This is a chance to relay to members what is going on in APS now that winter is here in force. First, the September 11 attacks have impacted our society as they have most of the country. One consequence of the attacks and their aftermath was that it emphasized the need for APS to become involved in a more active way in the bioterrorist threat.

We have been cognizant of crop security for some time (for example, Norman Schaad organized a very nice session on this precise topic at the Montreal meeting), but we have generally not taken a very active role. The Executive Committee has decided that we must become more involved, and to that end, I have appointed an ad hoc APS committee on bioterrorism as it applies to crop and disease security. National Academy of Sciences member and former APS President Jim Cook has graciously agreed to chair the committee. One of its main functions will be as an information conduit with various governmental agencies that have suddenly awakened to the possibilities of attacks on the nation's food chain. The committee will also consider vulnerabilities to such attacks and ways to interdict them. We envision the committee as being very interactive with APS members as well as governmental officials and policy makers. I believe that Jacque Fletcher plans to focus a special session at the Milwaukee meeting on the bioterrorism issue as well. I think it is fair to say we have not heard the last of this from APS.

Another area of activity in APS is the Public Policy Board (PPB), chaired by O. W. Barnett. The board has been extremely active in recent years and has benefited greatly from the addition of Kellye Eversole as our Washington, DC, liaison. One area in which PPB has been particularly active and successful is shaping funding in the agricultural area, particularly as it applies to plant pathology. I don't need to tell you that ag funding at the federal level has been a chronic, worsening problem over the last 10 years or more. According to NSF figures, the percentage of federal research funding going to agriculture dropped from 4.2 to 2.8% from 1982 to 1998. During the same period, NIH and NSF have advanced like gangbusters. Turning the ag situation around, however, will not be easy, since it involves interactions between a complex of agencies and constituencies, including farmers and farmer/commodity groups, scientific groups such as ours, state experiment stations, the USDA and its various parts, the Office of Management and Budget, and, of course, Congress. To understate the situation, these various groups do not always see eye-to-eye and indeed frequently march in opposite directions, particularly as concerns support for competitive grant funding in agriculture.

The Public Policy Board is doing a wonderful job of interacting with key congressional and industry people, and in conjunction with efforts by other scientific societies, research funding may improve. For more information on PPB's recent activities visit www.apsnet.org/members/ppb/. As usual in such complex situations, communication is a key issue. To that end, I am planning to focus the Plenary Session at the 2002 Milwaukee meeting on the issue of funding for agricultural research. It is our hope to bring together key congressional, USDA, industry, and policy people to frankly discuss the failure of the country in recent years to adequately support agricultural research, especially competitively awarded funding.

Some time ago, APS Council studied governance of APS with the view of assessing whether council representation reflects the membership of the society and provides adequate access to council by various groups of members. Council has evolved greatly in recent years from a body dealing with minutia to a body more involved in policy making, long-term planning, and most of us agree that this makes good sense. The business of running the society has largely devolved to talented boards and committees that are expert at their particular activities. Larry Madden chaired an ad hoc committee that carefully studied this governance issue, particularly as it concerns council representation and concluded that in several ways council membership as currently constituted does not coincide with our extant membership patterns.

The report issued by Madden in summer 2001 has been widely circulated and has engendered considerable discussion within the society, certainly a healthy thing. (To review a copy of the report go to http://www.apsnet.org/members/gov/ and click on the third link "Governance Report.") I have appointed APS Vice President Gary Bergstrom as chair of an ad hoc committee to further discuss the issue of APS governance, solicit member opinions, and offer its own conclusions. It is my hope that by the Milwaukee meeting this year we will be in a position to have adequately solicited member opinions on the issue and to consider putting a constitutional proposal to membership via a formal ballot. I encourage members to make their views known on the issue of governance and to participate fully in these discussions. The underlying theme here is that it is imperative to make APS and the council as representative of our membership and members' interests as possible.

Another item that I want to bring to the attention of membership is Plant Health Progress, which can be found at www.planthealthprogress.org. APS recently launched this ground-breaking Internet publication that promises to revolutionize access to information on applied plant health. Several other scientific societies have joined in supporting the journal. Experts can publish papers extremely rapidly that deal with all aspects of plant health, and these will have as much and likely more impact than papers published in hard-copy form. The rapid access to papers published in Plant Health Progress will be an exceedingly valuable resource for plant health clinicians in the field. I encourage members to subscribe to Plant Health Progress and to encourage your state ag experiment station to subscribe. This is the wave of the future, and APS is proud to be the pioneer.

Finally, I must make a pitch encouraging you to attend the APS Annual Meeting in Milwaukee, July 27-31, 2002. Milwaukee is a great, centrally located city, the center looks like it has excellent facilities, and of course, you might want to partake of the local suds and brats. The Meetings Board chaired by Jacque Fletcher is arranging an excellent program, one highlight of which will be a special session on bioterrorism as it applies to agricultural crop security. For details on the meeting go to http://www.apsnet.org/meetings/2002/.

The 2002 annual meeting in Milwaukee will offer enticing program sessions to meet a variety of needs. Jacque Fletcher and the Program Planning Committee have coordinated a program schedule that includes such timely APS committee-sponsored topics as " Plant Pathology: Extension and Teaching at a Distance", "Molecular Marker Techniques and Their Use in Breeding Programs", "Creating the Right Environment for Biological Control of Soilborne Disease", "New Applications of Statistical Tools in Plant Pathology", "RealTime PCR for Field Diagnosis of Bacterial Diseases", "Genomic Approaches for Studying the Mechanisms of Host-Pathogen Interactions", and "Surface Interactions and Biofilms of Plant-Associated Microbes." In addition, there will be workshops and discussions on "Statistical Epidemiology", "Applications of Commercial Bio-pesticides", and "Innovative Methods in Seed Pathology."

The Turfgrass and Forest Pathology committees will hold one- and two-day field tours, respectively, prior to the meeting. In addition to committee-sponsored sessions, the Program Planning Committee is responding to APS members' wishes for information and perspectives related to plant pathogens as potential agents of agroterrorism and is planning a special session in Milwaukee to address these issues. Registration materials will be mailed in early April to members, exhibitors, and others on our mailing list. See our website at www.apsnet.org/ meetings/2002 for contact and frequently updated information.