Minutes - The minutes of the December 9, 1995 and the December 14, 1996 meetings were approved with minor corrections.

Robin Brett asked if the NAS/NRC reorganization of committees was still on hold. White said that there had been some reorganization, but that all the USNC’s were different and there was no standard.

Spilhaus said that the USNC/IUGG was set up by Tom Malone as a "treaty of separation" from NAS and that AGU plays a strong role. Recently, the AGU Executive Committee reconsidered its relationship with the USNC/IUGG and decided to maintain it.

Spilhaus reported that the Comptes Rendus was complete and finally had gone to print. Wyllie pointed out that for many participants this is an important document, providing information on the IUGG, minutes from several of the administrative committees, a member directory, and statutes and resolutions of each of the seven Associations. Spilhaus reported that all IUGG 1995 General Assembly registrants will receive a letter to confirm their desire to receive the Comptes Rendus. AGU will also make the Comptes Rendus be available on the Web.

USNC/IUGG Benefits document - Spilhaus suggested that the new benefits document should be revisited every few years to see that it is up to date.

Relations with ICSU - White reported that the letter from Mooers (attached) was received and that nothing had been done on the issue yet. Wyllie and Brett said they both sent letters to ICSU officials. Brett’s letter stated the book "Understanding Our Planet" did not contain solid Earth information. His response from ICSU said that once suggestions were made they would be happy to make changes. Wyllie’s letter stated that solid Earth science appeared to be not well represented in the ICSU administrative structure, and may be diminished by the proposed changes in the statutes of ICSU.

IAG - Herring reported that the IAG Assembly will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 3-9, 1997.

IAGA - Baker stated that the IAGA Assembly will be held in Uppsala, Sweden, August 4-15, 1997.

IAHS - No representative was present, but Wyllie had attended the meeting. He stated that the IAHS Assembly was held in Rabat, Morocco, April 23-May 3, 1997. It was a stimulating meeting, but attendance would have been higher, except that the European Geophysical Society meeting was running at the same time.

IAMAS/IAPSO - Luther reported that the IAMAS/IAPSO Joint Assembly would be held in Melbourne, Australia, July 1-9, 1997. The subcommittee recommended funding 20 travel grants, only 4 or 5 applications were turned down. The meeting registration was about 400 with 600 to 700 abstracts. Most abstracts were meteorological and physical oceanographic in nature; there was no biological oceanography.

IASPEI - Furlong stated that the IASPEI Assembly will be held in Thessaloniki, Greece, August 18-29, 1997. Jackson will be the chief delegate; Furlong the alternate.

IAVCEI - McNutt reported that the IAVCEI Assembly was held in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, January 19-24, 1997. There were 450 presentations and 9 field trips. There were nine individuals who applied for travel grants. They were all funded, with additional money to each, and there were still funds that remained. McNutt stated that timing was a problem. It was not known if funding would be available in early January, and he had to have a letter sent to him at the meeting stating he was the USNC chief delegate.

Funds for delegates to Association Assemblies - Linn and Harrison reported that the chief delegate to each of the Association Assemblies that has an official business meeting should be supported. Spilhaus pointed out that these meetings take place every two years. The chair of each Association Subcommittee should notify Spilhaus who will represent the U.S. as delegate and alternate so that a letter can be written to the Academy well in advance of the meeting for support and for formal Academy appointment if necessary. Mooers stated that he, Spilhaus, and Harrison would develop a strawman for subcommittee guidelines and circulate it.

Travel Grants - Harrison pointed out that all the travel grant numbers were low and the ages were high. Giesler stated that the ad that ran in Eos did not specify that only young scientists should apply. Spilhaus suggested that perhaps the interest in the Associations was low and that it was important to advertise information early. Furlong stated that the young scientists should receive a full ride, not a small amount of money, and that some money for senior scientists would be beneficial. Many universities are more willing to assist a scientist if he/she has obtained some outside money. Further, in many cases, there is no money available for scientists with prior research grants from NSF.

The World Report - Spilhaus reported that AGU had decided to expand the former U.S. Quadrennial Report into a world report. He said it would be published as a supplement to Reviews in Geophysics and would, therefore, be citable. Wyllie said he thought the IUGG would find a world report useful and might endorse it if a proposal was submitted for such "moral" support. The world report would be supported from AGU headquarters.

Mooers suggested that since AGU will provide a world report, the USNC should progress on its simplified Quadrennial report. Spilhaus asked why this should be done? Linn said this document was useful to NSF because it showed the benefits of the USNC and IUGG to US scientists. Harrison asked what happened to the country reports? Spilhaus said that no one collects them; they remain in the IUGG general files. Holoviak stated that they were produced on microfiche twice, but that the response of countries submitting reports was low. McNutt stated that perhaps the USNC should just write what was necessary to receive funds from NSF. Wyllie added that he did not think there was a formal requirement for the USNC’s to produce reports.

Mooers suggested that the committee must do something because without a report they would have no reason to exist. Harrison pointed out that nothing would be used as much as a world report. Herring commented that the current report does not state what the USNC is doing. Linn agreed and added that this brings us back to the Benefits document. McNutt interjected that it was important to document how the Associations are helping US science. Spilhaus suggested that it would be more useful to advertize what the Associations were doing.

The issue of the US National report was tabled by Mooers. He stated that the USNC/IUGG was invisible to it’s constituency in the US. It should become more accountable; one way of doing this would be to submit occasional articles to Eos stating where we are headed.

IUGG Statutes and the USNC - Wyllie outlined IUGG governance from the statutes, and relations with National Committees. First, each country has an adhering body with a delegate, who represents the National Committee. Second, Union affairs are decided by the Council, which comprises the delegates. Third, between meetings, the Bureau runs the IUGG on behalf of the Council. The Finance Committee advises the Council on the 4-year budget, and checks adherence to the budget during the 4-year period. The Executive Committee (the Bureau and 7 Association presidents) is responsible for scientific policy and decisions. The National Committees are expected to submit recommendations and nominations to the Bureau, for review and voting by the Council at the quadrennial General Assemblies.

Spilhaus added that, if the IUGG member countries have not paid their dues, then they may not vote in the IUGG meetings. The Finance Committee will try to get countries to upgrade; however, some countries, contrary to the Statutes, have unilaterally downgraded their category. If the countries do not pay for four years, and they do not request an extension, they are automatically dropped from the IUGG.

1999 IUGG General Assembly - Mooers suggested that the USNC/IUGG should be able to impact the business meeting and the program for the General Assembly. Wyllie reported that the Associations develop their own list of symposia and inter-Association or joint symposia, are then compiled by the Program Committee. The Committee Chair, Kathy Whaler, will present the program for discussion, revision, and approval by the Executive Committee of IUGG. For this Assembly, there will be four Union lectures and four or five Union symposia. Spilhaus reminded the committee that the IUGG Program Committee includes the Secretaries General of each of the Associations. The Organizing Committee Chair for the 1999 General Assembly is Michael Hamlin.

For the 1999 IUGG General Assembly, Wyllie stated that the USNC/IUGG should ensure that the US is formally represented at the meeting. He agreed that it would be useful if a document was prepared for the delegates that states what their role would be. Mooers said the subcommittees should become involved with the nominating committees. Young scientists and minorities are needed as speakers. Harrison stated that the Boulder meeting attempted to unite the IUGG and its seven Associations in one meeting. This did not occur, however, because one Association left and one threatened to leave. Will Birmingham achieve this? Wyllie stated the IUGG will certainly try. Wyllie reported that one way in which the USNC/IUGG could make a contribution was to suggest possible Union lectures; topics should be new and broad ranging. The name of the individual and a substantive paragraph of nomination should be sent to Wyllie. He also welcomed ideas for joint symposia.

Harrison stated that the USNC should assert the need for change in the bylaws of the IUGG. Spilhaus made the following suggestions for the IUGG:

1) It should support a more integrated General Assembly;

2) There should be a devolution of authority from the Executive Committee to the Bureau;

3) The IUGG should enhance diversity in its leadership;

4) The IUGG should concentrate on programs involving less developed countries.

Spilhaus went on to say that the USNC should try to ensure that the Associations work together on interdisciplinary problems. Without the IUGG, there would be less international collaboration among some countries; primarily, north to south and with developing countries. The USNC should help the IUGG to meet these goals. For example, the IUGG never meets in less developed countries. Some examples of countries/regions that could hold the 2003 assembly would be South Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and India. IUGG should also try to plan their own meetings. Currently, holding an IUGG meeting is a bureaucratic difficulty. Harrison stated that the USNC should take its ideas to the IUGG; the Nominating Committee for the next General Assembly will be appointed in September 1997. McNutt added that a conference in a less developed country would still attract the same number of people. In addition, it would make scientists aware of the value of international assemblies and allow some of the regional people to interact with scientists from more developed countries. Spilhaus stated that you would need a critical mass from the more developed countries. McNutt said that other demographics are important as well.

IAG, IAGA, IAHS, IASPEI and IAVCEI have met in less developed countries. The attendance at these meetings has been fairly good, although there were occasional problems with organization and transportation. Mooers pointed out that five of the seven Associations have met in less-developed countries. Spilhaus suggested that the US should informally talk to two-to-three countries about hosting the 2003 assembly and act as a partner and help them in creating a proposal to present to the IUGG. Wyllie stated that currently Japan is developing a proposal for the 2003 General Assembly. Spilhaus added that having other locations to consider would be a great idea. The US could approach Brazil, South Africa, India, Mexico, China, Indonesia, or Taiwan. The country/city chosen should have a reasonable geophysicist population. The US could provide technical assistance and the country chosen could organize the meeting. Concern was expressed that a US approach might be unwelcome. Spilhaus said he would explore that question with possible partners. Wyllie stated that the proposal for the 2003 General Assembly is not due for two years. Mooers tabled this topic for a later meeting. It was also suggested that this topic could be discussed on e-mail.

International Decade of Geopotential Measurements - Harrison stated that both IAG and IAGA will be presented with the proposal for the International Decade of Geopotential Measurements. He stated that the next 10 years will contain many missions and launches and should be an exciting time for geophysicists. He hopes that both Associations will accept this proposal.

John LaBrecque, NASA, spoke on the First International Decade of Geopotential Field Study which starts on January 1, 1998. Its objective is to "acquire detailed knowledge of the static and dynamic components of the gravity and geomagnetic fields." He hopes to develop a strategy to reinvigorate the community and to obtain endorsement from the IUGG. He said that the applications of the Decade field study are: climate variability, including mass flux and solar terrestrial interaction; Earth’s internal structure and dynamics; and Earth’s resource assessment. Furlong stated that IASPEI should hear this proposal as well. He felt it important to encourage people to use the data and see that all communities know that it exists. Mooers said IAPSO should be interested for purposes of correcting satellite altimetric data with an accurate geolid to obtain sea-surface, height fields, and for the purpose of correcting geoelectric submarine cable voltages for geomagnetic variations to obtain more accurate volume transport estimates. Wyllie suggested that this was a useful USNC function and that it should be sent to the Associations by the USNC, and the Associations could then propose IUGG endorsements: "bottom-up" is considered better than "top-down", by the independent Associations. Harrison made a motion to endorse and present the First International Decade of Geopotential Field Study to the seven USNC Associations. Brett seconded the motion. LaBrecque said he would send the NRC a report.

Anne Linn reported that the USNC currently had $15K in the bank with their contract up for renewal in August. As a result, airfare and 2 days perdiem would be offered to subcommittee chairs to attend their Association Assembly. At that time, five meetings remained for which representatives could receive funding.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 by Chairman Mooers.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Mooers stated that he, Spilhaus, and Harrison would develop a strawman for U.S. Association Subcommittee guidelines and circulate it.

2. The issue of the US National Report was tabled by Mooers. It will be discussed on e-mail.

3. Mooers stated that the USNC/IUGG was invisible to its constituency in the US and that it should become more accountable. One way of doing this would be to submit occasional articles to Eos stating where we are headed. Mooers will provide an article.

4. For the 1999 IUGG General Assembly, Wyllie stated that the USNC/IUGG should ensure that the US is formally represented at the meeting. He stated that a document was needed for the delegates that states what their role would be. Mooers, Harrison, and Spilhaus will provide a draft.

5. Spilhaus suggested that the US should informally talk to two-to-three less-developed countries to host the 2003 General Assembly and act as a partner by helping them create a proposal to be presented to the IUGG. Wyllie stated that the proposal for the 2003 Assembly is not due for two years. Mooers tabled this topic for a later meeting. This topic will be discussed on e-mail, and it will be expanded to consider what IUGG can best do to foster geophysics in the less developed countries. Mooers will initiate discussion.

6. Harrison made a motion to endorse and present the First International Decade of Geopotential Field Study to the seven IUGG Associations. Mooers and Spilhaus will provide correspondence.

<<Fred Camfield did not attend the meeting, but wrote "This information reflects the figures at a point in time well before the Joint Assembly took place. Actual paid registration was 1,040 and the number of abstracts was about 1,500. The IAPSO part, including the opening address by Peter Wyllie and the Invited Lecture by Walter Munk, is on the IAPSO homepage at http://www.olympus.net/IAPSO/" SHOULD THIS BE LEFT IN THE MINUTES AS THIS INFO WAS NOT DISCUSSED?>>

<<Fred Camfield did not attend the meeting, but wrote "The shortage of applicants was noted at the IAMAS/IAPSO General Assembly. Apparently it was not clear that this was intended for younger scientists, and there was no push to get younger scientists to apply. We will have to look at this more carefully in the future to get the word out to people. IASPEI for instance (at the IUGG Executive Committee meeting last week in Birmingham, England) indicated that they have a large e-mail list for bulk mailing of e-mail. Presumably, the U.S. addresses could be broken out for e-mail notices. IAPSO has some capability for e-mailing." SHOULD THIS BE LEFT IN THE MINUTES AS THIS INFO WAS NOT DISCUSSED?>>

Wyllie responded to Giesler’s query by e-mail e-mailed Giesler on 9/8/97 The deadline for making input to the that it was now too late to make significant input to the General Assembly Program. The Associations had already met, and submitted their digested proposals to the Program Committee which was to meet within a few days. has passed. Mooers did suggest two Union Lecturers. Wyllie had He (Wyllie) also stated that many American scientists were able to make input for special sessions and invited lecturers through their Associations, especially at their Assemblies this year. The IUGG home page address is http://www.obs-mip.fr/uggi/