A. DUTIES OF PROGRAM COMMITTEE

The Program Committee is responsible, under the President, for organizing the principal scholarly elements of the program for the annual meeting. It is not concerned with arrangements for the business, ceremonial, or social elements of the program. Each year, the Program Committee is given a unique opportunity to develop a prospectus, or bill of fare, which will attract, hold, and ultimately unite the membership in a memorable, shared experience. In addition to the luncheon workshops, the Program Committee may also set themes, invite speakers (or commentators), and organize plenary sessions. This policy was established at the 2000 Council meeting and overturned an earlier policy set in 1987 and confirmed in 1999. The original policy was intended to provide speaking opportunities to as many AAHM members as possible since an invited plenary can result in a dozen or more papers being rejected. The 2000 change was made to reflect actual practice and to provide freedom to the program committee.

B. SELECTION OF PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEMBERS

The earlier a Program Committee is named the greater potential for success. The President should name the Program Chair by December 1, a year and a half before the annual meeting which his/her committee is to serve. The P.C.C. and President should consult to ensure appropriate subject area and geographic coverage in the final selection of the Program Committee membership. A balanced Program Committee, whose members reflect the heterogeneity of the Association, will usually result in a scholarly program with broad appeal. Sometimes a member of the Local Arrangements Committee serves as a voting or non-voting member of the Program Committee, as a liaison to facilitate communication. Usually, only one face-to-face meeting takes place at the annual meeting preceding the one being organized.

Those who accept the position of Program Chair would benefit from some secretarial assistance. Previously, they would also incur expenses for postage, faxing, stationary, long-distance telephoning, and photocopying. These expenses will be reimbursed by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Association, since the program is prepared for the benefit of the entire membership. With the creation of the Program Abstract Submission System (PASS), many of these "snail mail" costs can be avoided.

An online "Help Menu" is accessible through the PASS [<http://www.histmed.org/pass/private_index.php>] The "Help Menu" is graduated. Thus, for those submitting abstracts, the Menu offers details about submission. For Program Committee members, it offers details about scoring as well. For the chair of the Program committee, or other "super users," it gives details about the entire system.

PASS is designed to be a straightforward online, menu-driven system. In practical terms, during the initial years, the preceding Program Committee Chair should introduce his/her successor to the system, as well as make the successor a "super user" on the system. Then the outgoing Program Committee chairperson should serve as a resource for questions about the PASS for the current year's chairperson.

C. CALL FOR PAPERS

The Call for Papers should be sent to medical and historical journals by mid-February. If not, it will miss the summer issues of the medical historical journals and medical quarterlies. The Call for Papers should be composed by the P.C.C.; however, the P.C.C. of the previous meeting may remind or offer to help his/her successor, providing that person has been named. If the successor has not yet been named by February, then the P.C.C. of the previous meeting should contact the President and together they should take steps to ensure that the Call appears in the appropriate journals.

In practical terms, while the P.C.C. has the responsibilities as outlined below, the A.A.H.M. secretary traditionally has handled most of these actions. The P.C.C. can add to the list of journals receiving the call for papers.

The P.C.C. is responsible for developing and mailing the call for papers to the A.A.H.M. Newsletter, Bulletin of the History of Dentistry, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, Health and History, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Isis, Medical History, Pharmacy in History, Social History of Medicine, and to leading journals in medicine, history, and the humanities. The more widely the meeting is advertised in medical periodicals, the greater the possibility of physician participation.

Most journals will not publish the full version of the Call for Papers. A short version of the Call should be composed for distribution to the journals. It should state the meeting site, meeting date, and abstract deadline, and it should also advise would-be participants to contact the P.C.C. by mail, FAX, or email in order to obtain the full instructions for submissions.

The distribution of the Call for Papers to the A.A.H.M. membership is ensured by the P.C.C.'s sending a copy of the "Call" to the Secretary-Treasurer, who arranges for its reproduction and distribution as a loose sheet with the June issue of the A.A.H.M. Newsletter. Another announcement may also appear in the Newsletter.

The Call for Papers may use different wording, but must include the basic information provided in the model below, modified from the 1998 Call.

The Program Committee may decide to omit luncheon and poster sessions from the Call, especially if space is not available at the meeting hotel. But luncheon sessions have been standard fare for more than a decade and a decision to eliminate them will result in disappointment and complaints.

The number of copies of abstracts required may vary, depending on the size of the Program Committee each year.

Any subject in the history of medicine is suitable for presentation, but the paper must represent original work not already published or in press. Presentations are limited to 20 minutes. Because the Bulletin of the History of Medicine is the official journal of the A.A.H.M., the Association encourages speakers to make their manuscripts available for consideration by the Bulletin upon request. Abstracts must be typed single-spaced on one sheet of paper, and must not exceed 350 words in length.

The A.A.H.M. uses an online abstract submission system. We warmly encourage all applicants to use this system. The organization's website is: <http://www.histmed.org/> The abstract submission is easy to use. If you have any questions, please contact [P.C.C.] at the address(es) below.

If you are unable to submit your abstract online, you may submit it by sending eight copies of a one-page abstract [350 words maximum] to the Program Committee Chair: [name and addresses]

Abstracts should clearly state findings and conclusions, as well as research questions. They should also provide the following information on the same sheet as the abstract text: name; preferred mailing address, work and home telephone numbers; e-mail address; present institutional affiliation; and academic degrees. Abstracts must be received by [date]. E-mailed or faxed proposals will not be accepted.

Individuals wishing to present a paper must attend the meeting.

Proposals for sessions of 3 papers may be submitted, but each abstract will be judged and accepted on its own merits. As in the past, the program will also include luncheon workshops and may include poster sessions. Those wishing to submit abstracts for any of these formats should follow the instructions given above.

All A.A.H.M. members will automatically receive registration information for this meeting in late winter. Non-members who are interested in receiving this information should contact Local Arrangements Chair (insert name, mailing and e-mail addresses, and phone number).

D. EVALUATION OF ABSTRACTS

Well before the deadline, the Program Committee should establish standards for evaluating the incoming abstracts. Each Program Committee needs some freedom for experimentation and minor deviations from the practice of a previous year may be acceptable, but the selection process must be clear and fair. It is the Chair's responsibility to ensure the scholarly merit of the final program.

Abstracts usually do not start arriving in large numbers until one or two days before the deadline. Numbers vary from year to year, depending on the accessibility or attractiveness of the meeting site. The 1998 meeting at Toronto received 224 paper proposals; seven luncheon proposals; and four poster proposals. The approximate number of acceptances that can be accommodated can be determined in advance based on the size of the meeting hotel and the general structure of the meeting two years previously (Presidential Addresses are in alternate years). Close coordination with the L.A.C. of the meeting being organized is extremely beneficial. This coordination should occur early in the process to clarify that sufficient rooms are available for the number of simultaneous panels desired by the Program committee. Typically the Program Committee will need three, four, or five simultaneous panels of three papers.

1. Procedure for Scoring

The P.C.C. must establish the timetable for the evaluation and final selection of abstracts in relation to the schedule proposed for printing and making the program. The final selection of papers should be made by December 15 or earlier, depending on the timetable required by the L.A.C.

Sample procedures:

• Program Committees have most often used some variation of a scoring system of 1 to 5. The scores are recorded on a standardized grading sheet with space for comments about merits, defects, or connections to other papers.
  • With PASS, this scoring system now works online. The scale is currently set from 1 to 5, but may be rescaled up or down as the Program Committee desires. Space is included for the scorers to provide comments.
• To broaden the spread, several Program Committees have weighted the scores more widely, using 0 to 10, or 0, 3, 5, 7 and 10.
• One variant involved a double-mailing system that provided a preliminary evaluation of abstracts. Jerome Bylebyl, P.C.C. for the 1982 meeting in Bethesda, asked each Committee member to write comments on selected groups of abstracts, appropriate to his or her special interests. These "expert" comments were then distributed to the Committee for consideration in the ranking. Should such a system be desired in the future, either scores and comments could be made by specialty on the PASS, colated by the P.C.C., e-mailed to Program Committee members, then cleared from the PASS, and scoring then proceed normally. Or, the double-mailing could occur by e-mail directly or through snail mail, with the PASS used for final scoring.
• At least one P.C.C. has required Program Committee members to review abstracts "blind," i.e., numbers were assigned to each abstract and identification data were removed, in an effort to rule out any considerations other than scholarly merit. This is more difficult to do on PASS, but can be done efficiently by e-mail through the report-creation system.

The 1985 Ad Hoc Committee on Meetings believed it to be essential that all information submitted by applicants in response to the call for papers (i.e., both biographical data and abstracts) be made available to all members of the Program Committee for their consideration. A majority of the 1998 Ad Hoc Committee agrees.

2. Criteria for Ranking

Scholarly merit should be the cardinal criterion for acceptance of papers. As far as possible, however, the final program should represent the mixed constituency of the Association.

Although each Program Committee in practice has developed its own criteria, standards used for the evaluation of abstracts include the following:

• Members of the Committee must disqualify themselves from judging any proposal in which conflict of interest arises.
• Does the paper give promise of providing new insights to the research area concerned? Does the author indicate in the abstract how this paper contributes to the field?
• Does the research appear to be based on appropriate primary source materials?
• Is the abstract written in a careful, logical, and interesting manner, that promises a paper which is likely to be both sound and appealing?
• If the author has published previously, has s/he evidenced sound scholarship?
• Presentation in the previous year might be used as a tie-breaking device, to favor a speaker who had not had the opportunity in the previous year. In 1986, A.A.H.M. Council established a rule against presentation two years in a row; however, the rule was rescinded in 1987 and that decision was upheld by Council in 1998. Those who have presented at the previous A.A.H.M. meeting are invited to submit abstracts. It should be noted that in the years 2002 through 2004, the membership was not clear on this point; many believed the 1986 rule was still in effect.

In 1998, the A.A.H.M. Council overturned a long-standing ruling that those selected to give papers should be members of the A.A.H.M. at the time they present the paper. (Invited papers from distinguished speakers, such as the Garrison Lecturer, were always considered exceptions to this rule.) When accepting abstracts, the P.C.C. should ask for membership status of the presentor on the response form in order to prepare a list of non-members who will need to receive the LAC's registration information sent to members.

In 1992 at Seattle, several speakers failed to show up without notifying the organizers. This situation was upsetting to registrants whose submissions had been rejected. To ensure a full program with the greatest opportunities for members, two mechanisms were established. First, a signed and dated letter of commitment to read the paper in person to be returned as soon as the speaker is notified of the acceptance and asked for A-V needs. Second, a waiting list of highly ranked papers from which selections can be made to fill gaps as they emerge. For the 1994 meeting, four of ten wait-listed authors were eventually able to speak; some replacements came early enough that changes could be made in the printed program. These two practices have been used by most P.C.C.s since 1994.

With the PASS, most communication occurs by email.  A presenter’s emailed reply to the P.C.C. agreeing to speak now stands for the letter of commitment.  The waiting list has been continued.  It should be noted that the waiting list is very difficult to manage efficiently.  Most speakers who agree to act in that capacity are not clear if they will attend the meeting should they not appear on the program.  The P.C.C. must work to find a balance regarding numbers on the wait list and location of the meeting.

E. BUILDING THE PROGRAM

The ranking and commenting is done by the entire committee, but the P.C.C. must perform the following tasks alone:

• tally and sift the recommendations of the committee;
• make a cut and final decisions about accepting papers tied at the margin of the vote;
• arrange the papers by topic for presentation in related sessions;
• assign an appropriate title to the sessions;
• in coordination with the L.A.C., assign sessions to appropriate time slots to avoid overlap of similar interests;
• select A.A.H.M. members to chair sessions;
• contact and persuade the persons so named to serve (by e-mail, phone, FAX);
• notify authors of all selected abstracts and request their confirmation, audio-visual needs, and membership status;
• notify authors of all rejected abstracts;
• establish a waiting list of highly ranked abstracts and notify those authors;
• contact all session chairs and inform them in writing/e-mail of their session, speakers, and duties;
• track down non-responders to the request for confirmation;
• invite appropriated wait-listed speakers to fill in any gaps identified before deadline;
• construct and type the entire scholarly program, and the list of names and affiliation of all speakers and session chairs;
• review the program for accuracy;
• send the program (hard copy [if needed by the L.A.C.] and electronic version) to the L.A.C. by the agreed-upon date with copies to the A.A.H.M. officers;
• invite wait-listed authors to fill gaps that emerge after the program has been printed;
• help proof-read final version of program, if possible;
• send an indexed set of abstracts to the L.A.C. for copying and distribution in the registration package (In the past, these booklets were in alphabetical order by author; since 1994, they have been organized by session with two indexes: one by author, the other by session.);
• send list of non-members to the L.A.C.;
• prepare late corrections to program and additional abstracts for registration package;
• confirm with help of session chairs, the A-V needs of speakers and notify the L.A.C.

P.C.C. for the 1998 meeting, John Harley Warner, found an advance visit with the L.A.C. of the Toronto hotel to be helpful in planning the program. Future pre-meeting visits could be considered if time and finances permit.

F. PLENARY SESSIONS AND SYMPOSIA

Plenary, or general, sessions provide an opportunity for those attending an annual meeting to gather as a whole, intensifying the mutuality of the meeting experience. Each meeting will have at least one plenary session in the Garrison Lecture. In alternate years, a second plenary session (sometimes the opening session), will be devoted to the Presidential Address. Neither the Presidential Address nor the Garrison Lecture is the business of the Program Committee.

Plenary sessions have ordinarily been scheduled on the first morning, immediately following the opening ceremonies. They have featured speakers selected from the accepted abstracts whose proposals were the most highly ranked and/or deemed to be of interest to the constituency of the A.A.H.M.. Sometimes an opening plenary session might be devoted to papers on the medical history of the region where the annual meeting is being held. Additional plenary sessions diminish the opportunities for proffered papers and the 1998 Ad Hoc Committee advised against them; however, the 2000 Council overturned a policy against them set in 1987 and ratified in 1999 in order to reflect current practice and to allow the program committee the freedom to decide.

G. PARALLEL OR CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Parallel sessions accommodate the varied scholarly interests of Association members and provide an adequate forum for research. Indeed, many members can attend only if they read papers.

With the 1984 meeting in San Francisco, the Association moved to triple concurrent sessions. By 1998 in Toronto, four concurrent sessions were held for the first time. On both occasions, objections were voiced. For some members, a limited "menu" of papers was one of the most attractive features of Association meetings: the sharing of a uniform experience with others. (An advocate of parallel sessions compared this dissenting view to refusing to eat in a restaurant because one cannot order everything on the menu!) Even with the parallel sessions, only one person out of three or four applying to speak is successful. Without concurrent sessions, an even larger majority would miss the opportunity to be heard and the interchange of ideas would be sharply limited.

Concurrent sessions are here to stay. A decision about two, three, or four concurrent sessions should be made by the Program Committee Chair in conjunction with the L.A.C., provided the location has a number and configuration of meeting rooms, which will permit easy access and smooth traffic flow.

H. LUNCHEON WORKSHOPS OR ROUNDTABLES

Luncheon workshops can enliven and diversify the program. They are appropriate when the Program Committee is sufficiently interested to organize them, when the topics are sufficiently attractive to people attending the meeting, and when the L.A.C. and the hotel staff can ensure sufficient space to accommodate them.

In the late 1950's and 1960's, when the A.A.H.M. membership was small, luncheons were frequently scheduled for those attending annual meetings (often by invitation a local sponsoring institution). At the 1973 Cincinnati meeting, subject-oriented luncheon sessions, attended by pre-registration, appeared on the program for the first time.

Whether or not the Call for Papers specifically invites proposals for luncheon sessions, the Program Committee will likely receive a few abstracts proposing them by people accustomed to their presence at previous meetings. Generally, many fewer luncheon proposals are received than paper presentations. Some P.C.C.s have taken the initiative of drumming up proposals on key topics by lively experts. Occasionally, when a program is especially packed, speakers who had wished to have three or more acceptable papers in a single session are invited to reformulate their presentations as a luncheon panel. All proposals for luncheon workshops--solicited and unsolicited--should be subject to the same peer-review selection process within their own category.

Luncheon workshops usually are led by one or more members of the Association, often involving several brief presentations followed by a question period. Among the best received, were biographical presentations by Drs. Owsei Temkin, George Corner, and Saul Jarcho. Other sessions have addressed thefollowing: book collecting and preservation; "how to" write and teach medical history; oral history; practitioners and medical history; multi-disciplinary approaches; archival and financial resources; and the use of visuals or the Internet.

Among their advantages, luncheon workshops can promote greater social and professional interchange, providing members with the opportunity to meet and converse with a distinguished historian or others having similar interests. They also provide members and visitors with something to do at mid-day other than eating alone in a strange city.

On the downside, luncheon workshops have varied greatly in value. Often they provide little real interaction for interchange between speaker and audience, especially when speakers view the occasion as a mandate to lecture. Frequently oversubscribed, plans, ticket sales, and refunds can increase work for the L.A.C., by involving extra bookkeeping and added demands on registration staff.

To avoid disappointing members eager to attend, the Program Committee may wish to consider holding workshops on very popular topics, such as book collecting, on more than one day. Alternatively, the Program Committee could determine from the L.A.C. if luncheon numbers are restricted because of space, or because of hotel lunch planning; if space is not a problem, the sessions could be opened to those who do not purchase the lunch.

The structure of a luncheon workshop should be left to the workshop organizers. The nature and subject matter of each workshop (as well as the availability of hotel space) determine the number of people attending. Complaints have been voiced by some A.A.H.M. members that a luncheon meeting of 70 people is not a "workshop", while others have objected strongly to any limits on attendance. Organizers of luncheon workshops should have the option of limiting the size, if they have reasons for wishing to do so, and they must communicate with the L.A.C. about the seating capacity of rooms and numbers of lunches needed.

Luncheon sessions have resulted in a new A.A.H.M. conundrum. By 1994, the hotel lunches had become expensive (up to $30) and all too often--with notable exceptions--the food was uninspired. On rare occasions, the fee was inflated to cover additional costs charged (or threatened) by the hotel for use of extra space. The sessions now appear to be closed to those who can afford (or are forced) to pay an additional admission by having to buy the hotel meal. Ideally, luncheon sessions should be open to all registrants of the annual meeting, including people who choose not to buy the hotel lunch. However, this possibility is rarely made clear (or even offered) in the registration package. Those who understood that the fee was required resent others "crashing" the session and increasing numbers. The Program Committee (in coordination with the LAC) shall state in the registration package that registrants should note a) their intention to attend a luncheon session and b) their intention to purchase a meal at that luncheon.

1. Poster Sessions

Poster sessions with presentations of historical research in progress offer more opportunities for people to present their work than can be accommodated in lecture sessions. Poster sessions can also result in greater discussion time between authors and those interested in the topic.

A few posters were first presented at the 1983 A.A.H.M. meeting held in Minneapolis. A more comprehensive exhibit of posters depicting historical work in progress took place almost yearly, since Durham in 1985. The number and quality of poster proposals have varied over the years. For example, in 1998, only four poster proposals were received, and none was deemed acceptable; however, the 1998 Ad Hoc Committee recommends that poster proposals continue to be included in the Call and that decisions about holding sessions be made by each Program Committee on an annual basis.

The P.C.C. must provide the L.A.C. with a final list of the names, institutions and titles of respective poster sessions, as well as specific dates and time during the annual meeting when the authors exhibiting in poster sessions will be present to discuss their work. If the selection of posters is made early, this information might be included in the formal program. If the selection is deferred until after the choice of speakers, the final information on the poster exhibit can be distributed in the registration packets at the meeting.

The P. C. C. must also coordinate closely with the L.A.C. to ensure that:

1) sufficient space and equipment (standing screens or wallboard) are available at the meeting for the posters selected, and

2) direct and ample lighting is made available to illuminate the posters clearly.

Those who present posters should be advised to utilize large-sized type or lettering in their exhibits to ensure readability --i.e., so the text can be read at a distance of five feet.

2. Motion Picture Presentations

The presentation at annual meetings of historical films on medical subjects of broad interest can serve as a supplement to the formal program. The 1985 Durham meeting pioneered the screening of historical motion pictures. Scheduled on two days during the luncheon interval, the films drew sizable and interested audiences.

Since 1985, Hollywood motion pictures, documentaries, and early public health films have often been shown as evening entertainment. They have also been the focus of luncheon workshops and formal paper presentations. The P.C.C. must coordinate the booking and showing of films with the L.A.C. and hotel.

3. Memorials

Sessions memorializing colleagues who have recently passed away have occurred in the past.  In 2004, the death of two colleagues close to time of the submission deadline engendered intensive communication between P.C.C., the AAHM President and the L.A.C. chairs in order to help facilitate well-intentioned proposers for a memorial session.  Flexibility and cooperation between these three officers can settle most issues.

J. SELECTION AND ROLE OF THE SESSION CHAIR

With concurrent sessions and a tightly scheduled program, the primary function of Session Chairs is to start and end each session on time. The success of the annual meeting relies heavily on the contributions of A.A.H.M. members who agree to serve in this capacity.

Session Chairs should be selected for their historical competence in the area to be discussed, their familiarity with A.A.H.M. meeting practices, and their personal characteristics.

An invitation to chair a session should be viewed as a mark of respect within the discipline. It can also help to allay costs of attending the meeting, when the Sessions Chair's home institution is willing to contribute to expenses. But Session Chairs must earn these bonuses by carefully performing their prescribed duties, explained fully in writing by the P.C.C. well in advance of the meeting.

A few weeks prior to the meeting, Session Chairs should correspond with all speakers to

• emphasize the twenty minute time limit for each presentation;
• request biographical data and information on their current research interests for a brief introduction;
• request a copy of the complete paper;
• check with participant regarding A-V equipment needs (a double check on a duty of the P.C.C.);
• ask those who will use slides, overheads, computer, or video to report to the session a few minutes early to check on the equipment.

At the meeting, s/he must

• check the room a half hour prior to the session to ensure that the sign, lights, microphones, slide projectors, overhead and video equipment are in place and working, and that water for speakers has been provided;
• report any problems to L.A.C. and/or Registration Desk;
• post signs if they are missing from door (The prudent Chair will bring paper, pen, and adhesive tape.);
• greet speakers, introduce them to each other, and arrange for their seating at a table or in the front row throughout the session:
• advise speakers again of importance of precise timing;
• briefly introduce each speaker in turn: name, position, and title of the paper. Longer introductions cut into the speaker's precious time;
• enforce time strictly by starting on time and by ensuring that each speaker adheres to the limits;
• preside over the question period, recognizing speakers throughout the room, and closing discussion in a timely manner. S/he might ask a question or make a comment, if few reactions emerge from the audience S/he should be prepared to intervene if responses wander off topic.
• omit the question period if the speaker uses all available time in the presentation;
• close the session by thanking all speakers and the audience.

Policy matters of importance to Session Chairs:

• smoking is not permitted at A.A.H.M. meetings (policy established 1985);
• sessions may not be recorded (sound or video) without prior consent of speakers;
• in the event of cancellation, the Session Chair may be read his/her copy of the paper, at the request of the absent speaker. Sometimes the paper has been made available for members of the audience to read;
• cancellation of a middle paper in a session should not cause a later paper to be read early unless the speaker wishes. A short break is preferable, otherwise, would-be listeners could miss the presentation.

Question periods should not be delayed till the end of the entire session; they must follow each paper. Many members of the audience will attend papers in several different concurrent sessions. Deferring all questions till the end deprives the first speaker of an opportunity for feedback.

In the past, session chairs were required to complete a one-page report-form on their sessions. The forms could be picked up and left at the registration desk. This practice fell by the wayside in recent years, and was officially abolished in 1998. One member of the current Ad Hoc Committee believes that it might profitably be reinstated if Council or future L.A.C. or P.C.C. perceive a useful function for it.

K. CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF DUTIES OF P.C.C.

Months before meeting (at the latest)
18 mos. (Dec.)	P.C.C. appointed by President.
15 mos. (Feb.)	Prepare and mail the "Call for Papers."
12 mos. (Ap.)	Members of Program Committee appointed by President.
12 mos. (Ap. May)	Meet with members of Program Committee who are attending A.A.H.M. annual meeting. Establish standards and mechanisms. Discuss policy re: plenaries, luncheons, posters, films, etc.
8 mos. (Sep. Oct.)	Acknowledge receipt of each abstract.
7 mos. (Nov.)	Distribute abstracts to committee for evaluation.
6 mos. (Dec.)	Tally rankings and group abstracts in sessions.
5-6 mos. (Dec. Jan.)	Notify authors of ALL abstracts of the outcome, including successful, unsuccessful, and wait-listed authors. Request signed commitment, A-V needs, and membership status from selected speakers.
5-6 mos. (Dec. Jan.)	Select and communicate with session chairs. Inform speakers of session chair (copy correspondence).
5 mos. (Jan.)	Prepare typed version of over-all scholarly program together with list of names, titles and institutions of speakers and chairs. Prepare similar list for participants in luncheon workshops and poster sessions. Review scrupulously for accuracy and send to the L.A.C. by the agreed upon date.
5 mos. (Jan.)	Follow up confirmations and select replacements from waiting list.
4 mos. (Feb.)	Send an indexed set of selected abstracts to the L.A.C. for copying as a booklet to be included in registration packages.
4 mos. (Feb.)	Give list of speakers who are non-members to LAC to ensure that they receive registration material.
4-3 mos. (Feb. Mar.)	Prepare preliminary report for A.A.H.M. Council meeting and send to President, Secretary-Treasurer, and (eventually) the next P.C.C.
3 mos. (Mar.)	Ensure that successor has been named and has prepared and sent the Call for Papers for the following meeting. Provide list of journals and addresses to successor.
3 mos. (Mar.)	Mail Program to all AAHM members.
0 mos.	Attend meeting and postmortem to endure kudos, slings, and arrows.
0 mos.	Finalize report. (There may be no changes to the original.)
+0-1 mos. (Jun)	Review this section (Part II) of these Guidelines and recommend changes if necessary to the Chair of the Committee on Meetings and the Secretary Treasurer
+0-1 mos. (Jun)	Send sample copies of her/his letters to successor, to the Chair of the Committee on Meetings and to the Secretary Treasurer to update Appendix II of these guidelines.
12 mos. later	Recognize or arrange to have recognized the work of successor at the Business Meeting of the following year. Like the rest these guidelines, this task is a custom not a duty; however, minutes reveal that it has been honored more in the practice than in the breach.