MINUTES OF THE APS COUNCIL MEETING MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA
AUGUST 6, 7 AND 11, 1999
The meeting was called to order by President C. Windels at 4:10 p.m.
Present: C. Windels, D. Jardine, R. Gergerich, H. Dillard, R. Nyvall, G. Shaner, N. Van Alfen, D. Beadle, G. Chastagner, E. Stromberg, J. Sherwood, M. Daub, J. Loper, J. Leach, P. Lipps, T. Burr, S. Slack, S. Douglas, S. Coakley.
Headquarters staff present: S. Nelson, H. Cronin, A. Hope, M. Wimer, M. Bjerkness
Guests: J. MacDonald, B. Carroll
Absent: J. Polston
1. Introductions and welcome. President Windels welcomed everyone. She has written a letter to Karen Campbell for us to sign. It will be sent to O.W. Barnett for presentation at a later date. ACTION. We were all encouraged to write letters expressing our professional relationship with Lee.
2. Appointment of Parliamentarian. N. Van Alfen was appointed parliamentarian.
3. Review and approval of agenda. The agenda was distributed (attachment #1). Under item K of the agenda, add: Streaming Technology by Headquarters’ Staff. MOTION. To approve the agenda as amended. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Presidents report/comments
President Windels distributed a written report (attachment #2). Her goal was to streamline the annual and midyear meetings through the use of conference calls and written reports.
S. Tolin will represent APS at the IFT, Washington, DC section meeting on “Genetically Modified Crops: International implications”, to be held on Sept. 13, 1999.
C. Minutes of Council submitted for approval.
E. Review of Action List from 1999 Mid-Year Meeting.
F. Executive Committee Report.
Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan timelines and assignments are not completely done yet. The first timelines were too compressed. More realistic timelines are being developed. S. Slack will present a full report later. We need to prioritize the order of implementation.
The Executive Committee recommends three priority areas from the Strategic Plan for immediate action. They are 1) The internet; 2) framework of governance; and 3) the development of a meetings board to work with C. Ash and J. MacDonald on an Education Center.
APS Image Statement. One of the Strategic Plan goals is to promote Plant Pathology. It would help staff to have a statement as to what APS wants to be known as. It would be a statement of guidance for staff similar to the mission statement. OPAE will be directed to work with staff to develop an image statement.
Appointments. Gary Bergstrom has decided not to continue as Director of the Office of Public Affairs and Education (OPAE) director for personal and professional reasons. He would be willing to stay on in a transition role to assist a new director until the New Orleans meeting. He will also supply a list of names for nomination.
Bob Barnes of the CROPS Planning Executive Committee (CPEC) indicated they are beginning to plan for a CROPS II. He wants to know if we want to be a member of this executive committee? There will be plant and animal research priority setting. Executive Committee passed a motion to continue our presence on the executive planning committee. Discussion occurred on whom to appoint. Do we want someone new? Perhaps we can get somebody to assist S. Tolin as part of a transition process. J. Sherwood expressed an interest in this. There was some general discussion on how this transition process might flow with CPEC.
Hewitt Award. C. Windels reviewed the award proposal and criteria. J. Sherwood provided some information on how other awards are administered. Administrative expenses for the Allen and Hutchins Awards are paid by the Society. Foundation awards have a handling fee. Do we want to put this award under Foundation control? N. Van Alfen reported that the Awards and Honors Committee is in favor of the award since the one area we lack recognition for is new scientists, so this award we be a good fit. The Novartis Award is somewhat different in that it is for scientists in the first ten years of their career. Winners are generally associate professors. This award is very flexible compared to the Hutchins Award. The corpus for this award will be $75,000. The first $50,000 has already been received. The Executive Committee recommends acceptance of the award.
Salary Survey. The Executive Committee recommends discontinuing the salary survey because of the reprogramming costs that would be incurred with the new data base.
Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) Concerns. The IAC expressed concern with how the research priorities were developed by the NPPB earlier this year. The priorities were developed hastily in response to a request so there was no time for a response to the priorities presented. These priorities need to be developed more proactively. The NPPB will be charged with keeping these priorities current.
G. Manual of Operations.
2. APS Historian description for the Manual of Operations (MOO). P. Peterson has prepared a description of responsibilities and it was distributed (attachment #5) and reviewed by C. Windels. There was a question about whether or not material for the archives can be submitted electronically. It was also noted there has been a delay in receiving the money for an archive intern. MOTION. To approve the Historian description for the MOO. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
I. Proposed position statement on biological weapons.
The position statement is the one circulated for the July 13th conference call (attachment #6). The NPPB has worked on this for the past year. They unanimously recommended it be sent to Council for review. Part of it was lifted from Canon 2 and 3 of the APS Code of Ethics.
Discussion occurred on the use of the term “biological weapons.” Also, it was questioned as to what was meant by “peaceful?” Further discussion on various sections occurred. Discussion on whether this needs to go out to the membership for a mail ballot occurred. MOTION. That NO mail ballot be mailed on the Biological Weapons Statement for consideration by membership. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. E. Stromberg and G. Shaner will do some word smithing and bring it back to Council.
Adjourned at 6:06 p.m.
Reconvened Saturday, August 7th at 8:05 a.m.
Present: C. Windels, D. Jardine, S. Slack, J. Loper, G. Shaner, R. Nyvall, E. Stromberg, G. Chastagner, D. Beadle, S. Douglas, T. Burr, J. Leach, M. Daub, P. Lipps, H. Dillard, R. Gergerich, N. Van Alfen, J. Sherwood.
Headquarters Staff Present: S. Nelson, A. Hope, M. Wimer, F. Labatt
Guests: B. Carroll, S. Cantrell, J. MacDonald, A. Tally, N. Keen, S. Hurtt
Absent: J. Polston, S. Coakley
J. Implementation Plan, overview and course of action.
The Strategic Plan with timelines and assignments was distributed (attachment #8). C. Windels brought Council up to date on how the plan has come to its current point. S. Slack went through the plan. He reviewed the Implementation Committee’s meeting in Charlotte, NC where the strategies were developed. Priority issues were reviewed. See Sec. F above.
A summary of the major themes was passed out (attachment #9) and reviewed. S. Slack recommended having the Executive Committee and headquarters staff move forward with the Strategic Plan as appropriate. It was noted that several items indicate a 1999 date so we need to move soon.
G. Shaner commented on Obj. 1B, strategy 4. The benchmark for success will be linked to the electronic journal’s success in getting electronic subscriptions into libraries. He suggested adding to the end of strategy 4, “Place emphasis on development of mechanisms for electronic delivery and access of journals.” Council should be added to the assignment line.
R. Nyvall raised the issue of Goal 3. It is very broad. How will the Entomological Society react to it? Discussion on this followed and it was decided this would probably not be a problem. MOTION. It was moved to adopt the Strategic Plan as presented with the addition to Goal 1, Objective 1, strategy 4 and deletion of starred items (routine items already being carried out by staff). SECONDED. Discussion. It was asked if staff was comfortable with the plan and strategies. S. Nelson indicated they are with the help of Executive Committee and the prioritization of what to do first. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion of the priority areas followed. Issue 1, Building the Internet. This is fairly broad. J. MacDonald indicated that the Office of Electronic Communications (OEC) has addressed APSNet III in detail. There was further discussion on whether issue 4, electronic journal subscriptions, is part of net building. There are many subissues within the “build the Internet” that need prioritizing and budgeting. M. Wimer explained why the electronic journal subscriptions issue should be kept separate. The consensus was to keep the two separate.
Issue 2, Governance. N. Van Alfen led the discussion. Points made included 1) it will be difficult to address due to tradition; 2) there is no international representation in the current geographic divisions structure beyond the Caribbean Division and 3) the size of Council is large as far as decision making bodies go.
It was asked whether this will take large amounts of staff time? S. Nelson indicated yes. We need to streamline the communication structure that is a part of governance. We probably need an ad hoc committee to brainstorm governance structures. The same committee could address Goal 2, objective 2B strategies 1 and 2. Having a staff member on the committee would improve communications.
Member input could also be received through the Internet. ACTION. Put an article in Phytopathology News asking for ideas.
Issue 3, Education and meeting board. C. Ash has been mostly working independently. There are more opportunities available to do things, but Cindy cannot continue on without help and guidance.
Education includes, 1) creating a place for peer reviewed, citable educational materials; 2) college level teaching materials that might lead to the development of an electronic textbook; 3) materials for electronic symposiums; and 4) on-line courses.
The section model of programming fits into this meeting board model. N. Van Alfen reviewed the section chair model currently being used. A question of session attendance using this new model was asked? ACTION. F. Labatt will have the Las Vegas and Montreal session attendance figures following the meeting. Section areas were decided by a small group and could be changed if appropriate. Discussion on how a meeting board would impact staff time. S. Nelson indicated the time would be the same, but there might be a different mix. Items one and four will require large amounts of staff time. Two and three will be much less. It was noted that there are other parts of the Strategic Plant not addressed in issues 1-4. We need to keep prioritizations in mind as other proposals are made.
Issue 4, Electronic journal issues (see Sec. H-1)
Discussion moved towards accepting all four of the issues with the priorities being ordered 4, 3, 2, 1, with a further prioritization within issue 1. ACTION. Executive Committee and staff will work through the details of initiating action on these four areas.
There was a question on increasing poster session viewing time. It is difficult to block out big chunks of time. Doing this would increase the number of concurrent oral sessions. It was noted that these types of questions stress the need for a program board.
a. Awards Ceremony & Grand Reception. Pre-ceremony reception. There will be changes due to L. Campbell’s death. C. Windels will make some opening remarks. L. Madden will give a tribute to Lee. N. Van Alfen will present the awards as chair of the Awards and Honors Committee and as a member of the APS Executive Committee. R. Howard, immediate past-president of CPS, will present the CPS Awards. A pre-ceremony reception will be held to honor the award recipients.
b. Networking Breakfast and Business Meeting. A rehearsal will be held on Monday afternoon.
c. Leadership Workshop. J. Fletcher will lead the workshop since C. D’Arcy was unavailable. She teaches a leadership class at Oklahoma State. Darlene Lansing, a professional consultant will be assisting. The workshop is filled to capacity.
Break at 9:45 a.m.
Reconvene at 10:15 a.m.
a. New Orleans. The New Orleans meeting will be August 12-16, 2000. S. Slack, 2000 Program Chair, gave an update. He is proceeding with the new process. There are six section chairs. Four are holdovers, two of which will serve a one-year term and two that will serve a two-year term. Two new members serving a three-year term have been added. This setup will give continuity as program chairs change each year.
There were mixed feelings from committee chairs over the new program planning method implemented in 1999. Some did not understand the process. There was a question as to how feedback is to be received. S. Slack plans direct contact with section chairs. No written evaluation is planned. There was more discussion on the program process and what may be causing the anxieties.
b. 2001 Salt Lake City. The meeting dates are August 25-29. We will meet jointly with the Society of Nematologists and the Mycological Society of America. This will offer some unique programming opportunities. There is a chance for the governing bodies to meet. The site has adequate meeting and guest room space for all.
c. 2002 Milwaukee, WI. The dates are July 27-31.
d. 2003 Charlotte, NC There are still some details to be finalized.
e. 2004 ?? Western sites are being considered.
3. Streaming technology. S. Nelson and M. Wimer attempted to give a demonstration of streaming technology, but due to technical difficulties, were unable to do so. They therefore gave an oral report on the capabilities of the technology. This could be used as an option for viewing symposia that one might not be able to attend in person, for instance.
L. Councilor’s Forum
P. Lipps reported on the Melhus Student Speaker Award. There have been few nominations. The problem is it is self-nominated. They would like to open it for general nomination with the call for nominations going out with the other awards. The Division Councilors will select the winner. It is a very prestigious award. There is about $1,000 in travel. The awardee makes a research presentation in a special session based on subject. Last year it was in the molecular signaling symposium. The only nominee this year was not selected. ACTION. T. Burr and P. Lipps will rewrite the description and call.
1. Job Placement in public area of APSnet. A report compiled by J. Loper and R. Gergerich was circulated (attachment #11). See the attachment for a list of the participants. A number of issues were identified. One was the quality of the Placement Center. It was felt it would be better if moved to the public area. It is now a member benefit. If we keep moving things to the free area, what would be the benefits of membership? Discussion followed. Mechanics of how it would work were also discussed. MOTION FROM COMMITTEE. To move the Placement Services to the public access area of APSnet. Discussion followed. This is a benefit to members who are trying to fill positions. It is common in other societies e.g. ESA, ASA, ASPP. The Canadians do not have one, but they link to others. The IAC sees this as positive for industry. If there are fees involved, it should be equitable. More discussion on charging and how to do it ensued. Phytopathology News already charges. Dual charges would probably force department advertisements toward the Net if pricing is not favorable. Some departments already do not use Phytopathology News because of the time delays. There was more discussion involving timing issues involving Phytopathology News. MOTION CARRIED.
They would like to identify an individual to establish a quality placement service. There should be an ad hoc committee to discuss pricing issues, immediacy, visual quality, ease of use, and streamlining. There are effective models on the net including post-your-own with a standard purging time. ACTION. The president will appoint a committee with the first report due at midyear. Suggested committee members include a representative from OEC, M. Bjerkness from staff, J. Batten from the Graduate Committee, D. Palmer from the Placement Committee, and E. Stromberg from Councilor’s Forum.
2. Abstracts. There is an issue on the submission of forms. There is no sign-off for electronic submissions. Division forms are not electronic and still require signatures. These differences need to be reconciled. A suggestion was to indicate the reviewers on electronic submissions without actual signatures. There was support for electronic signatures since reviews are obviously useful. As an alternative, signatures could be eliminated from division forms. Discussion on peer review occurred. Abstracts are technically not peer reviewed, which is why they are in a supplement. MOTION. That the requirements on the abstract submission forms for national and division meeting be reconciled and that a field is added to the electronic submission form to indicate the names of two individuals who have reviewed the abstract prior to submission. SECONDED. Discussion. Those who are conscientious will continue to be so. Others will write in names without the actual review occurring. M. Daub would rather have a statement strongly urging review. MOTION CARRIED. ACTION. Headquarters staff. Add a field to the electronic submission form for the names of reviewers.
A summary of APS division and national meeting and abstract publication dates was circulated (attachment #12). G. Chastagner reviewed the attachment. The problem is that there can be a long time interval between division meetings and paper publication. There used to be a 2-3 month interval. Now it can be 12-15 months. Manipulation of the submission date can be done, but it may require submissions months in advance of the meeting. Division abstracts could be decoupled from the nationals. Some divisions submit electronic abstracts after the meeting so as not to include those not given. The problem is made worse since the supplement is published before the meeting rather than at the end of the year. We could make the on-line citation the only citation. The paper copy would not be given a volume number and not be citable. This would allow removing papers not given from the net. We could also go back to a separate meeting book and end of year supplement. Discussion for and against the various options occurred. No consensus was reached. Changes in technology may resolve this in the future.
N. Publications Board.
5. APS Press. The agenda order was changed to accommodate S. Douglas. There is a new initiative to have Spanish translations. Forty-one books were sold in a short period of time. Fungicide and Nematicide Tests will publish under APS Press beginning in September. A tenth senior editor will be added for on-line publications. Digitizing slides affected the APS Press bottom line. Several books did not come in on budgeted time. The new Corn Compendium is doing well. The Field Crops CD is also doing well. Randy Ploetz will be the new APS Press Editor-in-Chief.
S. Nelson reviewed an example of streaming video technology from the cereal chemists. This could be sold to meeting attendees who can’t get to everything. It could be put on the pay area of APSnet. It could increase delivery speed for time sensitive materials. Other examples of current uses were given. The file sizes needed could be a problem. This could be useful for on-line courses or workshops. Industry could use it for training.
Break for lunch at 11:50 a.m.
Reconvened at 1:25 p.m.
Guests: J. Riggs.
M. Office of Electronic Communications
J. MacDonald reviewed the new Plant Health Progress Journal. It will be for materials for use by plant health professionals and other disciplines. He also reviewed the Education Center. It would contain materials for K-12 teachers, workshop materials, on-line courses, symposia, etc. Ideas are developed, but now we need to focus and move the ideas along.
1. Education Center on APS, election of Editor-in-Chief (EIC). They are seeking an EIC for both the Plant Health Progress Journal and the Education Center. It would be a three-year term and would probably serve on the Publications Board. Financial obligations are unknown. M. Wimer reviewed some of the factors that would affect a budget, i.e. number of submissions, sales, etc. An EIC is needed to spearhead getting materials to serve as a draw to the site. Several questions on markets and budgets were discussed. MOTION FROM PUBLICATIONS BOARD. To approve in concept an Education Center on APSnet and permission to recruit an EIC to finalize the concept for Council approval. MOTION CARRIED.
2. Plant Health Progress, approval in concept. The IPM journal did not come together. The Plant Health Progress Journal came out of this. It is planned to have a broad scope with several publication categories, diagnostic articles, focus articles, new product reviews and other things to appeal to the practicing plant professional. MOTION FROM PUBLICATIONS BOARD. To approve in concept the Plant Health Progress Journal and permission to recruit an acting EIC to finalize the concept for Council approval. Discussion. It was asked whether or not senior editors would be needed? The answer is yes if the submissions are to be peer reviewed. There was further discussion on whether the EIC will be a Council position. This would be evaluated during the study of the governance structure. It was suggested they be called just editor so as not to imply a Council position. There was a friendly amendment to insert the word acting in from of EIC. It was accepted. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION. To change the EIC for the education center to acting EIC. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Items for the public area of APSnet. They want to do away with the Resource Center and go to an intuitive pricing plan, i.e. you pay for what you would ordinarily expect to pay for, e.g. journals.
a. Member Directory. This would be moved to the public area if the World Directory becomes a reality.
b. Phytopathology News. This would be moved to the open area.
Discussion followed on the value of membership. Value includes reduced journal page charges, reduced meeting fees, committee and Council participation, being in the directory, getting a hard copy of Phytopathology News if the electronic version goes public, etc. Current APSnet subscriptions would disappear. There would still be a member area but without password protection. This would clear up some current confusion. Some members think you need a subscription to access any area of APSnet.
J. Loper reviewed the membership survey from students. Phytopathology News received high marks from 93% and the Placement Center 22%. There was more discussion on accessing the members only area. Members need to be reminded this area is available to them at no extra charge. MOTION. To move the membership directory to the public access area. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION. To move Phytopathology News to the public access area. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
N. Publications Board
1. General Issues. Abstracts for special sessions were required, but were in the program booklet only. MOTION FROM PUBLICATIONS BOARD. That special section abstracts be solicited early enough to be published in the supplement with regular abstracts and be submitted electronically. Discussion. It would fall to session organizers to work with speakers to do this. MOTION CARRIED.
Our journals should abide by the recommendations of the Intercommittee on Virus Taxonomy. The nomenclature code is to be published in September. B. Hillman will put together information for authors.
We follow the American Society of Microbiology style manual for trinomials. Some people want to use shorthand.
They are looking at centralized record keeping for the journals. Several products are available and are being evaluated.
Some societies are looking at consortiums for marketing journals. CAST has some interest in this.
Break at 2:40 p.m.
Reconvened at 2:57 p.m.
Guest: G. Bergstrom
2. Phytopathology. A proposed list of senior editors was distributed (attachment #13). The current editorial board rotates off December 1. B. Hillman takes over as of Dec. 1. B. Gilbertson agreed to be senior editor of both Phytopathology and APS Press. He will be contacted to make a choice between the two. MOTION FROM PUBLICATIONS BOARD. To approve the following as Senior Editors of Phytopathology for the term of Dec. 1, 1999 – Nov. 30, 2002: S. Hulbert, D. Cuppels, D. Bird, R. Nelson, A. Jarasz, X. B. Yang K. Subbarao, and M. Mazzola. MOTION CARRIED. There is a new slate of associate editors (attachment #14). This does not need Council approval. It is an information item only. It was reported that international members submitted 51% of published papers. This is up from 33% three years ago, but the new figures include Canadians.
3. Plant Disease. Sixty-four percent of the submissions are from the U.S. Interpretive summaries have now begun. There have only been five to date. It is not in the instructions yet, but senior editors are requesting them. N. O’Neill has asked to be relieved of her duties. MOTION FROM PUBLICATIONS BOARD. That S. Miller (Ohio State) be appointed as a Senior Editor of Plant Disease to complete the term of Nichole O’Neill. MOTION CARRIED. A list of associate editors was distributed (attachment #15).
4. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions (MPMI). This is the second year twelve issues have been published. The British Society of Plant Pathology and Blackwell Press have introduced the journal Molecular Plant Pathology. It is heavily advertised and they are recruiting a strong editorial board. The editorial board is exploring increased visibility for MPMI. Some editors are being overloaded while other are not as heavily burdened as they should be. There will be some shifting of responsibilities. MOTION FROM PUBLICATIONS BOARD. To add a Senior Editor position to MPMI in the area of symbiotic / plant microbe interactions. Discussion. This will free J. Leach up to handle Conflict of Interest manuscripts and to promote the journal. MOTION CARRIED. The color publication quality is a draw for this journal.
5. APS Press. See above.
6. Editorial Office. See attachment #16, APS Staff Report.
R. Offices and Boards
1. Office of Public affairs and Education (OPAE). The “Outreach in Action” newsletter is available at the registration desk. There is a process in place for funding requests from OPAE. The Communications Committee is starting to function. D. Albaugh of American Cyanamid is the chair. They are looking at what our public messages should be and how to get them out. The agriculture bioterrorism issue has been a big media hook at this meeting. CPAC (the Canadian C-SPAN) has keyed in on one discussion and three symposia (World Food Crisis: Meeting the Demands of a Growing Population, Ag Evolution: The Value of Food/Feed Safety and Environmental Stewardship, Food Safety-Meeting the Challenge, and Plant Pathology’s Role in Anti-Crop Bioterrorism and Food Security) and will videotape all but a couple of the speakers. There is also come coverage on bioterrorism by the ABC affiliate out of Rochester, NY. The Montreal Gazette and Le Press also will be covering the meeting along with four agriculture trade magazines and three freelance writers. Staff will be manning a press area. The Sunday morning speakers and speakers from the four mentioned symposia have been invited to training on handling the media. They will try and work APS approved messages into the interview. A. Vidaver will be the gatekeeper for requests from the media. G. Bergstrom indicated a desire to resign at the New Orleans meeting. He will pass on some names for a replacement at the Wednesday meeting. OPAE will be developing a media plan as a result of the media response at this meeting.
O. Headquarters Report
A written report was circulated (attachment #16). As we focus on the Strategic Plan, staff can focus on what is expected of them. We need to take things off of the plate in order to balance the staff’s workload. This is a common problem among many societies. Communication is a concern as we increase the number of subgroups. Phytopathology News articles and Annual Reports are not enough. We have to be able to communicate and respond quickly with new ways to communicate.
There is a need to find ways to work with all of the groups that have their own budget. There are challenges in developing a business plan for the APSnet because it crosses so many other groups with budgets. S. Nelson referred to the last page of the report with a list of activities since mid-year. This is more than they used to do in a year.
The meeting was recessed at 3:45 p.m. and will reconvene at 8:00 a.m., Wednesday.
Reconvened Wednesday, August 11 at 8:15 a.m.
Present: C. Windels, D. Jardine, T. Burr, J. Loper, E. Stromberg, G. Chastagner, G. Shaner, P. Lipps, S. Douglas, R. Gergerich, R. Nyvall, D. Beadle, J. Sherwood, N. Van Alfen, S. Slack, S. Coakley.
Headquarters Staff present: A. Hope, S. Nelson, M. Wimer.
New Council Members present: S. Cantrell, N. Keen, B. Hillman, S. Hurtt.
Guests: M. Boehm, B. Carroll, A. Vidaver, O.W.Barnett, J. Amador, J. Cook, J. Fletcher, R. Bennett
Absent: J. Leach, M. Daub, J. Polston.
Q. Conversations on Change, update
M. Boehm gave a brief history. Three APS members, C. Curtis, J. Johnke and he were involved. A group out of Chicago known as Workspan was looking at purposeful change. In Phase I, they created a workshop titled “The role of professional societies in a changing world” for 32 of the 36 CAST societies. This workshop addressed the concerns and direction of societies. In Phase II, 70-80 members committed to two years of talking about change in six subgroups. M. Boehm shared outcomes from his “Synergy” group. The Kellogg Foundation funded a change program for Land Grant Universities as well. A survey was sent to society executive directors to identify key issues. The current program ended last May with a meeting in St. Paul where membership issues were discussed and actions and strategies were developed. There also was a second initiative dealing with electronic publishing in which the idea of an “electronic neighborhood” where a gate to a cul-de-sac could hyperlink references among journals. The Kellogg grant is ending and they are looking for fresh membership. Boehm asked Council to consider replacing J. Johnke. He suggested that there could also be a Conversations on Change ad hoc committee for brainstorming and developing linkages. Discussion followed on how the membership plan could be funneled into the Strategic Plan. S. Slack indicated some societies are looking to APS for leadership. CAST is reluctant to take the lead at the end of the grant. Leadership probably needs to come from within the societies. There was discussion on how the ad hoc committee would function. Boehm, Slack, Curtis, and Nelson could provide leadership. There is a chance Kellogg funding could continue but CAST’s involvement is uncertain. Program is fostering some good alliances among societies. There was more discussion on the benefits of the ad hoc committee. ACTION. Appoint an ad hoc committee around Conversations on Change for brainstorming and developing linkages.
R. Offices and Boards (con’t)
3. National Plant Pathology Board (NPPB). Present from the board were A. Vidaver, J. Amador, J. Cook, O.W. Barnett.
a. Business plan.
b. Washington presence and budget. A. Vidaver addressed Council on the business plan and the Washington presence. She distributed a packet (attachment #17) that included the NPPB Business Plan, a Q & A regarding the business plan and NPPB, a partial list of other similar sized societies costs related to public affairs and government relations, highlights of NPPB reports from 1991-1996, a copy of Gordley Associates company profile and a copy of the draft contract. A. Vidaver gave details of how Gordley provided help on the House Appropriations Committee’s report questioning EPA’s ability to deal with “plants as pesticides”. They suggested ways that the NPPB would not have been aware of on their own. They are working on a dialogue that will be in the Congressional Record with the assistance of Gordley. Industry, represented by M. Cline and B. Carroll, support the Washington presence. The Industry Advisory Committee has some concerns regarding funding for the presence. Will issues supported be representative of industry’s concerns as well as academia’s. A. Vidaver reported this has been a valuable learning experience and Gordley has suggested ways to fast-track our views. They have helped us though a lot of intricacies and put us in contact with the appropriate people and groups. O.W. Barnett reviewed the time commitment on this issue. J. Cook indicated that the Washington presence will support all five goals of the Strategic Plan, especially Goal 1. J. Amador indicated that a Gordley staff member has worked both on the Hill and at USDA and is in tune with happenings in our areas of concern. O.W. Barnett said some issues could not be represented through CAST because they only pertain to us, e.g. permit issues. Gordley is involved in the biotech consortium and that would likely help us out as well.
It was asked whether or not they could be hired piecework? Barnett indicated it was best to contract full time because then they can be a continuous watchdog for us. There was discussion on how we can represent the views of such a diverse society as ours. J. Cook indicated this could be a problem, but we just stick to the science and provide sound information. He used as an example, Karnal bunt. Although the decision was political, they had the science because we gave it to them. There was more discussion and examples of providing science to agencies.
Communication between the NPPB and members would improve because Gordley would provide articles on their activities. Gordley would also give us more lead-time so we would not be reacting as often on short notice. There was discussion on how the NPPB functions. There was discussion on developing an issue list for NPPB to work with. It was suggested that Gordley could dovetail with industry lobbyists where issues converge. S. Nelson indicated there would be costs to the society beyond the $70,000 contract including staff time and coordination. A. Vidaver suggested this would be an investment, not a cost. Some returns would be tangible and some would not. There is a possibility of some direct funding support from industry, but this has not been discussed by the IAC yet.
It was pointed out that the use of Gordley could actually increase the work of the NPPB if they find interesting or important issues that they would otherwise be unaware of.
It was asked whether we must act now or risk losing Gordley’s services. Gordley realizes we go slowly. They do not want to work by the hour. It would take a quarter-time person working daily. There was more discussion at this time on our Constitution’s prohibition of lobbying and what actually constitutes lobbying versus information providing.
K. Annual Meeting
1. 1999 APS/CPS meeting update.
c. Leadership Workshop. J. Fletcher distributed the 1999 Leadership Workshop workbook (attachment #18). Darlene Lansing, a consultant, assisted and was very professional and talented. This was the fourth workshop. Some topics covered included APS leadership opportunities, time management, developing effective meetings, and coaching. Participants developed a leadership plan. In the past, committee chairs and vice-chairs and Division officers were targeted. This year, they could not fill the workshop with this group. Possible reasons of late lead-time or saturation were given. Even after advertising in an APS News Capsule, it did not fill up. There may be young members we are not reaching. We may need to expand the program to concentrate on single topics. J. Fletcher recommended we think about targeting different groups and topic expansion or rotation. ACTION. Appoint an ad hoc committee to explore further development in the Leadership Workshop held at the annual meeting and related workshops.
Break at 10:00 a.m.
Reconvened at 10:15 a.m.
W. Other items
International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences. O.W. Barnett distributed a pamphlet from this group (attachment #19). This is a possible new affiliation. It is the only international level group that pulls plant sciences together. They have some funding from the Crop Protection Organization, but it is more science based. On behalf of Lawrence Apple, he requested we consider cosponsoring a 2007 meeting.
R. Offices and Boards (con’t)
2. Office of International Programs (OIP). R. Bennett distributed some information on the OIP Library Assistance Program (attachment #20). They had the best OIP meeting ever. They cosponsored the anti-bioterrorism symposium. Several people have expressed interest in joining the board. The expanded Library Assistance Program has been moderately successful. It is constrained by funding and the logistics of delivery. Criteria for CD distribution are needed. They do not want them to be free. They have to have a value, but how do you determine it and how do they pay where there is no hard currency? They prefer to send materials to libraries rather than individuals. Libraries need to make a request in writing. They must sign a statement acknowledging availability to the appropriate people within the university. Institutions or libraries requesting APS CD-ROMS must participate in the Agricultural Libraries Network (AGLINET) or comparable document delivery network. There was discussion as to whether or not we need to do this as part of a network. There would be less complication and better control if we go it alone. There is value in visibility if APS makes direct contacts. The current participation list is about 30-40. It is uncertain what the growth potential is. This program is in addition to the hard copy program. This program is for institutions that cannot afford the subscription cost. Some institutions still do not have a computer with a CD drive. There could be some sponsorship for libraries that have funding problems.
P. Intellectual Property Rights
S. Slack distributed a draft Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policies document (attachment #21). MOTION FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS COMMITTEE. To accept the document “APS Intellectual Property Rights Policies” as the final report of the Intellectual Property Rights Committee and that this document be utilized as the working guideline for APS activities that involve IPR decisions. Discussion. S. Slack reviewed the committee makeup and their actions. If adopted, an article needs to be placed in Phytopathology News. Parts of it may need to be posted on APSnet. There are some minor clarifications that need to be made. They will not plan to bring it back. If major changes are requested, then it will need to go back to the committee. There were some concerns about approving a draft that may be altered. MOTION. To table the motion. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
I. Proposed position statement on biological weapons (con’t)
The NPPB position statement on bioterrorism was revisited (attachment #22). It was suggested to amend the position as passed. Discussion followed. No action was taken.
M. Office of Electronic Communications (con’t)
1. Education Center on APS, election of Editor-in-Chief (con’t). A ranked list of nominees for Acting Editor-in-chief of Plant Health Progress Journal and the “Education Component” of APSnet II and nominations to fill the vacant position on the OEC Board were circulated (attachment #23). MOTION. OEC will contact the nominees for EIC of Plant Health Progress Journal in the ranked order. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION. OEC will contact the nominees for EIC of the Education Component in the ranked order. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION. To contact the nominees for the vacant OEC board in the order ranked. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
R. Offices and Boards (con’t)
1. Office of Public Affairs and Education (OPAE) (con’t). A report to Council was circulated (attachment #24). A resolution to change the APS URL was also presented (attachment #25). MOTION FROM OPAE. To change the APS URL to www.planthealth.org. Discussion. Now would be a good time to do it. OEC has not discussed it, but it probably would not be a concern. S. Slack indicated J. MacDonald was in favor of it. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION FROM OPAE. To approve M. Cline as a liaison to the Industry Advisory Committee. Discussion. M. Cline has been already doing this and doing it effectively. MOTION CARRIED.
a. Appointment of new director. G. Bergstrom distributed a suggested list of candidates to replace him (attachment #26). Discussion of the candidates followed and they were ranked.
S. APS Foundation
S. Coakley reported that there had been 110 donors to the Foundation at the meeting. The largest donation has been $10,000. There has been a $1,000 donation to the Campbell fund. The total for the Campbell fund so far is $2,470. A new travel award in the name of Joseph Fulton has been established bringing the number of named travel awards to 19. S. Coakley requested that Council contribute $2,500 to the Campbell fund. Discussion followed. We will seek further contributions from members since many may not know the fund exists. ACTION. S. Coakley will write a Phytopathology News article requesting donations for the Campbell Award.
Foundation is looking at ways to recognize people who donate $1,000 or more. They don’t want the money spent on “dust collectors.” S. Coakley reviewed the growth in donor numbers since June, 1996. They are also looking to see where the Foundation can fit into the Strategic Plan.
In looking at ways to honor L. Campbell, they want to be sensitive to the North Carolina State University memorial fund, giving it top billing. Karen Campbell is in support of this. MOTION FROM APS FOUNDATION. APS Council should contribute $2,500 to APS Foundation for the C. Lee Campbell Travel Award. MOTION. It was moved to table the motion. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
Melhus Award. T. Burr reported there might be problems in announcing it with other awards because of timing. Discussion followed. Recruitment of nominees is important. The deadline for the award is January 15, the same as others, which should give adequate time.
There was a general discussion on nominating. How do we reach small departments? We need to work through the department heads. We also need to encourage industry and government to nominate. We should encourage suggestions from subject matter committees as well. ACTION. An article will be placed in Phytopathology News encouraging individuals to nominate people for awards.
President Windels thanked the outgoing members of Council: M. Daub, H. Dillard, J. Polston and P. Lipps, for their input, diligence and conscientiousness.
Recess for lunch at 11:55 a.m.
New Council reconvened at 12:40 p.m.
Present: N. Van Alfen, D. Jardine, B. Hillman, S. Cantrell, E. Stromberg, G. Chastagner, D. Beadle, G. Shaner, S. Hurtt, F. Nutter, T. Burr, S. Douglas, R. Nyvall, J. Sherwood, C. Windels, J. Loper, S. Slack, R. Gergerich, N. Keen
Headquarters Staff present: S. Nelson, A. Hope, M. Wimer, L. Hartman.
Guests: P. Lipps, B. Carroll
Absent: J. Leach
C. Windels was appointed parliamentarian.
President Van Alfen began by talking about the operating efficiency of Council. More decision making needs to be delegated. He would like to use Council time to discuss policy and issues and delegate the responsibility of many decisions to Executive Council. ACTION. Council members will receive copies of the Executive Committee Minutes. Executive Committee would bring recommendations to Council similar to the Publication Board, Foundation, etc.
T. Industry Advisory Committee (IAC)
Beth Carroll began by stating that perceived problems between industry and other groups within APS is due to a pure lack of communication. The IAC’s desire to be on Council was reiterated. B. Carroll noted that committee assignments to the Strategic Plan did not include the IAC. There was discussion about combining all industry related committees. B. Carroll put forth a proposal that there be a single industry committee to advise Council, with subcommittees for programming, meeting arrangements, etc. This has been okayed by the industry committee. It appears that the Sustaining Associates are only interested in public relations and are not interested in governance. The question of private practitioners was brought up? They may want to remain separate. ACTION. Send out a survey of the proposed structure to all industry members.
There was discussion about industry working with the Foundation because industry receives so many requests for donations. There may be a need to start an endowment for future funding as company numbers dwindle. B. Carroll indicated she had no idea what amount companies donate to APS activities yearly. It was pointed out that OPAE has a request for funds form that members could use when soliciting industry. There was discussion on the issue of fundraising on behalf of APS. B. Carroll was asked how industry allocates funds? She gave examples of different ways it might work. Much of it is company dependent. It is best for requests to come in early in the fiscal year. ACTION. Appoint an ad hoc committee to develop a fundraising policy for APS. They will be asked to develop recommendations on coordinating fundraising within APS. J. Riggs of Gustafson was suggested as a potential committee member. There was discussion on how this might affect the Divisions who typically deal with smaller companies.
Regarding the proposal for an industry representative on Council, it was determined that it should be postponed until Council takes up the full governance issue. More discussion followed.
There was discussion on the Industry Student Travel Award. The Foundation partially funded the Agriculture Evolution Symposium. There was no problem with acknowledgement issues. The IAC met with NPPB to discuss the research priorities that were submitted. We need to be more proactive in setting these priorities. The issue has been resolved. There was discussion of the Washington presence. The role of CAST was discussed as well as what the benefits to APS are. The question and answer document from NPPB answered many questions. The IAC would like to see more plant pathologists on science advisory boards.
Vince Morton addressed the department heads at their breakfast on the “Education of Industry Scientists.” He focused on what industry needs. We are doing a good job in the molecular areas, but not as good in applied areas. They require people with lots of extra training in Agriculture Economics, Trade, Crop Production, Statistical Field Designs, etc. V. Morton was disappointed in the discussion from the heads. They asked industry to fund assistantships, which was not the answer he was looking for. There will be an “Industry” course offered to students at the University of Tennessee. It was pointed out that since most assistantships are from grants, they typically are researched based, therefore, industry should consider providing assistantships. Industry can utilize APS Workshops and APSnet III to help meet their needs. APS Placement has provided mock interviews and resume help in the past. It may be time to revisit this.
There was discussion on the Industry/Extension Social. The history of the event was reviewed. It has changed from its original purpose of being part of an “Industry Day” at the meeting to being a “thank you” for field cooperators.
U. Hewitt Award
C. Windels reviewed the award proposal and criteria. J. Sherwood provided some information on how other awards are administered. The Allen and Hutchins Awards administrative costs are picked up by the Society. Foundation awards have a handling fee. N. Van Alfen reported that the Awards and Honors Committee is in favor of the award since the one area we lack recognition for is new scientists, so this award we be a good fit. The Novartis award is somewhat different in that it is for scientists in the first ten years of their career. Winners are generally associate professors. This award is very flexible compared to the Hutchins Award. Executive Committee recommends establishing the award and to study further the management of the award. MOTION. A Hewitt Award will be developed as outlined in the “Hewitt” Trust. SECONDED. Discussion. We need a template for establishing awards since there will undoubtedly be requests to establish new ones. We will need some clarification of the requirements for this award. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION. The management of the Hewitt Award will be developed by FAC and approved by the Executive Committee. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
V. Affiliates
1. Affiliate reports over the years. Secretary Jardine presented and reviewed his report on the reports received from affiliate representatives since 1993 (attachment #27). President Van Alfen suggested we don’t worry about them unless they cost us money or embarrassment. If we do not receive reports, we can change the members who represent us. Do we know what the affiliates cost us?
We have not heard back yet from American Type Tissue Culture yet on whether or not R. Nelson has been approved. Executive Committee will handle affiliate appointments. C. Windels brought us up to date on current appointments (attachment #28).
Bob Barnes of the CROPS Planning Executive Committee (CPEC) indicated they are beginning to plan for a CROPS II. He wants to know if we want to be a member of this executive committee? There will be plant and animal research priority setting. Executive Committee recommends our continued participation. There was discussion of the original CROPS meeting. We may want to be more involved. C. Windels reviewed the planning committee membership by type. Discussion occurred on whom to appoint. Do we want someone new? Perhaps we can get somebody to assist S. Tolin as part of a transition process. J. Sherwood expressed an interest in this.
2. Affiliates meeting in Montreal. There was a representative from the Coalition for Education in the Life Sciences (CELS), three from the International Society for Plant Pathology (ISPP), the Mycological Society of America (MSA) and Society of Environmental Toxicology (SETAC). The meeting has changed from what was intended. Instead of communicating with membership, the affiliates exchange information with each other.
3. Appointments
a. American Institute for Biological Science
b. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
c. International Commission on Microbial Ecology
d. International Society of Arboriculture
e. International Union for Microbiological Societies
f. Society of Nematologists
Referred to Executive Committee.
4. International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences. Referred to Executive Committee.
W. Other items – old business (con’t)
Robert Gilbertson selected Phytopathology over APS Press for a senior editorship. MOTION FROM PUBLICATIONS BOARD. That Robert Gilbertson be approved as a senior editor of Phytopathology. MOTION CARRIED.
Break at 2:10 p.m.
Reconvened at 2:25 p.m.
X. New Council Business
Currently we are running a deficit of $68,651.73 for FY 98-99. This is 1.8% of the budget. For the current year, APSnet and the OEC have $20,639 in direct costs and $68,966 in labor and overhead. The new editors will increase these costs, but the amount is not sure. In the future, we should limit the Education Center to a “cost.” It is questionable when Plant Health Progress Journal will be profitable. J. Sherwood reviewed projected Revenues/Costs of the Education Centers and possible changes. The Journals and APS Press will continue to generate more revenue than expense. Revenues for APS Press may increase as we reach new customers. There will be increased costs for services. Phytopathology News costs over receipts will increase unless we go to electronic delivery. Current print and mail costs are $43,381. Annual Meeting costs continues to exceed revenues. Should we continue to supplement the meeting? There may need to be a technology fee of $10 per attendee to cover costs of computer capable projection equipment. There will be increased costs of outreach as well, but these are mostly unknown.
Sherwood reported that ISPP has a new treasurer. He hopes to have an audited statement for FY 99-00.
MOTION. To remove FAC motions (attachment #29) from the table. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED.
1. Consideration of Financial Motions.
MOTION FROM FAC. That APS support the workshop proposed by Cindy Ash for a “Science Writing Course: For those with
English as a Second Language” to be held in the Dominican Republic in Autumn 2000 in the amount of $6,000. Discussion. Most are
developmental costs. If we do it again, costs will be much less. The total cost is $8,802. The balance will be made up from registration
fees. This could be attractive particularly for our Spanish speaking members. It could lead to a mentoring program. This could be a
role for emeritus members. There is a service aspect for us to support this at a loss. There was a discussion of other workshops and
their profitability. For this budget year we have lost $9,000. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION FROM FAC. That Council recommend as part of a “meeting board” if such a board is established, that determining the
workshops/short courses to be held should be part of the charge of that board. Discussion. This is one of four areas prioritized from
the Strategic Plan. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION FROM FAC. To include in budget scenarios the funding of a Washington presence at $70,000 in the 2000-2001 budget.
Discussion. Comments were aimed at clarifying the procedure. A no vote will end discussion of the subject. A yes vote puts it in the
budget, but the budget is not approved until mid-year where it could be taken back out. There was further discussion on the strong
support for this item by the NPPB. CALL FOR DIVISION OF THE HOUSE. Nine in favor. Five opposed. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION FROM FAC. That the APS Foundation develop a plan so that APS Foundation pays all APS Foundation direct operating
costs by FY 02-03 and recommend that a budgeting plan to achieve this goal be developed. In addition, any increase in forgiven
labor and overhead above the FY 98-99 amount (approx. $16,000) be provided to FAC for consideration. Discussion centered on
clarifying the procedures. If $16,000 is exceeded, it could be forgiven, or the Foundation could pay the excess directly. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION FROM FAC. That a dual subscription rate (print and electronic version) for an additional $15 above the printed
subscription rate be implemented. Discussion. The cost of reprogramming the IMIS system to implement this change may range
from $10,000-$25,000. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION FROM FAC. FAC recommends that the following charges be implemented for electronic journal enhancements: a) $20.00
for each color photo per journal article to be available in a PDF file; b) half-tone publication price be increased from $15.00 to $20.00;
c) up to 5 external links per journal article would be at no cost, $5.00 for each link beyond five; d) common files (e.g. WordPerfect, MS
Word, Lotus, JPEG, etc.) would be added as an appendix as an HTML file and paragraph that describes the item to be added to the
article. Charge: $20.00 per item; e) $20.00 for each color photo per Disease Note (limit 2 photos per Note); f) interpretive summary for
Plant Disease articles added at no charge. No discussion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION FROM APS FOUNDATION. APS Council should contribute $2,500 to APS Foundation for the C. Lee Campbell Travel
Award. Discussion. Although there is sentimental reason for doing this, it does set a precedent. It was argued that this is a highly
unusual situation and not likely often repeated. There was further discussion on other possibilities. MOTION CARRIED.
2. Other items
Meetings Board. The next step is to ask a committee to come forward with a full proposal to include workshops, etc. and the Education Center. S. Slack gave a report on the Program Planning Committee. It went well this year. There are some questions of clarification from committee and some on where they fit. There is less feeling of competition among the committees. President Van Alfen appointed S. Slack, the six program chairs, C. Ash, and the Education Center Editor-in-Chief, and F. Labatt to the ad hoc committee. ACTION. A report will be ready for the mid-year meeting.
There was discussion on web pages for committee communication. There was a workshop on this at this meeting. OEC will probably create a template for use.
Governance. President Van Alfen led discussion on this topic. We need to increase efficiency and at the same time be more representative. ACTION. Councilor’s Forum will develop a series of models for better representative government to be presented at mid-year. We need to decide what items the Executive Committee will deal with and what will go to full Council. Executive Committee can do a lot of the routine things. Full Council will always discuss major issues and expenditures. J. Loper indicated that she needed a clear sense of goals for Councilor’s Forum. They are 1) To increase the efficiency of decision making and 2) Make sure membership is broadly represented on Council. B. Carroll asked about a Council position for industry. There was discussion on whether now is the time to address this. B. Carroll asked for a motion from Council, not a non-recommendation from Executive Committee. MOTION. To invite an ad hoc representative from the Industry Advisory Committee to attend Council meetings as all members of APS are invited to attend Council. SECONDED. Discussion. It was asked whether this includes paying the way of the representative to the mid-year meeting? It does not as written. It is only an invitation to attend. There was discussion on what other groups might not be represented. The creation of a new position would require a constitutional amendment, which is probably premature at this point. MOTION CARRIED. ACTION. President Van Alfen will write a letter to the IAC members concerning Council’s action
Meeting comments. Attendance at socials was down. There were too many at one time. The Potomac Division won the DeBary Bowl. A poster session every day may be needed. One and one-half hours is not enough time. The time authors are present could be staggered over two days. There was more discussion on time scheduling. It was questioned about what happened to the beer and bull sessions? Posters were taken down too early on Wednesday. We need to look at “bunching” the program as opposed to equal distribution. There were many good remarks on the Grand Reception.
Y. Future meetings
1. Mid-year Council, February 25-27, 2000, St. Paul
2. FAC – fall, 1999 and spring, 2000
3. Headquarters Operations Committee, May 5, 2000, St. Paul
Z. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas J. Jardine
Secretary, APS