Mary Ann Owens: Option B was a new concept to Owens. The previous Board never discussed that at all. Owens asked for clarification on why the 12 year time frame came up. It seemed unfair to Owens because people could go out of the country for a few years and then lose out on serving on the Board because of the 12 year time frame.

Youngblood: Option A limits a person for life. For example, if Youngblood ran for Secretary for two terms and the Director at Large for two terms, he would have to go off the Board for life unless he sought higher office.

Owens: So does this mean you could run for two terms in one position then two terms in another position and sit out for twelve years and run again?

de Vries: No, a person would only have to sit out for four years. The amendment reads four terms in any consecutive twelve-year period.

McCann: As an example, John Apfelbaum served on the Board at a very young age. If Option A was passed there would be no chance he could ever serve on the Board again. Option B gives someone like that who becomes active on the Board at a young age a chance to come back on the Board if (s)he desires at a later date.

Owens: We developed the term limits amendment (Option A) so that fresh people would come on to the Board. Option B is an entirely different philosophy to what we had originally intended.

Hotchner: It isn't that far off from what was originally intended. The membership still has a choice as to who they will vote for. If the membership doesn't wish to have the person who has served previously on the Board, then they don't have to vote for them.

Owens: Then to our membership A and B are the same thing, but to Board members there is a subtle difference.

Hotchner: Could you live with this Board recommending Option B to our members?

Owens said she could live with it.

Motion: That the Board recommend Term Limits Amendment Option B to the membership for a vote, and that Options A and C would be dropped from consideration. Moved by Neil. Seconded by Youngblood. Passed unanimously.

McCann: Felt it was important that members be aware that no Board member could sit on the Board forever if Option B was adopted. The wording on the ballot should be very clear that if members do not want term limits they vote against the amendment. Some people think these ballot proposals are complicated and it is important that the statement that accompanies the amendment spells it out very clearly.

Hotchner: Appointed McCann and Lamb to revise the purpose statement that will accompany the ballot for the Term Limits Amendment.

Hotchner: Asked the Board if there were any objections to proposed Amendment 5 that shortens the election process by 28 days. There were no objections. Amendment 5 will be presented to the membership for a vote.

Hotchner: Offered the following ballot recommendation to accompany Bylaw Amendment 6 (a proposal that would widen the possible field of candidates that might wish to stand for office as a Board of Vice Presidents by providing an exception to the 200-mile limitation): “The majority of the Board recommends approval of this proposal, but one member, a former member of the Board of Vice Presidents feels the bylaws restriction is good policy.” Hotchner felt the membership should know this amendment was not a unanimous recommendation from the Board.

Triggle: 4.7.1., the current amendment regarding the residence of Vice Presidents, does not place any restrictions on the number of times the Board should meet, however the exception imposes those who live more distant would have to meet face to face every 8 weeks. It would seem appropriate to have the first section in amendment 4.7.1 read “the three Vice Presidents shall reside within 200 miles of each other and agree to meet once in a 60 day period at his or her sole cost and expense.” In other words, the wording taken from the exception should also apply to those who live closer together.

McCann: Disagreed. The exception is just that -- an exception. The rule for Vice Presidents who live within 200 miles of one another should stand as it is. The Vice Presidents who live close together are entitled to ask for a small reimbursement for their expenses. The whole idea of this is that we will have an exception to the rule. It would be a mistake to change the original rule.

Hotchner: Stated his major objection was the issue of reimbursement. If this is legitimate Society business and we believe it is good policy to be able to be able to form a slate from outside the 200 mile limit, it is appropriate to reimburse them for their expenses. Otherwise we limit the people who can run to those who have enough money to be able to do that sort of thing. Hotchner objected to that in principal. If a person is qualified to run, wants to run, and is able to do the job then their financial assets should have no place in whether they decide to run. Until we can change this to cover expenses Hotchner will be opposed.

Morison wondered if that was Hotchner's only objection to the proposed bylaws amendment.

Hotchner said it was.

Adams: Inquired if Hotchner would object to removing the language in the amendment that said “at his or her sole cost and expense.”

Hotchner: We would then govern the process in the same way the process is governed now.

Flood: First the Board has to reach a philosophical decision as to whether the 200 mile limit bears any relationship to what is necessary for the Board of Vice Presidents. Secondly, is it worth it to set up a schedule of meetings? If it is maybe you can call then once a quarter and bear the expenses for these meetings.

McCann: We cannot have the Board of Vice Presidents meet only once a quarter. That is the reason the language is like it is because we have to make it very clear for those who want to live at great distances from one another that they have to meet every eight weeks.

Flood: But things are changing now with electronic communications.

McCann: It's got to be a face to face meeting.

Klug: The current bylaw for the Board of Vice Presidents imposes no restrictions on how often they should meet. Those who live more distant will have a rule imposed upon them that they have to meet every 8 weeks. It should be specified for those who live closer together as well.

Hotchner: Going back to the Board of Vice Presidents that preceded his, and that has been at least 10 years, it has been the practice to do that.

Klug said if it is specified for one group, it should be specified for both groups.

McCann: Disagreed. The reason why it was specified was to make it a very stringent exception. Otherwise it would be too easy not to meet. The idea was to give another group of people who don't live close together an opportunity to form a Board of Vice Presidents, but it is tougher. It is an exception.

de Vries: Was opposed to this amendment but thought it should be presented to the members. He planned to vote against it. However he saw Klug's point. As it is now three people could be living next door to each other and there is no requirement for them to ever meet.

McCann: In practice the people who live near each other do meet. Those who live in separate states might not, and that is the reason why this exception is being stated. If the amendment stands as it does now it is discriminatory to Boards of Vice President slates being formed at places like the western states where there are lots of APS members who could potentially serve. In the last election there were people who wanted to form a slate in California but they couldn't find the people who would fit into the 200 mile limit.

Hotchner: Said we could do major surgery on this but it isn't necessary. It isn't required by the bylaws that Board of Vice Presidents who live within 200 miles of one another must meet every 8 weeks, but it doesn't need to be. It is the President's responsibility to make sure that happens. If Hotchner, as President, doesn't see his three Vice Presidents meeting on a regular basis and taking care of business it is up to the President to make sure they do or to bring it up to the Board.

Adams: Disagreed with de Vries and liked the exception not just because of geographic diversity but because of diversity in ways of thinking. There tends to be in different parts of the country different outlooks on philately. A Board of Vice Presidents coming from all over the country is more likely to have a variety of outlooks. Adams took Hotchner's point on the finances.

Motion: In the Bylaws Amendment 4.7.2 Exception we take out the words “at his or her sole cost and expense.” Moved by Adams. Seconded by Triggle. Passed unanimously.

Neil: Klug mentioned that the exception stipulates the Board of Vice Presidents formed outside the 200 mile limit was required to meet every 60 days. If you look at the part of the bylaws that discusses Duties and Responsibilities, that is covered for the Board of Vice Presidents. They have to do that. It is their responsibility, and it is determined by the amount of work that comes their way. It is an exception and it should be.

Lamb: Was concerned what it will cost the Society. Lamb said it would cost $1000 per meeting for the Board. If there is one in California and one in New York and they fly, the airfare will be a major expense. There is no limit to how frequently they meet, and they could meet monthly under this proposal. Hotchner raises the question that they should be reimbursed and they could request airfare and hotels and other costs. Is there a limit?

Hotchner: Yes, there is a practical limit because if the Executive Director doesn't agree with what is being billed, he can always bring it to the Board and the Board can set a limit to the expenses. In the past Lamb has exercised some control over what Lamb considered to be reasonable expenses including denying them and talking with people directly. That is the function of the Executive Director.

Lamb: It is the sense of the Board to reimburse reasonable expenses.

Walker: Did not believe that was the sense of the Board. Our Board of Vice Presidents and the previous Board of Vice Presidents has met a number of times and we have done so at our own expense.

Lamb: Stated he and Hotchner also were on the Board of Vice Presidents together and never billed the Society, but what Lamb heard the Board say was that we should not expect the Vice Presidents to meet at their own expense.

McCann: It would be reimbursed just as any Board member would be reimbursed for what is reasonable and appropriate. If you have problems with expenses being claimed then you discuss it with the President.

Walker: People who are forming a Board from greater distances should seek the advice of the Executive Director before running as a slate to find out how much of their expenses are reimbursable. Urge them to meet at a stamp show they are all attending.

Triggle: Noted that she had seen the Board of Vice Presidents meet as a group at shows.

Hotchner recognized Mary Ann Owens.

Owens: There is a simple solution. Put a dollar amount for the Board of Vice Presidents in the budget and when they reach the limit tell them the money is gone and they can't spend any more.

McCann: There is in fact a budget for the Board of Vice Presidents that has never been spent.

Hotchner: That is a very good way to approach it. Figure out what is a reasonable amount to put against that account and tell people ahead of time how much the Board recommends.

Motion: To accept the changes made on all of the bylaws amendments and refer it back to the Executive Director to run in the next election. Moved by Klug. Seconded by Walker. Passed unanimously.

VII: Affiliate Applications

Motion: That the application for affiliation from the Trans Mississippi Philatelic Society by approved. Moved by Neil. Seconded by de Vries. Passed unanimously.

[President Hotchner called a 10 minute break. The session resumed at 9:40 p.m.]

VIII: Future Shows

Ken Martin: Had no recommendations for future Winter Shows. Martin asked for advice on STAMPSHOW 2003. It would be one or two years past the normal rotation for the West Coast. We continue to have problems with potential sites on the West Coast because of requirements for large blocks of hotel rooms in order to get convention space. This eliminates San Diego, Seattle, and Denver because we can't meet their room requirements. Cities that would give us space include Anaheim or Los Angeles. However, the Mega Shows are in Anaheim and Stamp Expo in 2000. It appears to Martin the only two viable candidates for the West Coast if we are going to go there in 2003 would be Santa Clara or Sacramento. San Jose also won't give us space because of the hotel rooms. Those are both places that have at least 100,000 square feet available to us. They will give us the space and have smaller hotel room requirements. Other cities such as Tucson or Portland already have shows or are not quite up to the population standards we like to have. Santa Clara was well attended and thought to be a great success, however we try to get to different areas. Sacramento is not very different from Santa Clara. They are an hour or so apart. Sacramento's population within a 100 mile radius is almost identical to Santa Clara. Sacramento's convention space would be slightly less expensive and there are more choices of reasonably priced hotels. Martin asked the Board if he should consider these sites for 2003, and if there was a strong favor of one over the other.

Neil: Santa Clara was one of the best STAMPSHOW's in our history.

Klug: Santa Clara was a great show. Why argue with success? We should go back to Santa Clara.

Triggle: It is important to have a show on the West Coast.

Hotchner recognized Steve Schumann who was the general chairman of STAMPSHOW in Santa Clara.

Schumann: August in Sacramento will be between 100 and 105 degrees every day. There also is a problem with the commute to Sacramento.

It was the sense of the Board that STAMPSHOW be held in Santa Clara in 2003.

IX: NORDIA 2001

Morison: NORDIA 2001 show will take place in Tucson January 26 - 28. The APS will be there. Plans are progressing nicely. We have five judges from the Scandinavia area and we are now making decisions who our judges will be here. The exhibits will be judged by FIP rules even though it is not a FIP show. It will be added on to ARIPEX which will have about 250 frames and NORDIA will have about 500. We are looking at a tour program preceding and following the show that we hope will encourage visitors to the South West and to Tucson. We are working with an advisory committee to provide advice to the organizing committee on relationships to those countries abroad. We hope they will help us in our interface with dealers from Scandinavia area that come here. The other advisory committee we have put together have worked on various US international stamp exhibitions to provide advice on customs arrangements and Morison thinks this will be very valuable. We hope to avoid some of the pitfalls that have occurred at other shows. The last thing we are looking at is the possibility of conducting a postal history seminar as an add-on perhaps one day preceding the show. We hope that would bring more people in advance of the show. We have a webpage at www.nordia2001.org. It will be updated with application blanks. We have had quite a few donations. We are selling membership to the NORDIA 2001 group. We have a bare bones budget. The APS winter meeting will take place there.

Hotchner: Announced that Steve Luster would provide a report on Washington 2006 on Thursday afternoon.

X. Cachet Makers Bourse Proposal

de Vries: The proposal is to have a Cachet Makers Bourse at STAMPSHOW 1999. A Cachet Makers Bourse is a very bare- bones bourse that is run for a limited amount of time at AMERICOVER. A room the size we are meeting in tonight is probably twice the size of the room needed for a Cachet Makers Bourse. The table is 6 feet long with no back table. There are two chairs behind, none in front which would make the Postal Service happy. The tables are usually crammed in to accommodate as many cachet makers as possible. There would be two purposes: one to show people who are not familiar with current US first day covers what is going on. Second would be to introduce the cachet makers to the APS and to STAMPSHOW 1999. We have the added advantage of having a very hot issue at the Cleveland show -- the trains. With or without the cachet makers bourse a number of the cachet makers will be there anyway. De Vries was asked to change the hours of operation from 6 to 9 so that there would be no overlap with the commercial bourse. At AMERICOVER the dealers accepted a one hour overlap. With regard to security, we found we needed little at AMERICOVER but it was felt we needed more security at STAMPSHOW 99. However, the requirements would be fairly small because the room will be small and we aren't talking about $10,000 items. De Vries wanted to make it clear this would be an APS event and not an AFDCS event. Cachet makers who would participate in the event would expect to sell their FDCs for the new train issue at the show. There has been some question about affiliates not selling covers at the show for the current issue. This won't work if they can't sell the covers they prepare for the train issue. One of the reasons they will come to the show will be to service their covers and that evening put them out for sale in the Cachet Makers Bourse. De Vries didn't address the issue of whether APS membership would be required to participate in the Bourse. He preferred that it not be required. We are trying to bring people in to show them what the APS and STAMPSHOW is like, so we shouldn't charge them admission at the door to participate. There is usually a half hour set up and a half hour tear down. De Vries has located two volunteers who said they would manage the Cachet Makers Bourse so it wouldn't be too much extra work on Ken Martin. A number of current cachet makers were interested in participating and had planned to be in Cleveland anyway because it is going to be a popular topical issue. There shouldn't be much competition between AMERICOVER's cachet makers bourse and STAMPSHOW's even though the two shows are only two weeks apart and a 4-hour drive. De Vries suggested a $50 bourse fee for participants in the Cachet Makers Bourse.

Lamb: Indicated he supported the proposal. It would not be a profit maker, but it would be good for members.

Martin: Said APS membership should be required to participate in the Cachet Makers Bourse. We need a way out for the Society in case anyone has been expelled. It would protect the Society.

Hotchner: Indicated that requiring APS membership was the only way we could enforce the APS Code of Ethics.

De Vries: Stipulated that Cachet Makers would only allowed be to sell their own material -- no one else's material.

Motion: To accept the proposal of the Cachet Makers' Bourse for STAMPSHOW 1999, with the stipulation that participants be required to be APS members. Moved by Neil. Seconded by Adams.

McCann: Inquired where we would have the Cachet Makers' Bourse.

Martin: Indicated that the Convention Center had rooms available.

Triggle: Inquired if the $50 fee to participate was enough.

Martin: Replied that it was enough to cover the cost of tables and security. We would get the room for free and essentially break even on the Cachet Makers' Bourse.

Morison: Suggested we have a little overlap in time with the commercial STAMPSHOW bourse so that people will actually go to the Cachet Makers' Bourse. If there is no overlap, we could lose potential visitors to the bourse. Additionally, having an event such as this may actually keep people at the show.

Martin: Said he believed the commercial STAMPSHOW bourse dealers would not object to that.

Hotchner called the question. The Cachet Makers' Bourse proposal passed unanimously.

XI. American First Day Cover Society's AMERICOVER Show as a World Series of Philately Show

McCann: Gave background history of the suggestion to bring AMERICOVER into the APS World Series of Philately shows. Ken Lawrence was appointed as APS liaison to bring in the AFDCS to the APS WSP. Lawrence hoped that by doing that it would bring First Day Cover collecting into a more mainstream setting in a similar way that bringing TOPEX (American Topical Society's annual show) to WSP did several years ago. We received a proposal from AFDCS Executive Director Doug Kelsey which went to the Committee on the Accreditation of National Exhibitions and Judges (CANEJ). CANEJ altered the original proposal with three main changes: the number of required judges, the number of required frames, and exchange of advertising.

de Vries: Indicated he would not vote on accepting this proposal because he sat on the AFDCS Board but he asked permission to speak on the proposal.

Neil inquired if the changes made by CANEJ were acceptable to the AFDCS.

McCann: Replied that it had not been sent to AFDCS yet. The APS Board was seeing CANEJs recommendations and if the Board approved them we would send this to AFDCS for their approval. There were some fundamental differences. The AFDCS wanted only three judges. APS is requiring five. APS is also requiring that AMERICOVER meet the minimum show requirements of 2500 pages in the exhibition by the year 2002. CANEJ felt it could not impose the 2500 page minimum on other shows that struggle with this requirement if we gave a permanent exemption to one show.

Morison: Said the reason AFDCS only wanted to have three judges was because these judges were only judging one section in the manual.

Triggle: Believed some of the AFDCS members wanted their show to become larger and be a part of APS WSP.

de Vries: Said the number of pages wasn't a big deal to the AFDCS. It was a negotiating point. De Vries asked why point 3, which stated the AFDCS wanted the APS to strive for FIP recognition of First Day Cover collecting, was removed from the agreement. The American Topical Association has an FIP representative.

Triggle: Replied that the ATA already had a FIP representative before their show came into the APS World Series of Philately.

McCann: Stated CANEJ felt it was not proper to have this as part of the show agreement.

Motion: To accept CANEJ's counterproposal to the AFDCS that AMERICOVER become recognized as an APS WSP show. Moved by Neil. Seconded by Adams.

Morison: Asked why the clause about doing reciprocal advertising in journals was removed from the agreement.

McCann: Stated that CANEJ felt that, too, had nothing to do specifically with bringing the show to WSP status.

Triggle: Inquired how many people in the AFDCS knew this was a possibility, and what did AFDCS members think of these plans.

Hotchner recognized AFDCS representative Foster Miller who was an observer at the Board Meeting.

Foster Miller: The AFDCS believes this is a starting point. Miller believes most of the AFDCS Board Members would go for it, but it has to go to their Board for approval. The requirement of 2500 pages would mean the show will have to have more space. That didn't seem to be a big problem. AFDCS wanted to encourage more people to exhibit, and if they knew that they might participate in the Champion of Champions at STAMPSHOW, this might encourage more exhibitors.

Mary Ann Owens: Stated that working with the APS has improved ATA shows and exhibits. It has not been problem-free, but it has been a good working relationship.

de Vries: Said he had supported this proposal, but wondered if advertising and FIP recognition were not germane to the show agreement, then why items 1 (APS recognizing AFDCS is the primary organization for FDC collectors), 5 (trademark recognition), and 7 (APS and AFDCS continuing to explore ways to coordinate activities) were germane. They, too, were not strictly about a stamp show. Would the AFDCS be allowed to sell current FDCs at STAMPSHOW? Would the grand award winner at AMERICOVER be invited to exhibit at STAMPSHOW?

McCann: The grand award winner at AMERICOVER would be expected to exhibit in the Champion of Champions at STAMPSHOW. That is already in the WSP rules. The objective of this proposal is that the APS is trying to reach out and promote exhibiting and do new things. We can hammer out other details at the Executive Director level. We expect there will be rough spots, but they can be smoothed over.

Hotchner called the question. In favor: McCann, Walker, Morison, Triggle, Klug, Adams, Youngblood, Neil. Abstained: de Vries. The motion passed.

XII. Inviting Canadian National Show Grand Award Winners to Participate in Champion of Champions

McCann: The proposal that would invite the three Canadian National Shows Grand Award winners to participate in the APS Champion of Champions competition at STAMPSHOW each year would draw in Canadian exhibits. The future of internationals will be regionality, with increasing numbers of regional internationals. This is already happening. The proposal by Triggle suggested winners of the three national Canadian exhibitions be entered into our annual Champion of Champions competition. The Committee on the Accreditation of National Exhibitions and Judges (CANEJ) discussed this and decided the Canadian national shows would not be brought into the APS World Series of Philately shows and national APS shows because these Canadian shows are already accredited in Canada, but that we would invite the winning exhibits from the three Canadian national shows to participate in the Champion of Champions competition for a period of three years. The voting of CANEJ was not unanimous on this proposal. It was 10 to 1, with one strong dissenting vote.

Triggle: Some members of CANEJ did not know we have total reciprocity with Canadian judges and exhibits. Accredited Canadian judges can judge at national shows here and vice versa.

Motion: To accept the proposal that APS invite Canadian National Show Grand Award winners to participate in APS annual Champion of Champions competitions for a period of three years. Moved by Neil. Seconded by Walker.

Hotchner recognized CANEJ committee member Steve Schumann.

Schumann: This is an unfair proposal because the Canadian shows only require a minimum of 100 frames. US exhibitors will take their exhibits to Canada because it will be an easy entry into the Champion of Champions. This will result in our US shows having an even greater difficulty getting exhibits. Most shows are struggling now.

McCann: All the Canadian national shows routinely exceed the 100 frame minimum, in fact they usually exceed the minimum required for APS WSP shows.

Schumann: By adding three more exhibits to the Champion of Champions, it will increase the space needed for that part of STAMPSHOW. We will have to reduce the open competition by as much as 30 frames to accommodate this proposal and that is unfair to those who want to participate in the open competition. Schumann believed that if the Canadians wanted to participate in C of C competition, then their shows should go through the qualifying process and become WSP shows.

McCann: These are already qualified Canadian national shows, however McCann agreed that space to accommodate the three extra exhibits in the C of C was a legitimate complaint. We will be losing two or three national WSP shows in the next several years, though. McCann suggests we try this for three years, monitor the effect it has on STAMPSHOW, and see how it works out. McCann reminded everyone that Canadian judges are already totally integrated in our judging.

Triggle: The Canadian judging system uses the APS judging manual. Canada has its own accreditation system and they use five judges at their national shows. There is no difference in the judging standards between Canada and US and we even have reciprocity on the Accreditation Committees.

Youngblood: Did not believe it would be a problem to accommodate the three Canadian national exhibits in the C of C because we are losing three WSP shows. However, Youngblood agreed that mug hunters would take their exhibits to Canada and a lot of US exhibits would move north. It could cause an even greater problem for US shows to recruit exhibits.

McCann: Did not believe that would be the case. Canada has only three national shows and there would be a limit to how many exhibits they could accept. Additionally there are all sorts of hassles with customs in trying to take an exhibit over the international border.

Morison: US shows are having a tremendous problem getting enough exhibits to fulfill their requirement. We should have a committee study the problems with our US shows before we do something like this proposal.

Hotchner: Mentioned he appointed a committee to do just that, and reminded everyone that last year at STAMPSHOW a Canadian won both the C of C and the grand in open competition. Hotchner asked if we were making this into a North American Champion of Champions?

Neil: Said it was strange to allow Canadian exhibits into the WSP system when they weren't WSP shows, and Neil was uncomfortable with that. Neil mentioned his local show is having trouble and he did not think it would be prudent to set up a system where US exhibits would be funneled out of the country.

Triggle: Reiterated we were not trying to bring the Canadian National shows into the World Series of Philately.

Neil: We are making it too easy for Canadians to win the C of C.

Motion: To table the proposal until the new ad hoc Exhibits and Exhibitions Committee has time to report to the Board. Moved by Morison. Seconded by Neil. In favor: Walker, Morison, Youngblood, Neil, De Vries. Opposed: Adams, Triggle, McCann, Klug. The proposal was tabled.

XIII. Proposal from Les Winick to Withdraw Commissioner and Juror Support from Stampshow 2000, London in Protest of High Frame Fees.

Motion: To accept the proposal from Les Winick that the APS stand with the German Federation in withdrawing commissioner and juror support in protest of high frame fees at Stampshow 2000, London. Moved by Neil. Seconded by Triggle.

Youngblood: Inquired what were the reasons the frame fees were $52 each for Stampshow 2000, London.

Triggle: Explained the frame fees had been set at £31 or US$52 in May of 1998 and felt it was strange that a protest was only being made now. The show is being managed by P & O and they actually set a much higher frame fee, somewhere in the area of $100, so that the exhibitors were paying more of the actual cost of having exhibits. The FIP would not accept this high fee, and FIP renegotiated the fee to £31, about half the amount originally set. The German Federation withdrew because Michael Adler, who is a FIP Director and sits on the FIP Board, and the FIP Coordinator for Stampshow 2000, London, withdrew.

Martin: Stated the cost of the exhibition is generally underwritten by dealers. $52 probably does not come close to the cost of putting exhibits in the frames when you factor in the cost of jurors, commissioners, buying and/or storing the frames, security, and awards.

Adams: Setting the frame fees is a function of the organizing committee. Exhibitors should decide for themselves if the cost is too high. They always have the option to exhibit or not to exhibit.

Schumann: Adler initially agreed to the frame fees, but then began discouraging exhibitors in Germany from exhibiting.

Triggle: (Who is a U.S. Commissioner for Stampshow 2000, London) said there were 42 or 43 US applications for Stampshow 2000, London so far, and she was still getting requests for applications. This number was down somewhat from this date for London 1990, but not significantly.

Neil: The committee has the right to set the fees, and felt it was acceptable to let exhibitors pay a little more of the actual costs to run the exhibition.

Hotchner noted that people should be left free to vote with their wallets and called the question of withdrawing APS commissioner and juror support at Stampshow 2000, London. In favor: none. Opposed: Neil, Youngblood, Adams, de Vries, Klug, McCann, Walker, Morison. Abstained: Triggle.

Triggle: Requested the APS send a letter of concern to FIP about the rising costs to exhibitors, with a copy of the letter to Stampshow 2000, London.

Hotchner: Indicated he would instead send a letter and asked Triggle's help in drafting it.

XIV. Proposal that the Board of Directors Meet an Additional Two Times Per Year For a Total of Four Meetings Per Year.

Adams: Introduced the proposal on behalf of herself, Triggle, and Klug and stated more time was needed to attend to Society's business than our present two meetings per year allows.

Motion: To accept the proposal to for the Board to meet an additional two times per year. Moved by Adams. Seconded by Neil.

Hotchner: Said the proposal was fatally flawed because the President has the right and obligation to call an extra meeting if it was needed. He, in fact, did so in December 1997 for our interim meeting in State College.

Youngblood: If we begin meeting more frequently the Board runs the risk of trying to micro-manage the Society which already runs well as it is.

de Vries: Said he was still working full time and had a limited amount of vacation time. If the APS Board had to attend too many meetings, it would mean he and others like him could not serve on the Board. There were lots of other alternatives to meeting face to face, including teleconferencing and Internet chat rooms.

Neil: The real problem is that this Board doesn't think the staff is communicating with them.

Klug: We just recommended a bylaws proposal to the membership that imposes a requirement that the Board of Vice Presidents meet every eight weeks, and yet the full APS Board now only meets twice a year and has to try to cram in all its business in those two meetings. The current members of the Board of Vice Presidents said how important it was that the Vice Presidents meet face to face so that its business can be conducted. Surely the APS business is equally important. There are business items in our agenda we could have taken action on months ago -- if we had met. The Internet Implementation Plan was completed at the end of October. Here is the end of February and we haven't even discussed it yet. There are other items that could have been actionable before now if we had met between August and February.

Triggle: Many of us felt that there are problems that beset us, that, if we met we could get to them quickly before they become large problems. If we met we could exchange information with each other.

Neil: Said that in the APS Bylaws item 5.1.3 allowed that a Board meeting may be convened by the President or any three Board members at any time.

Adams: Felt we needed to focus on more regular interaction and not just call a meeting if there is an emergency but meet regularly face to face. For example, the Indiana Stamp Club is much smaller than the APS, but its board meets every month. The APS has a major budget and the Board has a major responsibility and we are only meeting every six months.

Youngblood: The cost of bringing us all together would be unconscionable even if we all shared hotel rooms as mentioned in the proposal, there still is significant cost in bringing this many people together.

Adams: It is expensive, but we have an obligation to fulfill and Adams does not believe we can adequately fulfill it by meeting only twice a year.

McCann: Agreed with Adams to a certain point. We have an excellent staff but some of the Board members think some of the staff wish we would go away. The real problem here is communication and our ability to discuss things with each other. McCann serves on several non-profit Boards and some have meetings once a month or at least quarterly. McCann thought it would sit badly with the membership to have to pay for two more meetings each year. There is a possibility worth trying that we could have meetings as telephone conference calls. We could telephone conference meetings interspersed between our major meetings. We would set aside a fixed block of time, perhaps 2 hours, with a tight agenda. We would go through the agenda very quickly with much less discussion than we have here. The conference calls are not very expensive, and we could arrange it so that interested members could call in to listen if they so desired. This would be informational, open to the public, and would not be particularly expensive. We could make them official meetings and pass resolutions if we needed to.

Flood: We already have the power in the bylaws to do that now.

McCann: There is a difference between having the ability to do it and saying we are going to do it on a regular basis.

Neil: If a face to face meeting is required the Bylaws tell us how to do it.

McCann: Didn't believe every meeting had to be face to face, but thought the Board would like to have more input and information.

Lamb: The phones work both ways. There are members of the Board who have only communicated with Lamb with copies of email messages to the entire Board. Lamb said he tells everyone everything that he knows about what is going on. If anybody wanted more information they should contact him. They can send Lamb an email message if they felt they didn't want to spend the money to make a long distance phone call. Lamb said he would call them back and tell them everything he knew. Lamb would not make frivolous phone calls because he had things to do. The Society has been extremely active during Lamb's incumbency. He is proud of what we have accomplished. Everything we have done, we have done because Lamb believed the Board wanted it to be done. We have implemented Stamp Saturdays, and revitalized book publishing. We are doing things. Some Board members have said they want to be consulted on what we publish. When the Board that instructed us to revitalize book publishing, we were specifically told to do it without consulting the Board. One of the reasons we weren't getting books published was because the consultation process was such a long one and we could never reach agreement. Lamb sends out newsletters to the Board -- about one every two months. The amount of feedback he receives back from that is infinitesimal. Communication goes both ways. If any Board member doesn't like something Lamb does they should tell him. Lamb will not do something just because one Board member tells him to, unless it is the President. If Lamb receives an instruction from a Board member, he always checks with the President before taking action to see if that represents a consensus of the Board. Lamb would welcome any kind of mechanism that would satisfy the Board's need for information. It is unfair to membership to pay $12,000 to $18,000 to have us all meet at a stamp show. When we set up special meetings it has been difficult just finding a date that we could get all you busy people together. Lamb asked the Board to tell him what they didn't know and needed to know. He welcomes input and suggestions from the Board.

Hotchner: Communication is an ongoing issue and is never perfect. That is a side issue to the proposal.

Walker: It is very difficult to find the time for two extra meetings every year. It would be much easier to set aside a block of time, perhaps 3 hours, and do a teleconference.

Hotchner called the question. In favor of holding four meetings a year: Adams, Triggle, Klug. Opposed: Morison, Walker, Neil, Youngblood, de Vries. Abstained: McCann.

Hotchner appointed an ad hoc committee to look at ways to improve communications between State College and the Board in both directions, with a report to come back to the Board at STAMPSHOW. Committee to include McCann, Lamb, Neil and Adams. If the committee comes to some conclusions on what needs to be done, it does not have to wait until STAMPSHOW to begin doing them.

Triggle: Stated that the proposers did not wish to have extra meetings because they wanted to micro-manage. There are some items on the agenda we could have dealt with earlier on, such as the relationship with the USPS. That subject came up several months ago.

Hotchner adjourned the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

Continue on to Session 2