Second Session -- February 12, 1998

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; Treasurer John Apfelbaum, Directors-at-Large: Jeanette Knoll Adams, Lloyd de Vries, Ann Triggle, Wayne Youngblood.

Staff: Executive Director Robert E. Lamb, Director of Administration Frank Sente, Attorney David Flood.

Guests: Lois & Bob de Violini, Michael Dixon, Rob Haeseler, Steve Luster, John Lievsay, F. Burton Sellers, Charles Verge (late in the session).

Call to Order:

President John M. Hotchner called the second session of the American Philatelic Society Board of Director's Meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. in the same location as the previous session. Hotchner announced that Dr. Peter McCann was joining the meeting and welcomed new guests Dixon, Luster, and Sellers. At the request of Secretary Klug, President Hotchner admonished Board members to not speak out of turn and to wait to be recognized by the Chair before speaking .

Washington 2006:

Hotchner introduced Luster and Dixon and asked them to comment on the current state of 2006 planning.

Steve Luster: The Washington 2006 Committee has acted in accordance with the wishes of the previous APS Board and has worked out an agreement with the APS Board of Vice Presidents that must be signed before Washington 2006 can proceed. The APS Board has asked for an appropriate relationship with Washington 2006 and has requested a presence on the corporate Board of Washington 2006. All of these matters are covered in the draft agreement the APS Board has before it.

Michael Dixon: Thanked the APS for allowing Washington 2006 time to address its concerns at the APS Board meeting. Washington 2006 has appointed the Executive Director of the American Stamp Dealers Association (ASDA) to its Board (currently Joe Savarese). This position is granted by virtue of office. In other words, if the ASDA's Executive Director would change, the new Executive Director would be on the Washington 2006 Board replacing the previous Executive Director. It is this sort of position Washington 2006 is offering the APS.

Luster: The agreement negotiated by the APS Board of Vice Presidents and Washington 2006 establishes the relationship between the APS and Washington 2006. Washington 2006 continually revises its budget as more information is gathered. It took Washington 2006 more than a year to be granted tax-free status under the Internal Revenue Code as a 501(c)(3) organization. That, coupled with the PACIFIC 97 difficulties, has hampered Washington 2006's fund-raising abilities and consequently we have not been earning interest in any start-up money we may have had by now because we haven't been able to raise that capital. The revised budget reflects that.

Hotchner indicated the draft agreement is contractual and will be discussed in more detail by the Board in Executive Session.

Luster: Washington 2006 is trying to establish a relationship with the United States Postal Service (USPS). Luster met with representatives of the USPS on December 24, 1997. The USPS confirmed they will have a presence at Washington 2006 as the host nation’s postal administration. USPS has committed to between 50,000 to 80,000 square feet of exhibition space which they want to be billed for by the square foot for accounting purposes. Washington 2006 has agreed to do this. The USPS has also indicated they will support the youth area in its entirety. Luster posed the question he had been asked by others -- should Washington 2006 change its dates because of the USPS international that will take place in 2005.

Dixon indicated the convention space that is blocked for the Washington 2006 show is already booked for 2007. Space is available in August of 2008, however.

Luster: Both ASDA and USPS have asked that Washington 2006 not charge admission and the revised budget reflects that. The revised budget also has a line item for the salary of a paid professional. Luster wanted to make it clear that this was for hiring a professional show manager and not for either Luster himself or for Dixon. Luster indicated that all of the available convention space will be offered first to the philatelic trade, but then any remaining unsold convention space will be creatively marketed to other corporations that would find stamp collectors an attractive market. Washington 2006 is looking to ways in which it can raise money in non-traditional ways.

Dixon: Washington 2006 is hoping for overseas participation. For example, they hope to have an overseas bank to be on-site for currency exchange. The show committee continues to explore non-traditional ways to sell space in the exhibition hall.

Triggle asked if the inquiries the Committee had made for moving the show to 2007 or 2008 were for ten-day shows. Has the committee thought of a five day show?

Dixon replied that the Committee had thought about scaling back the length of the show. The philatelic trade was not happy about that because they want two full weekends. The show could be cut to nine days, but not shorter than that.

Adams inquired how much money has been spent and what contracts have been signed by Washington 2006.

Dixon: No contracts have been signed, and thus far Luster and Dixon have carried the costs of the show out of their own pockets. Part of the deal to get the convention space includes guaranteeing hotel room nights and this will have to be done soon, but nothing has been signed at this juncture.

De Vries: Suggested hiring a professional show manager who may not be a stamp collector but would know shows.

Dixon: Indicated Washington 2006 was looking for a professional who has experience in mounting large shows.

Luster: Washington 2006 is looking at guaranteeing 44,000 - 66,000 room nights based on information provided to them by PACIFIC 97 and APS. Luster asked the Board to look at that source of information and requested reliable information on how many room nights were used on average by PACIFIC 97. Luster estimated that on the best nights only 1,000 rooms were used.

Dixon: In the past, shows have traditionally blocked rooms in only 5-star luxury accommodations. Washington 2006 realizes it needs a broader spectrum of rooms in all price ranges to fill the needs of the collectors it hopes to attract. Washington, D.C.'s Metro system allows them to look at rooms outside the immediate convention area because visitors can easily travel to the exhibition hall on the Metro.

Hotchner: Asked that PACIFIC 97, AMERIPEX, and World Columbian Stamp Expo be contacted with regard to providing Washington 2006 room night statistics.

Youngblood: Inquired if Washington 2006 was a full FIP show or not.

Hotchner indicated that was an open question. It could be changed, but the plan is currently as a full FIP show.

Dixon: The FIP is trying to reinvent itself and recognizes it needs to alter its fees. If Washington 2006 is not a full FIP show, the major exhibitors won't come. If the major exhibitors don't come, then the major dealers won't come either.

McCann: If Washington 2006 is not a FIP show, then there is no need for the APS to become involved in any way. The APS' main connection to Washington 2006 is as the sponsoring national federation. McCann inquired if the other members of the Washington 2006 Board had seen copies of the draft agreement with the APS.

Dixon: The other Washington 2006 Board members have not seen copies of the draft agreement, but they would be provided copies.

Hotchner pointed out that the concern about the USPS show elsewhere in 2005 and Washington 2006 being timed so closely together was not necessarily a problem. In this country we had AMERIPEX in Chicago in 1986, then World Stamp Expo in Washington in 1989, and World Columbian Stamp Expo in Chicago in 1992. All those shows were successful. Hotchner thanked Luster and Dixon for coming to answer the Board's questions and said the draft agreement would be discussed later in Executive Session.

Long Range Planning Committee

Hotchner introduced Luster in his role as Chairman of the APS Long Range Planning Committee and asked him to brief the Board on his progress.

Luster: Encouraged Board members to envision where we wanted the Society to be in the 21st century by defining a vision and backward planning from that goal in order to achieve it. Luster presented each Board member a draft of a strategic plan for the APS for the 21st century and asked each Board member to define what the Society should do now to achieve its goals. Luster encouraged the Board to have a fluid and dynamic plan that could change as the Society's needs change.

Triggle suggested the committees be invited to participate in the preliminary strategic planning.

Luster said he had written most of the committee chairmen and heard back from only a few. He agreed it was important to integrate committee plans into the strategic plan.

Luster: Asked the Board to study the appendix of the Strategic Plan in order to analyze membership trends. Technology is expanding in unpredictable ways and we don't necessarily know how that will affect our membership in the future. Each Board member should read the Strategic Plan and decide for themselves what his or her individual vision is for the future and what is important to them.

Hotchner: There are many unknowns when planning for the future. It is easier to ignore the planning process because of the unknowns. Strategic planning is an uncomfortable process but it is necessary. Hotchner requested Board members review the Strategic Plan, participate in the Cornerstones and Actions activity contained in the document, and get their feedback back to Luster by June 1. Hotchner plans to allocate an hour at Santa Clara to discuss the results of this process. Strategic planning will be an ongoing process for this Board.

Apfelbaum: There is a paradox involved in the planning process. If there are too many unknowns then you end up with no plan at all, just guesswork. We should concentrate our plan on areas where we have some statistics and groundwork already in place.

Triggle: It should be a dynamic plan that would change as circumstances change.

Adams was pleased to see the Society begin a strategic planning process. Adams was involved in such an activity in her local school district. While skeptical the planning process would have any long-term advantages, she was pleased with the results and now can see gradual changes to the school district directly stemming from the strategic planning sessions.

Neil: Congratulated Luster's Committee on the imaginative ideas contained in the Strategic Plan. There is much we can begin working on now, but we have to prioritize our efforts.

Morison: This gets to the heart of why the APS exists. We need to clearly define that in order to reach our goals.

McCann suggested we have a special planning session in Santa Clara on Wednesday afternoon. We need more time to discuss our ideas than just an hour in the Board meeting.

Luster: The cornerstones contained in the strategic plan contain all points of view. They are in many cases just the beginnings of an idea and this can be republished when the plan is more defined.

Lamb: pointed out the importance of having staff involved in the process.

Hotchner agreed and asked Lamb to share the Luster document with the staff.

Luster: Volunteered to devote a day to speaking to the staff at State College about the plan.

Apfelbaum: Suggested a member of staff should be on the planning committee.

Triggle would like to see the various committee chairs invited to participate in the planning sessions. Triggle inquired if it would be possible to have an interim meeting at State College devoted entirely to planning once we have moved along sufficiently in the planning process.

Hotchner said he would like to leave that option open.

Luster suggested we put a time limit on the planning so that we could get it delivered and begin implementing the plan. It is too easy to get lost in the discussion of the plan and end up actually accomplishing nothing.

Morison: If we don't know what our vision of the future is for the Society, we don't know how to get there. Morison believed we needed to articulate our vision first.

Luster agreed, and said everyone on the Board would have to come to grips with that. All of the Board needed to articulate their respective visions for the future of the Society.

Triggle: The input of the staff would be extremely helpful.

Neil: We already have a mission statement. That statement should be distributed to the Board in the next packet. The mission statement already sets our goals. It may need to be altered but at least it is a starting point.

otchner asked the Board to react to the document. Set goals for the Society using the years 2005 and 2010 as benchmarks. Hotchner requested the Board members submit their ideas to Luster by June 1 so Luster could compile them and we could use them as discussion points in Santa Clara.

Neil requested the APS mission statement be published.

Luster added that the strategic plan for the APS also included the American Philatelic Research Library (APRL).

By-Law Amendments I:

Lamb: At the Board meeting in Milwaukee last year that Board suggested we include ballots regarding the by-laws amendment establishing term limits with the dues notices this Fall. Sente recommended against this as it would be difficult to deal with ballots along with the orders and other correspondence members include with their dues payments. If we had a special ballot mailing, or if a ballot were included in the pages of American Philatelist it would cost about $30,000. Lamb asked the ballot for the by-laws amendment be put off until the next regular election.

Apfelbaum indicated he strongly objected to limiting Board member terms.

Hotchner inquired if we could even discuss this. It was ruled on by a prior board who made the recommendations that were to have gone to the membership for approval.

Youngblood: Term limits promote incompetence. It takes a period of time for a new Board member to learn the ropes and feel comfortable in what he or she is doing. Youngblood stated he was a young man and that the term limits presented here (two 2-year terms in a position, then another two 2-year terms in another position; a further two 2-year terms may be sought if a Board member wishes to be president of the APS) no way for him to serve the Society after eight years unless he ran for President.

Hotchner said both sides of the argument should be presented to the membership but he was compelled to refer the decision to Flood to see whether the by-laws proposal made by the previous Board could be overturned or amended by the new Board. We would look toward putting the matter on the next ballot.

Flood: Indicated he would run this past the by-laws committee.

Lamb responded that the decision was made at the Annapolis Board meeting in February 1997. It should have been included on the ballot, but the minutes of the meeting in which the action was recorded arrived too late for it to go on the ballot.

De Vries: Asked how fast a ballot could be done if we did a special mailing. Lamb said 60 days, but it would cost $30,000 to do so.

Apfelbaum: Prudence dictates it should go on the next regular ballot. It is not a pressing matter, since he is the only person on the Board it would prevent from running and he doesn’t intend to run again.

Sente: Reminded the Board that the by-laws proposal made by the previous Board was not even in proper by-laws language. The staff wrote it into the by-law format but the proposal should be reviewed by the by-laws committee before further action is taken.

Motion: That the APS Board of Directors move into Executive Session. Moved by Morison. Seconded by Triggle. Passed unanimously.

Open session resumed at 1:35 p.m.

Bylaw Amendments II:

Hotchner: The Owens’ Committee has presented three specific proposals for our consideration. The first involves enlarging the radius for the Board of Vice Presidents from the current 250 miles to no mileage limit. The second regards the election of Directors by geographical distribution rather than the current "at-large" system. The third is holding elections every three years instead of the current two year cycle with the maximum of three terms.

Neil moved to accept the report of the committee and place it on the table for discussion. Triggle seconded.

[At this juncture Apfelbaum had to leave and was no longer part of the deliberations.]

Lamb pointed out that enlarging or abandoning the mileage requirements for the Board of Vice Presidents reduces the likelihood of less known candidates being elected, actually a benefit to the Board as it brings in some new faces and talents..

McCann stressed the importance of face-to-face meetings for the Board of Vice Presidents. It would be detrimental to the process to widen or abandon the mileage requirements.

Neil said that this would cost the APS more money to reimburse the Board of Vice Presidents for travel expenses.

Hotchner speaking as a former chairman for 4-years of the Board of Vice Presidents, said the three Vice Presidents must interact with one another in meetings and learn negotiating skills. This can only be done in face-to-face meetings. Hotchner would hate to see the mileage requirements eliminated.

Walker said the Committee was asked to consider other mileage but that became problematic. Four hundred miles might work, but then there would be a prospective Board of Vice Presidents who would be upset because they lived five hundred miles apart and would be disqualified on that basis.

Hotchner called the question of whether the Board of Vice Presidents mileage requirement should be dropped. 0 in favor, Neil, Morison, Youngblood, Triggle, Adams, McCann, de Vries against. Walker and Klug abstained.

Hotchner asked for comments about electing directors by geographical distribution. The Committee proposed dropping that matter and it was the sense of the Board to do so as well.

Klug suggested the Board table the matter of holding elections every three years and changing term limits until Flood comes back with a ruling and recommendation from the By Laws Committee on the matter discussed earlier regarding altering the previous Board's recommendation on term limits. The proposal to hold elections every three years and limit a maximum of three terms was tabled.

Member Outreach at Shows:

Hotchner reminded Board members that at the planning session on shows in State College it was recommended Board members sit at different tables at the banquet in order to meet and interact with more members. Hotchner also asked Board members to resume the practice of helping to staff the APS booth and passed around a sign-up sheet asking each Board member to commit to two hours. Finally, Hotchner asked Board members to arrive 15 minutes early at the show venue on opening day and greet and welcome the visitors waiting in line to attend and to be sure to thank those who are wearing volunteer badges.

Update on Future Shows

(Lamb was asked to comment on this because Ken Martin was on the show floor and unavailable.)

Lamb: The USPS and ASDA will be having a show in Anaheim in June and they have asked us if we would like to participate in this event. Hotchner reported that we have a commitment from the USPS they will participate in Americas 99 in Orlando next year and we are actively encouraging as much participation from them as possible.

DeVries asked why the USPS/ASDA wanted our participation at Anaheim and how the show was doing.

Lamb responded that many thought the show was not doing well and the USPS seemed to think we could help bolster the show.

Sellers: The first time there was an ASDA show in Anaheim Sellers sat at the APS table and there was almost no activity. It was not worth the effort it took to be there.

Lamb believed the APS should join with the USPS and ASDA in Anaheim. Cost to the APS would be relatively small and it would increase the Society's visibility.

Hotchner said APS could help arrange for seminars and other presentations and the effort this year would give us a sense of the costs so that we could make more informed decisions about future years.

McCann pointed out that there are no exhibits at the Anaheim show so the APS would have no responsibilities in that regard.

Motion: That the APS participate in the Anaheim show this year. Participation in future shows would depend on the expense this year. Moved by Walker. Seconded by Adams. Passed unanimously.

Hotchner reiterated that it was good news the USPS would be part of the Americas 99 show and indicated that details are still to be finalized. Discussion of Nordia will be postponed until the Board meeting in Santa Clara in August.

Hotchner congratulated John Lievsay on being named Chairman of the Philatelic Foundation.

[At this juncture the Board of Directors moved into Executive Session.]

Resumption of Open Session

Confirmation of FIP Nominations

Motion: That the Board approve its nominations of F. Burton Sellers and Charles Peterson to the FIP Board. Moved by Neil. Seconded by Walker. Passed unanimously.

Hotchner thanked the Board for their attentiveness and reminded them there was a Board luncheon for current and past Board members on Sunday at 11:00 a.m. to talk about the future of the hobby and the Society and invited all to attend.

Motion: That the Board meeting be adjourned. Moved by Neil. Seconded by de Vries. Passed unanimously.

Attest:
Respectfully submitted:

John M. Hotchner, President
Janet R. Klug, Secretary