Dear Sir: It is with a sense of deep regret that I write to Dave [McCarn] and to all of you who attended the ASIS Convention in Los Angeles and who left with a feeling that the quality of the meetings was not up to standard. It is not enough to say that we tried, for I’m sure that you will grant that our committee tried, but we either did not try hard enough or we did not put our efforts in the right places (I). The ASIS annual meetings are themselves an attempt to experiment with methods for improving communication and the transfer of information. We tried to be innovative in planning the program. We featured keynote speakers, debates and panels on topics germane to the theme of Information: Benefits and Costs. Our major innovative feature was the epitome sessions which provided a platform for all of our members to discuss the work they were doing and the subjects they felt were important. These sessions were well attended, and I really do not believe that they were trivial and mediocre as was claimed. But Dave protests more for what was not said, and in his letter he provides a list of subjects which could have been discussed. Some of them were, but perhaps not with the prominence that other topics received. The paper sessions did, however, represent the concern of the members, and these topics, too, deserved a hearing and a discussion. This year our annual convention takes place in Atlanta. I sincerely hope, and confidently expect, that the ‘74 meeting will be an improvement over ’73, and it is the feedback from the members that will help make it so.