AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS - SA BRANCH

    Minutes of the inaugural 2001 committee meeting.

PLACE: The lounge room of the Chair, Dr Peter Bouwknegt.
TIME:  3:00 pm, Sunday 11th February 2001.

PRESENT: Bouwknegt, Samardzic, Cockshell, Leinweber, Kallionatis,
         French, Canney, Veitch, Ford, Kamleh and Campbell.
         
INTRODUCTIONS:
	Peter Bouwknegt is a lecturer in Mathematical Physics at 
Adelaide Uni and has interests from Theoretical Physics to Pure Maths.
He noted that it is not ideal to be Chair in his first year on the 
committee, so undertook to ask for advice.
	Laurence Campbell works in Atomic Physics at Flinders and 
Meteor Physics at Adelaide. He reported being secretary of the branch
since the Jurassic.
	Waseem Kamleh is a postgraduate student in the CSSM, doing
research in Lattice Quantum Chromo Dynamics and Cosmology.
	Olivia Samardzic is a research scientist at DSTO in 
Electro-Optic Threat Warning. This will be her sixth year on the 
committee, and she has spent her time on the Education subcommittee, 
and also on the Science policy committee last year. 
	Susan Cockshell is a teacher at Annersley college. This is 
her second year on the comittee, for which she has worked on 
Education and the Space School.
	Olivia explained that the Space School has been run 
independently of the AIP by herself, John Hisco, Susan Cockshell and 
Mike Roach, but that they report to the AIP and the AIP has donated 
money for talks by astronauts.
	Derek Leinweber is a lecturer in the Dept. of Physics and 
Mathematical Physics at Adelaide University and in the CSSM. He
works on QCD, investigating quarks and gluons with supercomputers.
He has been in the AIP for 3 years and was Chair for the last two.
He was also on the Education subcommittee last year.
	Alex Kallionatis works at the CSSM, on QCD, non-pertubative
methods and is at the interface between computer simulation and
model building. He has just joined the committe.
	David French is an administrator at Flinders University and
is on his second round on the committee, having served as secretary
for 7 years and now as a member for two years and Treasurer for last
year. He noted that due to other committments he is hopeful that
someone else will take over as Treasurer and that this will definately 
be the last year that he can do it.
	Shane Canney is a research scientist in the Electronic
Warfare Division at DSTO, working on the modification and simulation
of Electronic systems.
	Peter Veitch is a lecturer in Physics and Mathematical Physics
at Adelaide University, in the Optics group and with an interest
in Applied Physics. It is his first year on the committee and he
is also on the Physics Subject Advisory Committee.
	Michael Ford is an academic at Flinders University, working
mostly in Condensed Matter Physics. It is his third year on the 
committee, for which he has worked mainly in Education.

	Bouwknegt thanked last year's committee, noting that this
year's committee must spend less money. He called for a volunteer
for Treasurer, and informed the committee that a new student
representative is required to replace Joanne Harrison. Campbell
suggested that Samantha Carter may be interested and Samardzic
undertook to email her about it. Samardzic reported that although
Stewart Wright and Melanie Johnston-Hollitt have left the committee,
they are willing to continue on the Science Policy subcommittee.

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING: 
         No corrections were suggested. Bouwknegt asked Campbell to
provide him with the minutes of the previous AGM meeting.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION:
	What should be done this year? Bouwknegt said we have been
doing a good job and it would be good to keep doing it. He
reported that public lectures are planned for April and May, and
noted the presence of Weinberg in July at the Festival of Ideas.
He said he will ask Paul Davies how the AIP could become involved
with the Festival of Ideas, such as getting the main Physics person
to talk. He said that Roy Chisholm can talk in October on the
history of Mathematics and Physics, based on the letters of Clifford.
It was not clear if this is suitable for a public lecture.
	Ford suggested a talk by a person from CSIRO on carbon
nanotubes. The subject is good for a public lecture, with heaps
of examples. The speaker will be at Flinders in April, and the
subject matter does not overlap with that presented by Michelle
Simmons last September.
	Leinweber said that he would like to change the Quiz Night,
which has been run for the last two years, to a larger, non-alcoholic
afternoon event, aiming at 200-400 students. Samardzic and Cockshell
explained that the event was not properly advertised last year, due
to a lack of communication between the presenter and the Education
subcommittee. French noted that an afternoon event would exclude
University students and AIP members. Leinweber suggested aiming
for 2-5pm, with the opportunity provided for lots of Physics displays.
	Kallionatis asked what networking was available to publicise
it. Cockshell reported that a new database of email addresses is
now available. Samardzic said that it could be advertised to teachers
at the teacher-training sessions. French noted that 10-20
teachers attend public lectures and the possibility of contact
through SASTA.
	The date was discussed, with Leinweber preferring that the
Quiz be later in the year to give more time to coordinate, but 
with Samardzic suggesting May, supported by Veitch who said that
year-12 students would not come in the second half of the year. 
Bouwknegt noted that it is important to target year-12 students.
	Bouwknegt asked about National-Science-Week funding. French
reported that currently the Premier has refused funding, but
there is a possibility of limited funding. Events will be promoted
and the ABC will assist. It would be good if the WIP lecturer
could be interviewed. Samardzic reported that the tour is very tight,
with visits to 9 places in two weeks. She noted that there are
sponsors for the Quiz, and French confirmed that it had been
virtually self-funding in previous years.
	Kallionatis asked about the relationship between the AIP
and school teachers, and whether they are "on our side". Samardzic
said that they are now, thanks to the teacher training sessions.
Veitch confirmed that while they had been indifferent before, they
now see the virtue of the AIP. Samardzic said that the next
training sessions would be on March 10th-11th, run by the AIP
and SASTA. Veitch noted that there is an issue of room charges,
with Adelaide University asking for half of commerical rates, with
an extra charge for Saturday morning. French suggested looking
for another venue. Veitch noted that the Science Faculty had paid
for it last time, but doens't know if they will do so again.
	Leinweber said that he is worried about AIP members' events
with the poor attendence at the last one. Samardzic suggested that
there may have been particular problems on that occasion. Bouwknegt
suggested having a talk on the most recent Nobel prizes,
which are awarded in November, as the first members' lecture of 
the year. French suggested that this be in conjunction with SASTA
and Leinweber supported the concept. French noted that it would
be a low-cost event.
	This led to a discussion of funding for lectures. French
reported that last year we spent $1500-$2000 more than our income
of $5500, with the income expected to fall below $5000 this year.
As a result our reserves have been halved and are now at about $2000.
Bouwknegt asked about federal reserves. Leinweber explained that these
are for special events. French noted that the national reserves had
been used to establish Women in Physics and the Bragg medals, but
that they would not be available for public lectures. As the high cost
of these is due to the university making commercial charges for lecture
theatres, he suggested looking for another venue for SASTA sessions.
	Leinweber asked if the bill for the AGM dinner had been received.
French replied that it had been received in the previous week. Leinweber
explained what had happened with the reservation for the dinner. He had
set up an initial reservation for 40, to be finalized on the Friday
before the dinner. On that Friday he had tried to call to reduce the
number to 32, but could not get an answer. On the following Monday
he had left a message that the number was 32, but this had not been
forwarded on to the manager. He was then advised at the dinner that
the AIP would have to pay for 40, so the issue is that the AIP is being
charged $240 extra. Leinweber said he would like this followed up on,
noting also that we had paid $50 extra to go back to the Bistro, which
was very late due to poor service. Thus he is looking for a compromise.
	Bouwknegt asked Leinweber to write a letter, without offering
a compromise (which was supported by some others). French said to make
a point about the message not being passed on. Leinweber said he would
write a draft of the letter and send it to Bouwknegt and French to tidy
up.

DISCUSSION OF SPENDING PRIORITIES:
	Bouwknegt said we need to balance the budget, either by getting
more or spending less. As for the previous suggestions to move to
free venues, he intends to lobby again, as the AIP should not have to
pay the University. He asked why Union Hall was used. Leinweber 
explained that a National Science week lecture had been moved from
the Rennie to Union Hall, which he found had ambience and that it
was good value for $200. The alternative, the Flentje, is a miserable,
ugly lecture theatre. Bouwknegt asked about other universities. French
said the the UniSA had venues at City West, while there were nice
venues at Flinders at no cost, but people wouldn't go there.
	Leinweber asked what angle could be used to get University
support. Bouwknegt suggested that we should be in a good position with
the upcoming talk by a Nobel laureate. French warned that we don't
want to see "supported by the University of Adelaide" on publicity,
ie that the University should not be a co-sponsor. Samardzic asked
why not. French said it could appear to be an initiative of the
University. He suggested that the AIP should not lose control.
	French noted that the advert in the Advertiser costs as much
as the venue. Bouwknegt suggested putting out a questionnaire about the
adverts. French suggested putting adverts in the Adelaidean, Flinders 
News, UniSA news, the ABC and SAFM if appropriate. Samardzic reported 
that the Advertiser does bring people in, according to Dr Patterson. 
Leinweber suggested that it is an extra 20. French noted that only the 
cost of the venue and advertising can be changed, as the travel and 
accomodation is fixed. Samardzic suggested picking the best speakers 
for Union Hall.
	Bouwknegt said that he will make it a personal enterprise to get
the venue for free, noting that if we cannot affort Union Hall, we will
have to move. Leinweber insisted that a public lecture should not be
held in a bad hall, otherwise people may not come back again. He noted
that people have an expectation of being in Union Hall, but also that
the Bragg lecture theatre is easier to find.
	Bouwknegt asked about sponsorship, such as from DSTO. Samardzic
replied that DSTO sponsors other things, so this would not be tactful.
Bouwknegt suggested Motorola. Veitch raised the possibility of naming
rights for a public lecture. Leinweber said that the CSSM could
fund an appropriate lecture, and also asked about a gold coin donation.
Campbell suggested that asking for a donation for the supper could 
raise a substantial amount, giving the example of what happens at
Astronomical Society meetings. Bouwknegt said that donations should be
a matter of last resort.
	French asked if we have an outline ready to approach sponsors.
Bouwknegt said that they would only sponsor those with a benefit.
Samardzic said that she had asked Coherent, and that while they 
thought it worth the effort at a conference, they did not see it
as worthwhile to sponsor a public lecture. Veitch supported this, noting
that they don't need brand recognition among the public. Bouwknegt
suggested finding the right way to promote it, noting that we are
not asking for a lot of money. Samardzic gave the example that she was
trying to get sponsorship for the Space School but that it is hard.
Bouwknegt observed that we don't have a choice - it comes down to 
sponsorship or a gold coin donation.
	Bouwknegt asked about the rationale for the Student Travel
Scholarship. French said it is something that the branch does, and that
it is worth doing. It is limited to travel to conferences outside the 
state, and that it acts to encourage students. Bouwknegt asked what
happened if a lot of students applied together, as we cannot offer eight.
Samardzic said that each student could only apply once, and that they
have to present a paper. It used to be $100, but is now $250, with a 
limit of 6. Leinweber suggested cutting down to three scholarships.
However, he noted that there could be a real problem with maybe 6
applications from the CSSM. He suggested that these could be forwarded
to the national office. Kallionatis suggested that it is a way of
getting students to become members, as offering more scholarships
could lead to more members. Bouwknegt noted that this would not give
the branch more money. Samardzic and Campbell explained that the
amount the branch received was $15 per member. French said that to
fund the scholarships, something else, such as public lectures, would
have to be cut. Samardzic suggested that a final budget should be 
sent out.
	Leinweber raised the advertising of public lectures. Veitch 
suggested the Messenger, and French noted that they will do it for
free if a story is involved. Kallionatis suggested that the Adelaide
Review had potential and agreed that he would investigate it.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
	Samardzic said that the Education committee was continuing
to function as before. 
        It was decided that reports from other subcommittees were not
necessary and/or practical.

NEW SUBCOMMITTEES:

   MEETINGS AND PUBLICITY: Kallionatis volunteered for this. Bouwknegt
noted that Feldman will talk at the end of April, and suggested that it
would be nice to have a members' lecture in March. Leinweber said that
someone could talk on Leptons, and then the Centre people would come.
   EDUCATION: Leinweber asked if the Quiz Night was separate. Samardzic
said that everyone on the Education committee contributed to the
Quiz Night. Responding to Kamleh, she explained that the education
subcommittee put on teacher training and the Quiz night (with the 
Space School being separate). It is proposed to target primary 
and tertiary students this year, as there is a problem in Physics
at Uni. They are going to get a couple of people from each SA Uni to
talk about dropping numbers. Veitch said that he supports the primary
case, but that the tertiary is too late. He supported public lectures
as good to persuade parents, who are thinking about jobs, not education.
Ford noted that we need public lectures to address applied topics.
	Bouwknegt suggested that the education subcommittee be the
same as last year, with the addition of Leinweber. He also suggested
that Veitch be involved, but Veitch declined due to a conflict of
interest. Kallionatis volunteered to be on the subcommittee.
   SCIENCE POLICY COMMITTEE: Samardzic explained that there was a national
science policy committee consisting of all AIP chairs. However, last
year Leinweber had wanted someone else to do it. Leinweber explained
that they had wanted other members, including women and postgraduate
students. The national office had wanted one representative, which
Samardzic became, and Melanie Johnston-Hollitt and Stewart Wright
had helped her. Samardzic said that she was not keen to do it again.
   AWARDS: Campbell said that he understood that Blankleider had agreed
to be on the committee again on the understanding that he should continue
to be the Awards convenor. (Leinweber noted that he had similarly made
an arrangement that Kamleh should do the Web page.)
   STUDENT ACTIVITIES: Leinweber explained that the original idea was
to have one representative. There had been good things happening at
Flinders, so the idea was to continue these elsewhere. He suggested
that the chair of SPACED could be invited. French suggested that it
could be the chair's nominee. Leinweber noted that last year there had
been a problem with accountability. Bouwknegt commented that we need
to be careful, and undertook to draft a letter. With regard to the
display case, Leinweber observed that no one wants to do it. John
Hedditch had been assigned, but nothing was done. He said that it should
be either maintained or closed up. 
   EDITORIAL: Bouwknegt noted that Kamleh will do the web page. Samardzic
explained that the Editorial committee is for getting things into the
Physicist, and repeated her suggestion that each subcommittee should put
something in. Campbell noted that he is the associate editor for SA.

        Samardzic noted that the Science Policy committee, which meets 
once every three months, is to produce a policy statement to give to 
politicians, and that it also did a 1.5 page document for politicians
to read. Canney agreed to be the convenor of the Science Policy 
subcommittee.

RECRUITMENT:
	Samardzic raised the issue of recruitment and retention of 
members. Bouwknegt noted that we should all do this. Kamleh said
that recruitment needs to be active. He asked if the AIP does anything
in this, or if graduates are not told. He said we need to speak to
students, to point out that by supporting the AIP it gives them a bigger
voice and so better prospects - ie it's an investment for them. Kamleh
offered to convene the recruitment committee, and asked to be given
information. Leinweber said he would serve on the recruitment 
subcommittee, as he would like to pull together what had been done 
earlier. Kallionatis noted that what Kamleh had said about students
also applies to non-permanent researchers. Samardzic said that she
did this a year ago and will send information on it. She noted that
Leinweber had got 11 people to join, and that this needs to be followed
up. Bouwknegt noted that this issue is important to all of us. Leinweber
said that member benefits had been propagated at the national level but 
had not filtered down. He noted that we need a key page, but so far
have only an unsatisfactory draft. Kallionatis said he would publicise
the AIP at his Relativistic Quantum Mechanics lectures.

CORRESPONDENCE:
	Bouwknegt tabled a letter from Jack Gubbay, proposing that the
AIP organise tours of historical sites. He said he had replied that
we don't have resources, but gave members of the committee the
opportunity to offer to take the task on. In response to Jack Gubbay's
other request, Bouwknegt said that he would investigate if there was
any circa-1920 equipment in the Physics museum.
	Bouwknegt said he had reports from other branches and that he
would send them to committee members who asked him to. He noted that
this branch stands out.
	Campbell said that there was no other correspondence.

ISSUES FOR COUNCIL MEETING:
	Leinweber noted that the huge cut in income was due to the
removal of non-financial members. He asked where this money had gone 
and noted that the national body has huge reserves (of about $50000)
but won't spend them. An example was that we were to be billed for the
visit of John Pilbrow until he saw our circumstances. Bouwknegt asked
if the income for all branches fell.
	French referred to problems with the secretariat, which is
currently administered by the RACI. It is not possible to get a full list
of members. French asked Bouwnnegt to ask what is happening. Leinweber 
said that the AIP had set out to have its own database, but had assigned 
the task to Pal Feteke, who is in over his head and has an inappropriate 
position on the council. He noted that Feteke, who is the organiser of
the Sydney 2002 Congress, had critised the Adelaide AIP Congress while 
it was in progress. Leinweber said that the latest position is to 
get a professional to do the database.
	Leinweber said that another issue would be what to do about
the Physicist, and that something will happen. French concurred that it
was the crunch year. He had been to the last national executive meeting
and it was clear that the Physicist cost too much. Leinweber said that
he preferred the current format and would not write an article if it
was only on the Web. Samardzic noted that people describe it as a 
benefit of membership and Leinweber supported this. Leinweber suggested
that as a new Chair Bouwknegt could ask about money held in reserve.
Bouwknegt asked if a budget had been circulated. French said to ask for
it from the national secretary.
	Bouwknegt raised the issue of a closer link between the 
Australian Journal of Physics and the AIP. French explained that CSIRO
is cutting money for the AJP, who want the AIP to pick up part of the
bill. Leinweber noted that Prof. Tony Thomas is strong on having a
national publication. Veitch noted that it needed suitable papers.
Leinweber said it was useful for fast turnaround and for parers
with more detail. Campbell noted that it had a computational physics
section. Kallionatis reported that Prof. Thomas wanted it to be web-based.
Bouwknegt said that he hoped to talk to Prof. Thomas before going to the
council meeting. He noted that a journal depends on papers, and Veitch
added that it depends on circulation.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS
	Campbell warned members that he does not have a reliable
membership list and asked them to be on the lookout for any membership
problems and inform him. As examples, he said that this year he and
French had not received membership renewals, even after informing the
national office of this, and last year he had received a membership list
in which all retired members had been omitted. Acting on the latter had
led to a great deal of trouble.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING
	This was set for Tuesday March 20th. at 6pm in the tea room
of the Dept. of Physics and Mathematical Physics at Adelaide University.

					Laurence Campbell, 27-2-01