minutes aps exec conference call july 14, 2010 9:00 am … minut… · · 2010-09-22minutes aps...
TRANSCRIPT
Minutes APS EXEC Conference Call
July 14, 2010 9:00 AM Central Daylight
Present: Danise Beadle, John Sherwood, David Gadoury, Barb Christ, Carol Ishimaru, Mike Boehm, Marci Smith, Michelle Bjerkness, and Barb Mock
Absent: Randall Rowe and Jim Moyer
Guests: Anne D., Carolee B., Walt M. (Tony K. not available)
I. Approval of minutes from June call: call for discussion or changed with no comment. Motion to approve, seconded; vote called: passed unanimously.
II. Discussion Items
A. Foundation
Review proposal and discuss response (attached): Barb provided the background for the proposal request. Their response addresses many of the issues and concerns regarding overhead; staff time in solicitation of donors. The actionable items are on pages 9-15. Did they respond with feedback on how other similar organizations solicit funding? Not specifically.
Barb C. will respond to George and Ray, requesting they present the highlights to Exec, as scheduled, in Charlotte, specifically focusing on what they want exec to respond to.
B. New Council – Charlotte and beyond:
Charlotte: Need to assign liaison roles for Charlotte -OIR – Walt will be the liaison but in his absence for Charlotte, Danise will fill in. -OEC – Carolee Bull -OIP – Anne Dorrance They will all attend those Charlotte meetings in part, explaining their role and bringing feedback to the Wednesday Charlotte Council meeting. Officer Schedule (attached) -All new/incoming council members are welcome to join the Exec meeting in Charlotte -Affiliates meeting: Do we have any guidelines we could provide to them in making requests for joint meetings? They should be referred to the AMB (Annual Meetings Board and Council.) We have current requests from MSA, CPS, and SON
Post Charlotte: Orientation: There was a discussion to assign mentors in Charlotte. Will have time at the retreat for
them to meet with mentors. -Barb Mock will speak with Randy to work on a webinar/voice-over .ppt to post in August, prior
to the retreat, for review of the finances and specifically the Strategic Financial Planning document
-further financial discussion and orientation will happen at the January FAC/Council meeting -Barb C. will work on the presentation that Jim M gave at Midyear to refine that into a smaller,
more focused presentation to post for the retreat preparations. Marci: send midyear orientation presentation to Barb C.
Retreat: More details will be provided at and following the Charlotte meeting. Conference Calls: John S. will work with Marci to send a doodle inquiry for future calls. Later in
the am is suggested based on work schedules and having west coast councilors. Future Council Meetings: -Barb M. will follow-up with Randy to set the dates for January Council meeting. This
meeting will be at APS HQ in St. Paul so there is access to staff in respect to the budget and financial issue.
-The spring meeting will be two days with arrivals on Wednesday, April 27 2011, then meeting all day the 28th and 29th and departures on the 30th. This meeting will also be at APS HQ.
C. Council in Charlotte
o review agendas (attached) -determine parliamentarian/facilitator in Jim’s absence – Danise and David will act in this capacity.
D. CSAW Update and Request (details provided in email below)
We need to move on this to maintain leadership on this initiative. This will not be a cost center for APS. -Need a comprehensive, competitive NIFA program to support training through graduate level education. -What is the commitment of APS? -How is PPB brought into these discussions?
Barb C. will request a knowledge-based motion from Jim and Steve
Barb C. will contact Jacque Fletcher regarding having Jim Moyer provide an update at the PPB meeting in Charlotte
From: James Moyer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 8:22 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Steve Nelson Subject: CSAW update
Barb; Considerable progress was made this week regarding CSAW and the APLU. It was unfortunate that John was thrown under
the bus by only 2 or 3 of the BAA members. Before the summit was over Ian Maw had invited me and a rep from Tri societies to be part of the planning committee for next years APLU Summit which apparently will have something to do with the role of industry and scientific societies in Ag education. APS also received positive recognition at the summit. Although there is still some concern about how much independence they would like CSAW to have the point has been made that it is an independent voice.
My other reason for contacting you is that I would like to propose to EXEC that APS volunteer to host the CSAW website. Now that CSAW has established itself with NIFA and the APLU it is important that they take the next step. I am more than a little concerned that TriSocieties has taken a little more of the leadership in this than anticipated and this would be a way for us to regain some ground. I have discussed this with Steve and he believes that staff could handle it and there is a surplus to handle expenses. Given the CSAW activities currently in process and recent developments there is a sense of urgency with this decision. Thus, I am asking that EXEC be polled prior to the next call for approval to host the CSAW website.
The proposal is as follows: “The APS Education initiative has evolved into one of national importance with the formation of the Coalition for a Sustainable Agricultural Workforce. The coalition consists of approximately 6 scientific societies (APS, ESA, TriSocieties, and Weed Science together with over 20 leading agricultural companies). As word of CSAW spreads and interest increases, there is an urgent need for a website to host information on the Coalition. The lack of reliable information including contacts may well have averted the unfortunate events of last week that resulted in the agricultural academic board from the APLU taking issue with the initiative. We are also receiving inquiries from a variety of sources including our membership, about CSAW. Thus I am proposing that APS offer to host a website for CSAW. I have discussed this with Steve N. and the society can absorb the cost in the current years budget surplus ($5 to 10K) and there is staff capacity (with additional help from outside services) to devote to this effort. This will not only be of service for CSAW, but will also maintain APS leadership in the initiative. The importance of the CSAW effort become evident this week, based on the rapid change in attitude that we received from APLU this week.”
E. PMN – PIPE
Several groups are developing proposals for these funds so there is some potential conflict of interest. Do we need a more generic support letter not specific to one proposal? Do we need two letters from PMN specific to their role in this request and from APS in general support of the funding? The letter for the PIPE has defined the role of PMN as collaborative.
Barb C. will work with Miles revise and finalize the letter.
The second issue is for the future if there are requests for APS to support a particular project. It was determined that APS must remain neutral and if any letter is requested, the letter needs to be generic in nature.
Adjourned at 10:30 am Central
UPDATES:
A. Culture Collections: (See attached proposal and letter) From: Leach,Jan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:11 PM To: Amy Hope; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Randy Rowe; [email protected]; Steve Nelson Cc: Marci Smith; Michelle Bjerkness Subject: Culture Collections Proposal to NSF-RCN: need response by July 6 Importance: High Dear APS Executive Committee.
As many of you are aware, PPB has been working for several years on Culture Collections as a priority. Two workshops have been conducted by PPB and a comprehensive plan has been developed under the leadership of Rick Bennett. An active working group of individuals that have stepped forward from the workshops as well as other key experts are currently working on an NSF RCN proposal to bring together the community for continued support of the concepts put forward in the PPB National Plant Microbial Germplasm System (NPMGS) plan. Kevin McCluskey is taking the lead on the proposal development. Kevin contacted APS staff about involvement in the administration and website requirements of the proposal. Steve Nelson, Amy Hope, Steve Kronmiller and Michelle Bjerkness are all supportive and after review see this as a good project fit for APS (he has a total of $14,000 for website development/hosting and $39,000 for meeting logistics/admin support reimbursed to APS over a 5 year period in the proposal, based on input from staff). Attached is a draft proposal document that is still under development for a sense of the scope of this effort. As of yesterday, I am a coPI on the proposal, representing the PPB.
To support the proposal, a letter from APS needs to be provided to indicate APS's willingness to serve in the administrative role. We have put together a draft attached here for your review. The deadline is fast approaching, please review and let me know your approval of APS involvement in this activity as well as submission of the attached letter with the proposal by Tuesday, July 6.
I appreciate your review. Happy 4th of July!
Jan Leach, PPB Incoming Chair
B. (June) Charlotte and Governance
BSPP: Jim to work with them on time slot for Charlotte to meet with Exec (that Sunday afternoon): This is scheduled for 2 Pm on Sunday. BSPP delegates have been notified.
i. (June) Governance – Next Steps:
Will also discuss the Council Schedule for 2010-11 in Charlotte
Division Forum: they have a call scheduled yet this week and should have a recommendation for the Division Forum Councilor (on Council) by next week. They will also be submitting a recommendation for the nominating and membership committees. They will not have their appointment to council until they meet in Charlotte.
Adhoc: Nominating (Status: Barb is working on this to appoint as an adhoc immediately following a positive vote on the governance proposal. She has most of the membership worked out and will be contacting individuals soon. This will most likely be voted by council at the Wednesday meeting in Nashville to be a standing committee) Jim MacDonald has agreed to chair. Carolee Bull has agreed to represent the “diversity” committee and also will bring perspective from her role in the nomination process to date. David Gent may be a good Sr. Editor rep for this committee. Tom Mitchell would be good too as he served on the governance adhoc that explored this process.
[Barb C.] Contact Amy Charkowski from AMB (Annual Meetings Board): Send Barb any suggestions you have from the current Senior Editors
Adhoc: Membership - This needs further definition. Will get feedback from councilor’s forum and discuss at the Wednesday Council meeting in Charlotte and/or the retreat.
Adhoc: MoO (this is ready to appoint. Danise will chair with members, Margo Daub, Rose Gergerich, David Gadoury and Marci Smith)
ii. (June) MSA request for joint meeting 2012: Update from John/Carol on response: Jo n Sherwood <[email protected]> 06/07/2010 09:33 AM To [email protected] h m cc bford scisoc.org, [email protected] .usda.gov, [email protected], [email protected] @ rs Subject Joint meeting with APS
Carol: I hope you are doing well. The interest of MSA meeting with APS has ended up in my email box as I am currently serving as President-Elect for APS which also wears the hat of Program Chair. APS will be meeting in Providence, RI in 2012 and space will be somewhat limited. Hence, it would be best if APS goes it alone for the 2012 meeting. In regards to the following two years, the Canadian Phytopathological Society contacted APS sometime ago about a joint meeting. We have extended an invite to meet with APS in 2013 (Austin) or 2014 (Minneapolis-St. Paul), and should hear back from them in the next month or so after their governance groups meets. Certain the comradery of MSA and APS meeting together is something that has gone well in the past and something to look forward to in the future.
If the interest of MSA continues in having a joint meeting it would be good to have the appropriate people in MSA communicating with the APS Scientific Programs Board early on so that a jointly developed program could come to fruition. I look forward to hearing from you how MSA wishes to proceed.Regards,John
We are waiting for MSA to respond to this email
APS Foundation Strategic Business Plan 2010 – 2015
“Making It Possible”
June 30, 2010
ii
APS Foundation Strategic Business Plan: 2010-2015
June 30, 2010
APS Foundation Board Voting Members
George Abawi, Chair Ray Martyn, Vice Chair Allison Tally, Secretary
Anne Alvarez Jose Amador Jim Cook
Sharon Douglas Tim Murray
Non-‐Voting Members
Heather Olson, Graduate Student Committee Chair Randy Rowe, APS Treasurer
APS Staff Support
Kim Flanegan, APS Accounting Manager Michelle Bjerkness, APS Director of Membership & Communications
Barbara Mock, APS Vice President of Finance
The Executive Committee of the APS Council charged the APS Foundation Board with developing a strategic business plan in support of its Second Century Campaign. This plan is to primarily address financial considerations necessary to achieve its goals and strategies for increasing both the number of individual member contributions and identifying and engaging members with the potential to give gifts of significance. The Plan was to be presented to the APS Executive Committee in July, 2010 for their review prior to the APS annual meeting in August. To meet this challenge, a draft writing committee, consisting of Ray Martyn, Allison Tally, George Abawi and Michelle Bjerkness, subsequently met via conference calls and emails and held a 1-‐day workshop in the Atlanta airport to prepare the draft report. The draft report was presented to the entire Foundation Board for review and comment on June 1, 2010. The final document was approved by the Foundation Board on June 30, 2010 and forwarded to the APS Executive Committee for their review.
iii
APS Foundation Strategic Business Plan: 2010 – 2015
Table of Contents
Page Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………….. iv Vision Statement ………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Mission Statement ……………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Financial and Fiduciary Considerations ……………………………………………………… 2 Financial Awards ………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 APS Foundation Initiatives ………………………………………………………………………… 5 SWOT Analysis of Foundation ……………………………………………………………………. 6 Strategic Actions ………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Current and Future Allocations Within Foundation’s Portfolio ……………………. 11 Financial Projections (Hypothetical) …………………………………………………………… 14 Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 Appendix I. List of all named Foundation funds and their primary objective…. 17 Appendix II. Comparative annual contributions to Foundation by donor type (2005 – 2009) ………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 Appendix III. 1st quarter (Mar 31, 2010) Foundation financial statement ……… 22 Appendix IV. Historical table of award history by fund since 1996………………… 23 Appendix V. Comparative statement of revenue and expense (2005-‐09)…….... 24 Appendix VI. Potential models of expense ratios for projected increases in expenses and income………………………………………………………………………………. 25 Appendix VII. News articles published in Phytopathology News and mentioned in this plan………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26
iv
APS Foundation Strategic Business Plan 2010 – 2015
“Making It Possible”
Executive Summary
The APS Foundation (Foundation) was founded in 1987 by authorization of APS Council as a 501 (c)3 non-‐profit organization. Its mission is to promote and support the discipline of plant pathology and special programs that meet the Society’s objectives and member needs, but, which are outside the normal operating budget of the Society. The Foundation’s income initiates from charitable giving of APS members and supporters. Foundation is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven volunteer APS members. Contributions are driven largely by individual members who, on average, contribute $120.00 per year, and by the occasional, larger gift and corporate support. Approximately 7% of the total, global APS membership regularly contributes to Foundation (10% of the domestic membership). Because Foundation is operated mostly by volunteer effort, the expense to fund ratio is very low, approximately 2.5%. The market value of the endowment portfolios is $1.2 million (1Q 2010) and, while, small in comparison to large foundations, most would consider Foundation highly successful. Foundation currently manages 14 different funds, including the Named Student Travel Fund, which consists of 47 individual named funds. These have been highly successful and, since 1996, 377 travel awards totaling $164,400 have been awarded to graduate students to attend APS meetings. An additional 150 awards totaling $194,358 has been awarded from the other named funds. Collectively, Foundation has awarded 527 awards ($358,758 total) to deserving individuals since 1996. The economic climate the past 2 years, however, has had a significant, negative impact on the market value of all endowments. Almost all individual funds currently are below their historical dollar level (“under water”) and, until recently, funds could not be withdrawn from them as defined by the 1972 Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act (e.g., no awards may be granted). The Foundation Board is committed to awarding funds whenever possible and, consequently, has used the general endowment to cover most of the awards for 2009 and 2010. In 2008, Foundation introduced their “Second Century Campaign” outlining the 10-‐year goals. In light of events and circumstances discussed in this plan, these have been re-‐evaluated for their current relevancy and, subsequently, modified as follows:
1. Fellowships for undergraduate students who have a career interest in plant
pathology (Advertise this in conjunction with the Frank L. Howard Undergraduate Fellowship);
v
2. Early career professional development and training fellowships, workshops, etc. (Advertise this in conjunction with the Raymond J. Tarleton Student Fellowship Endowment);
3. Support of novel and innovative teaching concepts / models (Advertise this in conjunction with the Mathre Education Fund);
4. APS Public Policy Endowment. Several strategies have been identified to increase contributions to Foundation in support of these goals. These fall into four general areas: 1) Internal management of investment and expenses, 2) Continuing emphasis and priority on individual member donations, 3) Identifying and engaging potential larger donors, and 4) General actions in support of all Foundation activities. A SWOT analysis suggests there is a major opportunity for charitable giving over the next decade, but there are limitations on Foundation’s ability to capture it, including a lack in personnel expertise in fund-‐raising, a lack of funds for extensive travel and promotion in support of major donor solicitation, and an all-‐volunteer work force. In spite of these limitations, there are things Foundation can do to increase annual contributions, but until such time as the major limitations can be overcome, Foundation is not likely to achieve a doubling or more or its current contributions. Over the next five years, Foundation is anticipating an increase in APS staff time of approximately 50 hours ($2,500 annually) and an increase of $10,000 in other expenses to meet its goals. This likely will increase the expense to contribution ratio from the current 2.5% to 3.0-‐3.5%. This is still considerably better than the industry standard of 25-‐40% for charitable organizations. The Foundation Board believes that greater emphasis should be placed on growing funds other than additional named student travel funds. That doesn’t mean these are not important; quite the contrary. However, it is believed that the Named Student Travel Fund has matured and it will continue to grow on its own, especially in light of the anticipated retirements over the next decade. Thus, emphasis should be placed on growing other funds, including the newly approved Early Career Professional Development and the APS Public Policy Fund. Likewise, emphasis should be placed on building the Undergraduate Student Fellowship and the Scholarly and Innovative Teaching initiatives, as well as the Raymond J. Tarleton Student Fellowship Endowment. Opportunities to re-‐direct posthumous recognition to these other areas will be developed. APS Foundation faces numerous challenges in generating enough resources to meet its initiatives, especially in this turbulent economic environment. Because of the level of funds needed to fully endow some initiatives, it will take some years to meet these obligations. Therefore, benchmarks will be set for funds with high endowment requirements and monitored for progress in achieving the fund goal.
1
APS Foundation Strategic Business Plan 2010 – 2015
“Making It Possible”
Vision Statement: Making it possible for members to enhance their professional experiences by connecting individuals dedicated to advancing the science and practice of plant pathology. Mission Statement: The APS Foundation promotes and enhances the educational experience and professional development of APS members, which are outside the normal operating budget of APS, through innovative initiatives in support of the sustainable production of an affordable, safe and secure food, feed, fuel and fiber supply. I. Introduction The APS Foundation (Foundation) was founded in 1987 as a 501(c)3 non-‐profit organization to promote and support the discipline of plant pathology and special programs that meet The American Phytopathological Society’s (APS) objectives and member needs but, which are outside the normal operating budget of the Society. Funds accruing to the Foundation are derived from charitable giving and include gifts, grants, bequests, etc. from APS members and are maintained separately from the funds of APS. The Foundation is administered by a Board of Directors (BoD) consisting of seven voting members and two non-‐voting members. Four voting members are appointed by APS Council and three voting members are appointed by the Foundation BoD. The APS Treasurer and the chair of the APS Graduate Student Committee serve as the non-‐voting members. Additionally, three APS headquarters staff members (VP of Finance, Finance & Administration Manager, and Director of Membership and Communications) are designated to work with Foundation on administrative, financial, and logistic issues. The Foundation’s funds are separated into two primary areas: 1) APS Foundation Endowment, which is the general fund and designed to support those programs that fall outside the scope of the more specific, named funds and, 2) the named, specific funds. These include all funds that are specifically named and have specific objectives and guidelines. These include the named student travel funds, of which there are currently 47, and 12 additional named funds supporting various activities (see Appendix I).
The Foundation BoD has fiduciary responsibility of all funds and is charged with soliciting, investing, managing and monitoring the funds for the benefit of current and future generations of APS members and beneficiaries of the Foundation. The BoD also is charged with administering and awarding funds to recipients through approved
2
processes. The spending policy is intended to provide funds for immediate goals, utilizing the net return on investment, as well as to preserve and grow assets to meet future spending needs. A unique fiduciary requirement of endowments imposed by the 1972 Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act (UMIFA) is that only the investment growth income can be utilized for awards and the original corpus cannot be tapped. Additionally, if any individual fund’s market value drops below the original endowment’s corpus, or subsequent additions to the corpus, (i.e., historical dollar value HDV)) then no expenditures can be made until such time as the market value goes above the HDV. And then, only the amount over the accumulated HDV can be used. In 2006 the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) approved the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA), as a successor to the 1972 UMIFA and created the first prudent investor rule in statutory law. UPMIFA builds on the fundamental principles of UMIFA, incorporating more exact rules for prudent investing and providing greater flexibility in spending. UPMIFA eliminates the concept of HDV, allowing institutions to make distributions from funds, the value of which has fallen below their value at the time the fund was created.
The elimination of HDV does not, however, allow for unrestricted spending from endowment funds. Donor imposed restrictions on the use and preservation of funds over time still apply. The past year's precipitous decline in endowment values is forcing institutions in states that have adopted UPMIFA to make important decisions about spending from "underwater" funds in the context of new legal standards. In 2008, Minnesota passed the UPMIFA, thereby giving Foundation greater flexibility in managing its funds. While this new law allows Foundation to spend from funds that are “underwater”, the philosophy of the BoD is to remain prudent in its fiduciary responsibility.
The Foundation’s general endowment fund was not included under the 1972 UMIFA and, consequently, funds could be withdrawn or transferred when circumstances warranted. Thus, for the last few years, Foundation awards from funds that were “underwater” were made from the general endowment fund. The BoD has the authority to define the spending limit as a percentage of the market value of its assets and expected annual returns. Previously, this was 5% and was predicated on an average 8% return allowing for a 5% expenditure and 3% reinvestment. However, as a result of the significant market collapse of 2008 – 09, the BoD reduced this to 3.5% at its annual meeting in Portland, OR (August 4, 2009). This was deemed necessary since most of the funds were below their HDV (“under water”) and had negative returns; thus, most awards had to come from the general endowment fund, and not the individual named funds. II. Financial and Fiduciary Considerations
A. Investment Objective The primary investment objective of the Foundation is to provide for consistent long-‐term growth of principal and income without undue exposure to risk. The established long-‐term target return was 8%. The Foundation’s assets are invested with TIAA-‐CREF,
3
along with those of APS. The target fund-‐mix allocation is 60% equities and 40% fixed income. The unprecedented 55% decline in the Dow Jones Average that began in the 4th quarter of 2007 and continued through the first quarter of 2009 severely impacted Foundation’s investments. Total market value of Foundation’s assets, as of the end of the first quarter 2010 (March 31, 2010), minus expenses, was $1,265,808. While the investments have recouped some of the unrealized losses during the last 6 months, virtually every fund is still below the corpus principal and is ‘under water’ (see Appendix III).
B. Annual Contributions (Appendix II)
The average annual contribution total to the Foundation for the last 5 years is approximately $73,000; however, the annual total varies considerably based on special contributions. Most of the contributions (approx. 63%) come from special, unsolicited donations (e.g. Tarleton, Schroth, etc.) or Industry (Sustaining Associates and non-‐member companies); however, the second largest percentage (26%) is pledged by members during the APS annual meetings or during their APS membership renewals. Individual donation amounts range from approximately $10 to $1,000 and the average member donation is approximately $120.00. Presently, approximately 10% of the domestic APS membership contributes to the Foundation annually. Additionally, Foundation launched the “$100 for the 100th” pledge campaign in 2004 specifically aimed at increasing contributions to the various travel funds in support of increased awards for the 2008 APS Centennial Meeting. This campaign resulted in contributions totaling $41,652 (Phytopathology News. Vol. 42(12):174. Dec 2008). See Appendix VII-‐A. The Foundation funds annual balance since its inception is shown in Figure 1. Fig. 1. Annual balance of all Foundation funds since its inception (1998 – 2009)
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
APS Foundation Balance
4
C. Cost-Saving Measures in a Bear Investment Market and/or in Extraordinary Need. In anticipation of large market declines or a potential need for significant funds, the Foundation has several actions that can be implemented to navigate through a financial down turn.
1. The BoD has discretionary authority to use funds from the APS Foundation Endowment (general funds) to supplement awards deemed important or necessary to present.
2. Grant no awards from funds that are ‘under water’ (below historical value). 3. Grant awards every other year for funds that are below value or,
alternatively, grant awards at reduced levels. 4. Combine funds from two or more named student travel awards in order to
present one award. 5. Decrease the percent of market value spending level from 5% to 3.5%
(actual % can vary) based on a 3 year rolling average. 6. Increase the amount necessary to establish a new travel award. 7. Temporarily discontinue the donor’s appreciation lunch at the annual
meeting. 8. Temporarily discontinue the annual BoD face-‐to-‐face midyear meeting at
APS Headquarters. 9. Make greater use of monthly conference calls to conduct Foundation
business. 10. Provide status update letters to the originator of all named student travel
awards advising them of their funds monetary value and whether it was “under water”. Provide a choice of a) not awarding their fund award this year, b) combining their fund with another fund in order to present an award or c) donate additional funds to bring the value of their fund up to a level where it could be awarded.
Because of the large decline in investment income in 2008 and 2009, a number of these steps were implemented in 2009 and 2010 (Phytopathology News. Vol. 45(1):4. Jan. 2010. See Appendix VII-‐B
III. Foundation Awards (Appendix I)
A. Named Student Travel Funds The Named Student Travel Funds were established in 1996 to support graduate student travel to an APS meeting and have become extremely popular and successful. Initially, the funds were established posthumously with contributions from colleagues or family and added to annually by individual member contributions. Soon, funds were being established in honor of living members. Today there are 47 such travel funds. Initially a minimum of $5,000 was required to establish and fund the award; however, in 2009 the BoD increased this amount to $10,000. Foundation currently administers 47 named student travel funds, as well as 12 other special funds, plus the general endowment. A list of all funds with their current market value (March 31, 2010) is
5
shown in Appendix III. It is the BoD goal that all awards be granted each year. However, because of the recent marked decline in investments, this was not possible for the 2009 meeting in Portland, OR, nor was it possible for the 2010 meeting in Charlotte, NC. In FY 2009, 28 named student travel awards and nine additional named awards were granted, totaling $30,520, down from $41,500 in FY 2008. In all, 60 individuals received support from the Foundation for the 2009 annual meeting [see Appendix VII-‐C. Phytopathology News, Jul 2009. Vol. 43(7):111]. For the 2010 meeting, the BoD authorized 28 student travel awards totaling $22,100 (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. The annual number of Foundation Student Travel awards granted (1996 – 2010) B. Other Named Awards There are 10 other named funds that support travel to APS meetings, support research activities or provide a cash award. These include the JANE Endowment, International Travel Fund, Lucy Hastings de Guitierrez Fund, Frank L. Howard Undergraduate Fund, Noel T. Keen Fund, French-‐Monar Latin American Fund, Mathre Education Fund, Schroth Faces of the Future Fund, I.E. Melhus Fund, and the Raymond J. Tarleton Student Fellowship Endowment Fund. (see Appendix VII-‐D for additional details. Phytopathology News. Vol. 43(10):1. Nov 2009). Figure 3 depicts the number of awards given annually for each of the named funds since their inception. The marked decrease in 2010 reflects the precipitous drop in investment returns as a result of the turbulent economic climate and 55% drop in the Dow Jones average in 2008-‐09. See Appendix III for more details and the value of all awards.
18 20
22 21 23 24 24
16 18 18
31
39
47
28 28
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Num
ber o
f Aw
ards
Year
APS Foundation Student Travel Awards
6
Fig. 3. The number of Foundation awards given annually for each of the named funds since their inception.
C. Endowments in Development APS Early Career Professional Development and Training Fund. This fund was established out of the need for broader experiences and enhanced opportunities for career development in plant pathology among the early career professionals (senior graduate students, postdoctoral associates and those <5-‐year post Ph.D.) Once endowed, the Fund will provide financial support for participation in activities such as short-‐term internships with industry or government agencies, international travel to gain global perspectives and opportunities, participation in workshops to gain enhanced grant-‐writing skills, developing future APS leaders, as well as other activities deemed appropriate by Foundation. Endowment goal is $500,000 in order to provide five, $10,000 awards annually (see Appendix VII-‐E. Phytopathology News, Vol. 45. Jan, 2010) APS Public Policy Endowment. This endowment is being developed to support the unique opportunity initiated by the APS Public Policy Board to establish an annual APS Fellowship that provides support for an APS member to spend several months working at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) or similar office each year. OSTP holds a prominent role in advancing the administration’s agenda in
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Number of Awards by Type
Year
Aw
arde
d APS Foundation Award History
Student Travel Melhus JANE Research Guiterrez JANE Service Howard French-Monar Keen Intl Travel Schroth Tarleton
7
fundamental science, education and scientific literacy, investment in applied research, and international cooperation. In February 2009, APS Council approved a $50,000 matching grant program in support of this endowment. Endowment goal for award is $1.3 million (see Appendix VII-‐E. Phytopathology News, Vol. 45. Jan, 2010). In light of the significant level needed for this award, the BoD will revisit this as a realistic and attainable endowment or how it might be modified to achieve the goal with fewer dollars. IV. APS Foundation Initiatives In February 2008, at the request of then APS president Martyn, Foundation presented a draft of their “Second Century Campaign” strategic plan to APS Council. Their 10-‐year goals included developing and supporting five major initiatives (summarized here for brevity).
1. Fellowships for undergraduate students enrolled in colleges and universities and who have a career interest in plant pathology.
2. Early career professional development fellowships, workshops, etc. 3. Support for international activities with sister societies and regional pathology
networking and needs. 4. Providing financial support for members to publish in APS journals, i.e.
supplement page charges. 5. Public education and outreach. Develop a free, public website for plant disease
information. The total endowment necessary to support these activities was estimated to be $5,200,000. At a 5% return on investment, this would generate $260,000 / year. By far, the supplemental page charge initiative was the most ambitious, requiring an estimated $3.3 million endowment, followed by the development of a public website. Since this plan was presented to Council in 2008, two new Foundation endowment initiatives are in development (Early Career Professional Development and Public Policy Fellowship Endowment) and two additional ideas surfaced from the APS Past Presidents group, one of which was undergraduate fellowships that would support small research projects by promising undergraduate students with potential for graduate studies in plant pathology (July 2009), similar to the first initiative above and, the other was an endowment that would provide grants to APS members for the development of novel educational innovations (Aug 2008). In light of these developments, the BoD reevaluated the Second Century Campaign goals for their current relevancy and likelihood that the required funds could be attained in any reasonable time frame (It took Foundation 20 years to reach $1 million – how long would it take to attain $5 million?). Additionally, the two suggestions from the past presidents align with two existing Foundation funds: the Frank L. Howard Undergraduate Fellowship and the Mathre Education Endowment (see Appendix I). The goal of providing supplemental page charges (up to 33%) to APS members to publish in APS journals was discussed and deleted as a goal based on a belief that it was unrealistic and unattainable and outside the mission of the Foundation. The goal of
8
developing a public plant pathology website also was deleted based on anticipated costs, as well as on a recommendation of the consulting group, Delcor, which suggested a public website was too expensive and would be met with significant competition and likely would not achieve its goal. Subsequently, the BoD modified the Foundation’s Goals for 2010-‐2015 as follows:
1. Fellowships for undergraduate students enrolled in colleges and universities and who have a career interest in plant pathology (Advertise this in conjunction with the Frank L. Howard Undergraduate Fellowship).
2. Early career professional development fellowships, workshops, etc. (Advertise this in conjunction with the Raymond J. Tarleton Fellowship Endowment).
3. Support of novel and innovative teaching concepts (Advertise this in conjunction with the Mathre Education Fund).
4. APS Public Policy Endowment
5. Other ideas discussed for potential adoption included industry-‐sponsored awards similar to the Pioneer Award, international initiatives that might combine the objectives of the JANE Endowment and the French-‐Monar Latin American Fund, and collaborations with other national foundations or professional societies for the furtherment of agricultural sciences and potential donations for humanitarian and/or goodwill projects. These, however, have not been incorporated into the current 2010-‐2015 goals.
V. SWOT Analysis of Foundation In order to project and plan for the future, it is important to understand the “landscape”. A cursory analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) related to Foundation’s goals are:
A. Strengths
1. A large, passionate, dedicated membership that believes in the goals of APS.
2. APS’ reputation and recognition as the world’s premier plant pathology society.
3. Extremely low expense ratio for endowments, approximately 2.5%. B. Weaknesses
1. An all-‐volunteer work force with little professional expertise in fund raising.
2. Lack of time by the BoD and others to devote to major fund raising activities (All have real day jobs!)
3. Current portfolio balance (ca. $1.2 million) makes providing large awards impracticable and current rate of contributions doesn’t allow for a rapid increase in funds. Thus, Foundation is mostly restricted to small awards in the range of $500 – $1000.
9
4. Lack of significant funds for development, advertisement, travel, personnel, etc., in support of fund raising activities.
5. A real or perceived lack of important and compelling initiatives that capture the interest and passion of potential donors and which compete with donor’s other interests.
C. Opportunities 1. A large and growing retirement (Emeritus) membership, many of whom have been life-‐long members of APS. Approximately 50% of the current plant pathology faculty at US universities and colleges will retire within the next 12 years (Gadoury, et al., 2009. Plant Dis. 93:1228-1237). 2. The largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in world history will occur within the next decade. Much of that wealth will be given to charitable causes.
D. Threats 1. Major downturns in the investment market that deplete the value of endowments. 2. Market downturns that reduce the ‘charitable wealth’ of potential donors. 3. An uncertain investment market and economy that delays potential donors from making commitments. 4. Direct competition for donations from many other charitable causes (There is only so much to go around!). 5. A membership base that is increasingly made up of members of the ‘Millennial generation” (born between 1980 and 2000) and who may not be as engaged in APS, do not see APS as their only or first choice of professional societies, and who may not be life-‐long APS members. This generation makes up the fastest growing segment of workers today.
VI. Strategic Actions To achieve the modified goals, several different strategies and plans must be developed. These include A) a plan for the internal management of investments and expenses, B) strategies for increasing the percentage of individual members who contribute to Foundation, C) a strategy for identifying and engaging potential larger donors (“Founders”) and D) general actions in support of all Foundation activities.
A. Internal Management of Investments and Expenses Several cost-‐saving measures were introduced in 2009 as a direct result of the economic meltdown, as previously stated. This has resulted in significant savings. However, additional resources are needed to meet Foundation’s goals. The internal management of resources is a first step. The major expenses for Foundation, excluding the awards are: 1) support staff time, 2) travel expenses for the BoD to attend planning meetings, 3) investment fees charged by TIAA-‐CREF, 4) promotion, and 5) miscellaneous (printing, postage, etc.) [see Appendix V]. Currently, support staff time (payroll) is calculated at the rate of $30.28 / hr plus G&A for a total of $50.00 / hr. In spite of payroll being the largest single expense,
10
Foundation’s expense to contribution ratio is 2.5%, which means 97 cents of every dollar contributed goes directly to the fund. This is extremely low compared to the industry standard of 25%-‐40% (American Institute of Philanthropy; http://www.charitywatch.org/criteria.html). This is primarily because much of the effort is by a volunteer work force. However, as indicated in the SWOT analysis, this also is a weakness of Foundation’s fund-‐raising capabilities.
• Institute a 1% annual management fee for named endowments. All financial management services charge a fee for managing investments and these can average 1-‐5% or more. Foundation does not charge the various endowments a fee, thus, there is no mechanism of recouping expenses except by taking them out of the market return. This significantly reduces the funds available for awards and, in cases like the last 2 years, means depleting the general endowment even more. As part of the new business plan, Foundation will institute an annual 1% management fee, based on the market value at the end of each fiscal year (June 30), for all endowments allowing such fees in their agreement, The annual fee will begin June 30, 2010. All new endowments initiated after June 30, 2010 will have a clause in the agreement that states an annual management fee up to 1.5% may be charged. The money generated will be transferred to the unrestricted, general endowment fund.
• Increase in staff time of 50 hours (approximately a $2,500 increase in
payroll) and a $10,000 increase in expenses related to promotion and marketing and fund-raising. In order to achieve the goals, it is estimated that Foundation will have to increase its expenditures over the next 5 years by $10,000 to $20,000 per year. Based on the current FY balance and expenses, a $10,000 increase would increase the expense to fund percent to 3.07% (+0.82%), up from the current 2.25% and a $20,000 increase in expenses would raise it to 3.88% (+1.6%) (see Appendix VI). Assuming an increase in the annual contributions from the 5-‐year average of $77,600 to $100,000, an increase of $20,000 / yr. in expenses would decrease the ratio to 3.59%. The maximum expense to portfolio balance will be set at 5%. This is still significantly below the industry standard for foundations.
• No additional personnel anticipated. Except as noted above with an increase
in staff time, no additional personnel is anticipated to meet the current goals. This does not rule out the possibility, however, in the future if the economics justify it.
• Benchmarks and Triggers. The two initiatives in development, Public Policy
and Early Career Professional Development, require significant endowments to meet their objectives, $1.3 million and $0.5 million, respectively. Given the past contributions to Foundation, the BoD is concerned about the time required in meeting these funding amounts, even with an increase in member contributions. Thus, benchmarks will be identified, (e.g., funds must make X% per year or Y% within first 5 years, etc.) with appropriate ‘triggers,’ and these will be monitored regularly. If adequate progress is not made on these endowments, triggers could
11
institute alternative strategies or the repurposing of funds within allowable regulations.
B. Continuing emphasis and priority on individual member donations as a major source of funds. Almost 90 cents of every dollar given to non-‐profit organizations is given by an individual (Zielinski Companies, 2007).Thus, it is Foundation’s intent to continue its high priority on individual member contributions. The second largest percentage of money donated to Foundation is pledged by members during the APS annual meetings or during their annual APS membership renewal (26%); however, only approximately 10% of the domestic APS membership contributes to the Foundation annually. That figure drops to about 7% when the entire global APS membership is included. There has been a slight increase of 1% in the last 3 years in the percentage of domestic members contributing to Foundation, albeit it is probably not significant. It may well have been in response to the Centennial meeting and the “$100tfor 100th” campaign. It is the long-‐term goal to increase the percentage of domestic APS members who contribute regularly to the Foundation from 10% to 20%.
Increasing the percentage of individual APS member contributions.
• Continue promoting the Named Student Travel Awards. Develop a “1-‐pager’ explaining the history and objectives of the Named Student Travel Awards that is available for distribution electronically to the membership, as well as for distribution at the annual APS meeting.
The demographics of the APS membership suggest a large cohort of retirements over the next decade as the baby boomer generation reaches age 65+. This will result in a large increase in emeritus APS members and, unfortunately, an increasing number of deaths. This likely will spark a significant increase in the number of new, named student travel funds. While these funds are popular, the BoD is concerned that there may be a proliferation of such funds and Foundation may end up with too many small travel funds and not grow the larger, special funds, e.g., Tarleton Student Fellowship Endowment, APS Public Policy Endowment, APS Early Career Professional Development Endowment, etc. It is a goal to develop a plan to repurpose the success of the named student travel award concept for new or existing funds with the same general purpose, while preserving the naming opportunity.
• Analyze the member database of past recipients of travel awards for insight into their effectiveness in engaging and retaining student members in the society. Promote accordingly.
• Develop an attractive Foundation display with pop-‐up posters that can be set up as part of the Foundation booth at the annual and divisional meetings.
• Increase the visibility and outreach of Foundation by giving a 5-‐minute ppt presentation at various existing venues during the annual meeting (e.g. First-‐timers reception, Early Career Professional social, Melhus symposium, Department Head’s breakfast, etc.).
12
• Include a “plug” for all Foundation endowments during the introduction of the travel award recipients at the APS Awards ceremony and in the printed awards brochure.
• Present a short (5 minute) presentation at the APS Divisional meetings highlighting both the Foundation’s mission and goals and the divisional recipients of Foundation awards. Provide an opportunity for members to give.
• Develop a multimedia (PPT slideshow) component for use at the Foundation booth during the annual meeting. This would highlight the mission and past and current recipients of Foundation awards.
• Increase visibility and interest in Foundation by having a raffle at the annual meeting. At Charlotte, it is planned to sell raffle tickets for an i-‐pad (approximate value of $500). Tickets will be $10 each (3 for $25). “Pre-‐tickets” will be included in the registration package. Additionally, it will be advertised that donations to Foundation of $250 or more will receive one free raffle ticket.
• Increase number of electronic updates and postings via the APS News Capsule and on the Foundation website.
C. Identifying and Engaging Potential Donors for “Gifts of Significance”
Establishing a major gifts program requires an organization-‐wide dedication and commitment to building relationships with donors. Small gifts come from donors who believe in the good works being done, and these are gifts of support. Major gifts result from donors committed to the organization’s vision, and these are gifts of investment (Ehrlich & Miller, 2007. NCDC Dimensions). Foundation considers individual, corporate or organizational one-‐time donations of 10 to 25 times the annual gift to be a major donation. Thus, those who gift $15,000 or more would be considered a major donor. Gifts of significance usually come from donors who already have contributed several smaller gifts over time. Approximately 3-‐5% of the current membership of an organization has the potential to be a major donor (Zieliniski Companies, 2007). For APS, this is approximately 150-‐250 individuals from the total global membership (ca. 5,200) or 100 – 175 domestic members. Foundation has had several major donors in the past, including those from John and Jane Niederhaus, French-‐Monar, Milton and Nancy Schroth, Don Mathre, and Raymond J. Tarleton, but no where near the potential number based on membership data. Unlike small, individual donations, large donations often come with some sense of ‘ownership’ by the donor and, likely require a significant amount of interaction by the organization’s upper management. For Foundation this likely would be the Foundation chair, the APS president, and the SciSoc executive vice president. In order to launch a successful campaign there must be an established relationship between the prospective donor and the organization (APS member and the Foundation) and an overlap and shared values. There also must be clear and compelling reasons why a prospective donor would want to give. This takes time and money to develop. It is clear that Foundation cannot take on a major donor campaign with the limited resources it has; however, we can begin the process and start small. The following plan is proposed to begin this process.
13
Identify and establish initial contact with one to three potential major donors per year. This will be done initially through contacts at the APS annual meetings and other common points of contact, e.g. divisional meetings, council meetings, etc.
1. Develop concise ‘1-‐pagers’ for each of the major initiatives (Public Policy; Early Career Professional Development; Undergraduate Fellowships; Tarleton Student Fellowship, etc.) explaining the rational and goals.
2. Develop a strategy and plan for identifying and soliciting potential large donors (e.g. similar to Tarleton, Schroth, Mathre, etc). This includes:
a. Identifying those individuals who have given single gifts of $1,000 -‐ $2,500 to APS Foundation within the last 10 years, as well as those who have a combined giving total of $10,000 or more.
b. Developing clear and compelling reasons why specific initiatives are worthy of their support.
c. Identifying the lead contact person(s) for Foundation, APS and the staff liaison if individuals need ‘special handling’. The BoD believes these should be the Foundation Chair, the APS President and the SciSoc Executive Vice President.
d. Starting the identification and cultivation process by starting with the APS’
inner circle (past presidents, officers, council and board members, etc.), filtered by years of APS membership (age) and then moving to the outer circles. Engage at annual meeting for cocktails or meal.
e. Since the APS past presidents identified two goals that they considered
important (undergraduate fellowships and scholarly and innovative teaching models), Foundation will encourage them to become “Founder’s” of these initiatives by collectively contributing $10,000 to each initiative. That is $20,000 total and equates to approximately $1,000 / past president.
D. General Actions in Support of All Foundation Activities
1. Develop a new Foundation brochure highlighting the major initiatives, as well as, the current travel award funds. 2. Redesign the Foundation website and provide an opportunity to ‘give on-‐line’ 3. Prepare a ‘pop up’ poster display and short PowerPoint© presentation highlighting Foundation initiatives and award winners for use at both the annual meeting, as well as divisional meetings.
VII. Current and Future Allocations Within Foundation’s Portfolio
14
Based on the FY 08/09 financial statement and fund balances, Foundation’s collective portfolio has 34.1% of its funds in Named Student Travel Funds; 27.5% in the general endowment, and the remaining funds make up 38.4%. FY 2008/09 57.8% of all contributions were to the Named Student Travel Funds and 42.2% in all of the remaining funds. Given the current priorities and initiatives, the question may be asked is this the correct allocation of monies? In other words, should there be a different mix and percentages? The BoD believes a greater emphasis should be placed on growing funds other than the Named Student Travel funds. That doesn’t mean these are not important, quite the contrary. However, it is believed that the Named Student Travel Fund has matured and will continue to grow on its own, especially in light of the anticipated retirements over the next decade. Thus, emphasis should be placed on growing other funds, including the Raymond J. Tarelton Student Fellowship Endowment and the newly approved Early Career Professional Development and the APS Public Policy endowments Likewise, emphasis should be placed on building the Undergraduate Student Fellowship and Scholarly and Innovative Teaching initiatives. The BoD is not able at this time to speculate on what the proper allocation mix should be, but it will be on the agenda for discussion this coming year. VIII. Financial Projections (Hypothetical) Two significant premises in this plan are that donations to Foundation will increase with an increased number of contributors and the expense ratio will increase as more staff time and expenses are incurred in support of the increasing donations. The current total average annual contribution to Foundation is $73,000 and the current expense ratio is 2.5%. The following graphs (Fig. 4 A –D) depict several scenarios and how each would impact the Foundation’s overall balance. These do not account for any investment growth or decline, only net contributions and expenses to Foundation. Fig. 4A. Annual contributions increase to $100,000 / yr and expense ratio increases to 3.5%
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000
$1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000
Donation > $100,000 & expense ratio > 3.5%
15
Fig. 4B. Donations increase to $100,000 / yr and expense ratio increases to 5%. Fig. 4C. Donations increase to $200,000 / yr and expense ratio increases to 3.5% Fig. 4D. Donations increase to $200,000 / yr and expense ratio increases to 5%
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Donation > $100,000 & expense ratio > 5%
$0 $500,000
$1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Donation > $200,000 & expense ratio >3.5%
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Donation > $200,000 & expense ratio >5%
16
Appendices Appendix I. List of all named Foundation funds and their primary objective. Appendix II. Comparative annual contributions to Foundation by donor type (2005 – 2009) Appendix III. 1st quarter (Mar 31, 2010) Foundation financial statement Appendix IV. Historical table of award history by fund since 1996. Appendix V. FY 2008-‐2009 statement of revenue and expense Appendix VI. Potential models of expense ratios for projected increases in expenses and income. Appendix VII. News articles published in Phytopathology News and mentioned in this plan.
A. “100 for 100th” Centennial campaign received generous support. Phytopathology News. Vol. 43(12):174. Dec 2008.
B. APS Foundation adjustments, strategies, and exciting opportunities after a challenging year. Phytopathology News. Vol. 44(1):4. Jan 2010.
C. 2009 APS Foundation Awardees. Phytopathology News. Vol 43(7):111, Jul 2009.
D. Raymond J. Tarleton Student Fellowship Endowment established with APS Foundation. Phytopathology News. Vol. 43(10):1. Nov 2009.
E. Seeking member support for two new APS Foundation initiatives. 2010. Phytopathology News Vol. 44(1):5. Jan 2010.
17
Appendix I
Description of the APS Foundation Funds APS Foundation Endowment
This is the Foundation’s general fund and is designed to support those programs that fall outside the scope of the more specific funds listed below. Frank L. Howard Undergraduate Fellowship
This fund supports undergraduate research projects in plant pathology. The award was established to encourage the involvement of undergraduate students in plant pathology research and to encourage students to pursue advanced degrees and careers in plant pathology. One award of $1,000 will be made for support of undergraduate research to be conducted over a minimum of one summer or school term during the academic year. The funds may be used for stipend (3 months) and research budget expenses. Awards will be made to the cooperating laboratory or department in the student’s name for their use as allocated in the budget. Funds may be placed in Foundation accounts if deemed more efficient by the student’s institution. The applicant must be enrolled as a full-time, degree-seeking student. Students are not required to be in a plant pathology major, but they should be in a related field or area of biological sciences. Early Career Professional Development & Training Fund (In development)
This fund is focused on assisting new plant pathologists in broadening their experiences and skills by providing financial support for their participation in activities focused on career development. The recent APS Education Initiative research findings identified the need for broader experiences and enhanced opportunities in preparation for careers in plant pathology. In response, the newly formed APS Early Career Professional Development &Training Fund is focused on assisting new plant pathologists in broadening their experiences and skills by providing financial support for their participation in one of the following activities, as well as others judged appropriate by the APS Foundation: A short internship with industry or special research laboratory; an international internship to attend a workshop, regional meeting, and/or to visit an international center to gain a unique networking opportunity and a global perspective; participation in an interactive grant-‐writing training/workshop; participation in a workshop for curriculum development offered by APS or in collaboration with other scientific societies or institutions; and support for the APS Leadership Institute. The APS Foundation is establishing the APS Early Career Professional Development & Training Fund with a goal of $500,000 to provide the seed funds needed for five or more early career professionals annually to cover expenses associated with their participation in professional skill-‐enhancing activities. French-Monar Latin American Fund
This fund was established by Edward R. French and Delia Monar French. Earnings from this endowment will provide support for Latin American plant pathologists to attend meetings, publish in journals, acquire publications, and join professional societies.
18
International Travel Fund This fund, established with the Office of International Programs, supports travel
costs for early-‐ to mid-‐career international APS members to participate in an APS annual meeting. This fund is intended to support scientists native to and working in developing countries who otherwise would not be able to attend APS meetings. JANE Endowment
The JANE Endowment supports international research on potato late blight. This fund also provides a cash prize to the recipient of the APS International Service Award. The JANE Endowment was established by Dr. John and Ann Niederhauser. Lucy Hastings de Gutiérrez Fund
This fund provides a cash prize for the APS Excellence in Teaching Award. Noel T. Keen Fund
This fund provides a cash prize for the Noel T. Keen Award for Research Excellence in Molecular Plant Pathology. Mathre Education Endowment
This fund, established by Don and Judy Mathre, supports plant pathology education programs such as the APSnet Education Center. I. E. Melhus Fund
This fund supports a student speaker or student symposium at the APS Annual Meeting. The APS Seed Pathology Committee is sponsoring the 10th I. E. Melhus Graduate Student Symposium at the 2010 APS Annual Meeting in Nashville, TN. The symposium entitled “Seed Pathology: Epidemiology, Management, and Phytosanitary Concerns” will feature four to six presentations on graduate thesis work, highlighting research aimed at providing a better understanding of the epidemiology, management, and phytosanitary issues of plant diseases caused by pathogens that are seedborne. All graduate students with relevant significant work are invited to apply. Each presentation will be 30 minutes in length (including time for questions), and will be selected based on the significance of the contribution to new understanding of seedborne and seed-transmitted plant pathogens. Speakers for the symposium will be chosen by a selection committee. Invited speakers will receive a financial award toward the cost of travel. Speakers must be APS members at the time awards are made. APS Public Policy Endowment (In development)
This endowment supports the unique opportunity initiated by the APS Public Policy Board (PPB) for an APS member to spend several months working at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) or similar office each year. OSTP holds a prominent role in advancing the administration’s agenda in fundamental science, education and scientific literacy, investment in applied research, and international cooperation. This invitation is quite rare; in fact, APS is the first agriculture or plant related group with an agreement for a fellowship with OSTP. In addition to this opportunity, PPB is investigating other similar opportunities for plant pathologists to be involved in policy initiatives at the national level with various agencies and/or policy groups. The APS Foundation is initiating this endowment with a goal of $1.3 million dollars in funds, to provide the necessary ongoing
19
award for the fellowship. In a strong showing of support for this initiative, APS Council approved a matching program of up to $50,000 for initial contributions to this program. This is a great opportunity for doubling the impact of your contribution to the foundation. Raymond J. Tarleton Student Fellowship Endowment Fund
This new graduate student fellowship has been established by Raymond J. Tarleton, past executive vice president of APS, with the assistance of the American Phytopathological Society (APS) Foundation. The award was initiated to support graduate students in plant pathology research and to encourage students to further their careers in plant pathology. The Tarleton Fellowship is awarded to a deserving graduate student(s) majoring in plant pathology at a university in the U.S. The purpose is to support graduate education in plant pathology and can be used as a stipend for research expenses, books, research or scientific meeting travel, summer internships (industry, other research labs, etc.) and/or for equipment necessary to the recipient’s thesis research. The annual award is expected to be in the range of $1,500 - $3,000. The award can be made for either one or two years. The applicant must be enrolled as a full-time, degree-seeking student with a plant pathology major and recognized as an APS student member at the time of receipt of the award. The student should plan on presenting results from the research at a regional or national APS meeting and provide a brief article for publication in Phytopathology News about the value of the Fellowship. Schroth Faces of the Future Fund
This fund was established by Milton and Nancy Schroth. Earnings from this endowment support the annual “Faces of the Future” symposium at the annual meeting, acknowledging up and comers in a specific area of plant pathology research. The 2010 symposium will be entitled, “Schroth Faces of the Future in Virology—A Look to the Future.” This symposium is designed to acknowledge the “up and comers” in virology. The chosen speakers will be asked to present their research in a special session in which they will have the opportunity to highlight their current work and speculate on the future directions of their discipline. In addition, the speakers will have the opportunity to submit a mini-review where they can highlight their philosophy and futuristic thinking about the direction of their discipline. We encourage nominations of scientists in the early stages of their careers (assistant professor or equivalent) that are forward thinkers and are perceived to be the future leaders in the field of virology. Speakers will be chosen by a selection committee composed of virologists and members of the Early Career Professionals Committee and will receive funds of $400 each to help support their travel to the meeting. Named Student Travel Fund
This was the first specific fund established by Foundation and are named for individuals, living or deceased. The interest from these funds helps underwrite the cost of annual meeting attendance for students. The Graduate Student committee assists the Foundation in developing application standards and in awardee selection. Named Student Travel Funds have been established in honor of: José and Silvia Amador Elsie J. and Robert Aycock
Kenneth F. Baker
Kenneth Barker John M. Barnes Myron K. Brakke William Malcolm Brown, Jr.
J. Artie and Arra Browning
Caribbean Division C. Lee Campbell Gustaaf A. de Zoeten
20
H.J. Dubin (Peace Corps)
Eddie Echandi Zahir Eyal
Forest Pathology John F. Fulkerson Joseph P. Fulton Robert W. Fulton Richard L. Gabrielson Raymond G. Grogan Dennis H. Hall Janell Stevens Johnk
Stephen A. Johnston Arthur Kelman Kyung Soo Kim Evanthia D. and D. G. Kontaxis
Tsune Kosuge Landis International Stuart D. Lyda Don E. Mathre William J. Moller Larry Wallace Moore Donald E. Munnecke John S. Niederhauser
Joseph M. Ogawa Albert Paulus Roger C. Pearson Malcolm Quigley Eugene S. Saari John F. Schafer Milt & Nancy Schroth Luis Sequeira Malcolm C. Shurtleff George Herman Starr H. David Thurston Virology Harry E. Wheeler
21
Appendix II. Comparative annual contributions to Foundation by donor type (2005 – 2009)
22
Appendix III. 1st quarter (Mar 31, 2010) Foundation financial statement
23
Appendix IV. Historical table of award history by fund since 1996.
24
Appendix V. Comparative statement of Foundation revenue and expenses for 2005 – 2009.
25
Appendix VI. Potential models of expense ratios for projected increases in expenses and income.
26
Appendix VII. Articles published in Phytopathology News and mentioned in this plan.
A. “100 for 100th” Centennial campaign received generous support.
Phytopathology News. Vol. 43(12):174. Dec 2008. B. APS Foundation adjustments, strategies, and exciting opportunities after
a challenging year. Phytopathology News. Vol. 44(1):4. Jan 2010. C. 2009 APS Foundation Awardees. Phytopathology News. Vol 43(7):111, Jul
2009. D. Raymond J. Tarleton Student Fellowship Endowment established with
APS Foundation. Phytopathology News. Vol. 43(10):1. Nov 2009. E. Seeking member support for two new APS Foundation initiatives. 2010.
Phytopathology News Vol. 44(1):5. Jan 2010.
27
Appendix VII-‐A
28
Appendix VII-‐B
29
Appendix VII-‐C
30
Appendix VII-D
31
Appendix VII-E
1
2
Research Coordination Network: A National Plant Microbe Germplasm Network
Project Summary
Steering Committee: 3
Kevin McCluskey, UMKC A. Rick Bennett, University of Arkansas
David Geiser, Penn State University Kellye Eversole, Washington, DC
Mary Palm, USDA APHIS, Beltsville MD, Dave Ellis, USDA ARS
Neel Barnaby, USDOJ David Smith, GBRCN, Braunschweig, Germany
Summary: 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Access to robust and well characterized biological material is a foundation of modern biological research and is essential for the emerging bio-economy. There is currently no coordination between collections of plant-associated microbes in the US. This effort seeks to establish a formal network of researchers working towards the establishment of a US National Plant Microbe Germplasm System. While two ad hoc workshops have been held to launch this effort, there is no mechanism to support continued development of a US network of microbe collections. This project seeks to develop this network and identify a mechanism for long-term support of the National Plant Microbe Germplasm System. The research coordination network will work to this goal by holding independent workshops of interested parties, sponsoring teaching workshops associated with national and international meetings, organizing symposia at national and international meetings, developing a dedicated internet site to promote the goal of establishing a National Plant Microbe Germplasm System, sponsoring educational exchanges between existing collections, and establishing connections with international groups working to this shared goal.
This proposal is not to implement the National Plant Microbial Germplasm System, but rather to establish a network of scientists working towards the establishment of a system of collections that has independent long term support.
Broader Impacts: 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Having access to well characterized biological material leverages effort by prior research. The long-term nature of collections of microbes, and other biological material, provides vertical integration of research results and assures reproducibility. Coordination between collections prevents unnecessary duplication of effort. Establishment of uniform practice guidelines assures that materials from different collections meet the same quality standards. Finally, an integrated network of collections will be able to better respond to changes in regulations pertaining to access, security, and distribution of plant associated microbes.
Project Description
Rationale: 30
31
32
Collections of living plant-associated microbes represent an essential foundation for U.S. science and for the future bio economy (). Plant-associated microbes include organisms that promote plant growth
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
(symbionts), promote carbon cycling in the environment (saprophytes), and cause plant disease (pathogens). Other plant-associated organisms are able to protect plants from attack by pathogens (biocontrol agents), or can confer desirable or deleterious traits upon host plants (endophytes). Many of these organisms are used in research and industry, both to learn about how they accomplish these diverse roles and to exploit their capabilities. Plant-associated microbes are an essential component of the future bio-economy because of their ability to enhance fixation of carbon in plant matter and for their ability to depolymerize plant material into simpler molecules. Plant pathogens can limit the ability to produce food and fibers while symbionts and endophytes can enhance agricultural productivity. Because of the diverse and economically valuable character of plant-associated microbes, it would be easy to assume that the United States had a active and long-term system for assuring that these materials would be available both to as many users as possible and for future generations. Unfortunately this assumption would be in error (). While the US has world caliber collections of materials for genetic research, there is no national system for preserving and distributing valuable plant-associated microbes. A viable and well-coordinated national system that secures and safeguards the diversity of plant-associated microbes will facilitate research and education on a wide range of practical problems such as distinguishing food safety organisms, discovering organisms that control plant diseases and weeds, producing valuable pharmaceuticals and industrial enzymes, and discriminating intentionally introduced pathogens from naturally evolved organisms.
Microbial culture collections are already used in initiatives to solve a myriad of practical challenges to our agricultural and environmental systems (). Materials in these collections play diverse and critical roles in understanding plant resistance to diseases, provide a critical link between past and present disease epidemics, facilitate identification of emerging diseases, provide data essential for forensic investigations, useful in developing strategies to control plant diseases that impact the vitality of the U.S. agricultural sector, and posses valuable traits. Industry and academia use these resources to produce valuable pharmaceuticals, industrial enzymes for food safety applications, and as a foundation for crop breeding programs. They are essential also for U.S. engagement in international cooperation to map and understand the global diversity and dynamics of significant microbes.
Existing microbial culture collections are at risk, however, as the U.S. lacks a coordinated national system to protect, preserve, and enhance these resources. Instead, plant associated microbes are maintained in a non-uniform, uncoordinated system of collections in federal, academic, and commercial research laboratories, most which have uncertain funding. Because current curation and maintenance efforts are inadequate to ensure the integrity and future availability of these collections, there is need for a network of collections of plant-associated microbes including a long-term management plan, a common, uniform database cataloguing the content of individual collections and a mechanism to train scientists participating in culture collection activities.
In the past, the US Federation for Culture Collections (USFCC) was active in promoting culture collection efforts. The USFCC has not been active since 2002 at the latest, and has not held legitimate meetings since 2000. There is currently no USFCC executive board. One result of the successful completion of the goals of the current RCN proposal would be to fill the void left by the demise of the USFCC.
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
The current RCN proposal would also serve as a mechanism to identify and promote connections between collections. This has the added benefit of preventing the loss of orphaned or at risk collections. While many collections are safe and require little input to keep the organisms alive, others, such as the World Phytophtohora Collection, require constant input of funds to provide for the long term survival of the materials in the collection. Because there is no US system linking collections, collections at risk have no forum to discuss their unique situation. The Phytophthora collection in Riverside, CA, for example, has made appeals via the WFCC endangered collection committee when the only real hope of assistance is from US sources. The World Phytophthora Collection is an example of a collection that would benefit by being part of a network of culture collections. Collections identified as part of the NPMGS working effort include the following:
Virus and Viroids 83 84 85 86 87
USDA-ARS Cereal Virus Collection, Fargo, ND: one million stocks USDA-ARS Potato Virus Y Collection, Ithaca, NY, Aberdeen, ID: 3000 stocks USDA-ARS, MPPL, Phytoplasma collection, Beltsville, MD Bacteria 88
89 90 91 92 93
USDA-ARS, NRRL, Peoria, IL – bacteria including actinomycetes: 19,000 stocks USDA-ARS, USDA-ARS National Rhizobium Germplasm Collection, MD: 5,000 stocks International Collection of Phytopathogenic Bacteria (ICPB), Ft. Detrick, MD Nine additional USDA-ARS collections with more than 5,000 bacterial strains Fungi and Fungal-like Organisms 94
95 96 97 98 99
100 101 102 103 104 105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Fungal Genetics Stock Center, Kansas City, MO – Neurospora, Aspergillus, Magnaporthe: 70,000 stocks USDA-ARS, NRRL, Peoria, IL – yeast, Aspergillus, Fusarium, Penicillium: 60,000 stocks Fusarium Research Center, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA: 17,000 stocks USDA-ARS Cereal Disease Lab, St. Paul, MN – Puccinia and other cereal pathogens: 30,000 samples USDA-FS, Madison, WI – forest pathogens: 12,000 stocks USDA-ARS, SMML, Beltsville, MD – plant pathogens and biocontrol agents: 11,000 stocks World Phytophthora Genetic Resource Collection (WPC) UC-Riverside, CA: 6500 stocks USDA-ARS Collection of Entomopathogenic Fungal Cultures (ARSEF), Ithaca, NY: 2400 stocks International Culture Collection of (Vesicular) Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (INVAM), West Virginia University - endomycorrhizal fungi: 1,000 stocks Phaff Yeast Culture Collection, UC Davis, CA – 800 species of yeasts: 6,000 stocks
This list is not exhaustive, as other smaller collections will certainly be identified as the current RCN is implemented. It does, however, demonstrate the breadth of materials available in collections in the US. The fact that the list is as short as it is reflects the lack of a community for culture collections in the US. The list was assembled with input from the members of the NPMGS working group, and from surveys conducted by the USDA and the OSTP. Many of these collections are not immediately accessible to outsiders. Others have only limited listings of their holdings, and some have intellectual property restrictions that make using the materials difficult. The current RCN proposal seeks to establish ties between these, and other collections, to implement shared standards and to develop a mechanism to assure that the accomplishments of the RCN persist after the RCN is complete. This effort comes in a context of growing networks of collections, both in the US and internationally. Examples of successful network efforts include the Global Biodiversity Information facility (GBIF), the USDA plant germplasm system and their transformation into GRIN-Global, and the National Community of Natural History Collections. While each community has unique context, the lessons learned by each may be valuable and this RCN will endeavor to both include representatives from
120
121
122
different communities and to give them a venue to share the lessons they have learned as part of their ongoing success.
Overall Objectives: 123
124
125
126
127
128
1. Develop the community of collection curators and collection users
2. Define shared goals
3. Identify and disseminate best practice guidelines
4. Integrate with existing domestic and international programs
Description 129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
1. Develop community of collection curators and collection users
Recent surveys by the USDA and the OSTP have identified many collections of microbes. Many of these collections are not formal collections but rather exist in a laboratory carrying out research for a specific primary mission. A smaller number of collections are formally organized and have support for collection maintenance. The materials in these ad hoc collections are often valuable and well characterized. Many are irreplaceable. A primary goal of the proposed Research Coordination Network is to expand the working group to include curators of these ad hoc collections as well as the users of these collections. This is consistent with recommendations from the OSTP survey.
2. Define shared goals
Collections of different types of biological materials can have different goals. Some collections have primarily ecological or population genetic emphasis while others serve a community of researchers with mechanistic or cell-biological emphasis. Nevertheless there are a core set of goals shared by all researchers managing collections of microbes, and by the scientists who utilize the materials in these collections. Among these shared goals are the establishment of a mechanism to provide long term support for collections, the establishment of a common data language to allow communication between collections, and the training of scientists who will curate these collections in the future. Other goals remain to be defined by the participants at the meetings sponsored by the RCN. It is important to leave the identification of these shared goals to the meeting participants, as preconceptions could inadvertently bias a system against categories of organisms. This effort seeks to be inclusive and open and to invite perspectives from a diverse community of culture collection curators and users.
3. Identify and disseminate best practice guidelines
Several organizations promote different best practice guidelines including the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Only the OECD guidelines are specifically written for culture collections and some of the guidelines for specimens other than living microbes are not suited for culture collection work. Other best practice guidelines exist, including Good Laboratory Practice and Good Manufacturing Practice guidelines and while some of these will pertain, one outcome of a successful RCN proposal will be to make available
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180 181 182
183
184 185 186
187
188
189
190
rationale for operating under any of these guidelines. Along with identifying best practice guidelines, the RCN will publicize protocols for good laboratory management practices. These include integration of bar code technology and specimen level (as opposed to strain level) management. Additional guidelines will include current biosafety and shipping regulations.
4. Integrate with existing domestic and international programs
Significant context exists for the current proposed RCN. Domestically, growing networks exist for plant and animal germplasm preservation, as well as for curation of natural history collections. Internationally, the World Federation for Culture Collections (WFCC) and the Global Biological Resource Center Network (GBRCN) are important organizations working toward shared goals. The WFCC has as it's mission statement the following:
The WFCC is a Multidisciplinary Commission of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and a Federation within the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS). The WFCC is concerned with the collection, authentication, maintenance and distribution of cultures of microorganisms and cultured cells. Its aim is to promote and support the establishment of culture collections and related services, to provide liaison and set up an information network between the collections and their users
The Global Biological Resource Centre Network is a demonstration project supported by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF) with the mission of improving access to high quality biological resources and information to support research and biotechnology as a platform for a knowledge-based bioeconomy
The purpose of the GBRCN is described on their website (www.gbrcn.org) as follows:
To co-ordinate Biological Resources Centers through a Secretariat based in Braunschweig, Germany to demonstrate the value of networking activities, developing common approaches and enhancing coverage of available organisms and information to meet user requirements.
They go on to say:
The present partnership brings together 15 countries with the World Federation for Culture Collections (WFCC), a global network and regional networks, the European Culture Collections' Organization (ECCO) and the Asian Consortium for Microorganisms (ACM).
There are currently no US partner organizations within the GBRCN and one goal of this RCN is to forge stronger ties with this and other international efforts to promote the common goals of culture collections.
Specific activities of the RCN 191
192
193
194
To achieve the Overall Objectives, this RCN will carry out a series of specific activities. These activities all serve to work towards or advance the overall objectives.
The specific activities that will be supported by the RCN include the following:
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
1) Meetings of participants
2) Teaching workshops as satellites of other meetings
3) Development of a central website for the National Plant Microbe Germplasm Network
4) Presentations at meetings and coordinated publications
5) Laboratory exchange visits
6) Outreach including graduate and undergraduate students
1) Meetings
At least five meetings are planned to bring together the working group of the NPMGS. Each meeting will have specific goals.
A) Identifying partners and participants
While there have been a number of surveys, including one by the APS, one by the USDA and a large survey of all government supported collections by the OSTP, there is still no organized community of culture collections in the US. Building on the surveys that have been carried out, the first meeting will attempt to include representatives of collections that have not yet been involved in the NPMGS effort.
Because the challenges faced by the culture collection community are not unique, partners from other communities will be invited to provide input at this meeting. Potential partners include the National Community of Natural History Collections, the Mycological Society of America, the Society for Industrial Microbiology, International Society for Plant Pathology Committee on Taxonomy of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria, and the APS Collections and Germplasm Committee, as well as international partners including the World Federation for Culture Collections and the Global Biological Resource Center Network. Representatives from all of these organizations have expressed willingness to contribute to the National Plant Microbial Germplasm Network amd this RCN is a perfect vehicle to carry out community expansion as it will specifically include budget for this type of activity.
B) Identifying and implementing shared data format
While the advent of computerization has made collection management more efficient, not all collections use databases to manage their holdings. Additional barriers exist because different collections use different data formats, different software, and even different names to describe what is essentially the same data. Computerization has allowed a great deal of data-mining, and there is an ongoing effort to make collection data available online. One such effort is carried out by a group in Belgium and is known by its internet domain, straininfo.net. This website uses the ability to download data from each participating collection and cross references data such that material held in common by multiple collections is easily indexed. Because of the barriers mentioned above, only a few of the largest collections in the US participate in this effort. The identification of an essential dataset and implementation of a shared format will lower the barriers to participation making materials in existing collections more accessible.
C) Reinforcing relationships with domestic and international partners
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
Because materials in culture collections have been identified by both the OECD and the EU commission as being essential to the development of a bio-industry for the 21st century, there has been significant effort to develop networks of collections, first in Europe and now on a global scale. The Global Biological Resource Center Network is the current manifestation of that effort and we have included the director of the GBRCN as a member of the steering committee. Additional effort is needed, however, both to insure that we are working to common goals and to avoid un-necessary duplication of effort. Similar projects with distinct focus include the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (www.GBIF.org), and the Microbial Commons effort (www.microbialcommons.ugent.be). The former organization demonstrates some of the strengths of developing an international collaboration with shared goals while the latter represents the importance being associated with materials in culture collections. The StrainInfo.net
D) Defining a structure for long term funding
Because no network can persist without a budget, one key goal of the RCN is to develop a strategy for long-term support of a culture collection network. Ad hoc support can be valuable, but the nature of culture collections is that they require long term support. Coupled with the fact that it is difficult to identify which materials will be important for the future, it is essential to provide support apart from immediate economic return. Budget opportunities exist in a number of areas and participant input will be solicited to identify appropriate avenues for pursuing stable long term support for a diverse and comprehensive system of collections of high quality biological materials.
E) Establishing a strategy for assuring continuity of accomplishments of the RCN
Because the goals of the RCN include activities that will have long term impact, it is essential to have forward looking planning. The last meeting will assess the successes of the RCN and establish mechanism to insure that the accomplishments have continued implementation. Among these are the use of common data format, adherence to best practice guidelines,
These meetings will be supplemented by quarterly conference calls and after each meeting the steering committee will co-author a meeting report to be published on the central website. Additional descriptions will be distributed to partner organizations and as press releases for the widest possible dissemination.
2) Teaching workshops as satellites of other meetings
Teaching workshops are an essential component of this proposal. Teaching workshops will be held in association with other scientific meetings. The first will be during the second year of the RCN, to allow sufficient time to develop the curriculum. There will be four workshops held under the auspices of this RCN with the hope that they will be continued after the RCN, either by the NPMGS, or through affiliated societies such as the APS or SIM.
This curriculum for the workshops shall be developed by a subcommittee of participants including members of the steering committee, as appropriate. This curriculum shall include, at the least, hands-on opportunities to carry out strain preservation in a variety of formats, strain re-activation, collection
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
data keeping, shipping requirements, equipment requirements, and other aspects of collection best practices. Additional instruction shall include searching for material using online databases and networks. Some workshop material will be made available for online distribution and may be available for interactive webinar distribution.
3) Development of a central website
Transparency is enhanced by communicating the goals and accomplishments of the NPMGS effort in a timely and efficient manner. To that end, a central website for collections in the US is envisioned. This website will be hosted and managed by Scientific Societies, a not-for-profit organization supporting scientific endeavors. The website will provide up-to-date information about the progress of the NPMGS as well as information about partner organizations such as the GBRCN and the WFCC. The website will be updated frequently, at least every time there is a meeting or a publication associated with the RCN. These updates will be carried out either by the APS staff or by members of the steering committee. A calendar feature will be made available and will accept posts from members of the community or the APS staff. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, will be developed to provide a venue for interaction among interested participants.
As part of the outreach goal, the website will host a number of resources of value to the community of collection users. These will include at the minimum protocols and classroom guides for working with collection materials in a teaching laboratory. Teaching materials will include the protocols and practices associated with each teaching workshop. Additional information hosted on the website will include best practices, protocols for strain preservation and maintenance. An online speakers bureau will established to make local expertise available to groups with an interest in plant associated microbes, collections, and biology in general. Finally, the website will house an archive of all working materials produced as part of the RCN.
4) Presentations and publications
Because one of the goals of this RCN is to raise awareness of collections and the materials they make available, we will endeavor to increase the number of presentations describing collections and the uses to which they are put. Because collection-specific sessions are often under subscribed, the main effort will be to have collection-relevant presentations in primarily scientific sessions. As part of our effort to involve collection users, we will promote presentations using collection resources. Meetings targeted for presentations include the American Phytopathological Society annual meeting and the Fungal Genetics Conference at Asilomar, as well as meetings such as ASM, SIM and the regional meetings for these and other societies. Coordinated publications describing the progress and goals of the NPMGS are an essential way to increase the impact of the RCN. Towards that end, publication in peer-reviewed journals such as Phytopathology, PLoS, BMC, etc will be pursued. Finally we will arrange to have features relevant to culture collections and the effort of the RCN published in newsletters and on websites of scientific societies. This has been a useful and effective platform to describe issues related to culture collections in the US. Recent publications include descriptions of the NPMGS effort in Phytopathology News as well as on the APS website as a "Feature" on plant pathology related collection resources.
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
5) Laboratory exchange visits
An important way to assure that collections are using good practices is to provide a mechanism for collection scientists, especially those from smaller collections or from underrepresented communities, to visit established collections. Laboratory exchange visits will allow students to travel to and participate in curatorial activities at established collections. The added benefit of on-the-job training will assure that best practices are disseminated among members of the collection community
Ten NPMGS Exchange Fellowships are envisioned, allowing two students to travel to established collections in each of the five years for which support is requested. These fellowships will be awarded based on a brief proposal by the applicant and reviewed by the steering committee, or in cases of conflict of interest, by a subset of the core participants. Each visit will be from one to two weeks and will provide travel and housing expenses for the recipient.
6) Outreach activities
Because collections are often invisible, one goal of the present proposal is to increase the visibility of collections. To that end outreach activities include outreach to graduate and undergraduate level students, as well as to community members with interest in microbiology and plant biology.
To accomplish these goals, we will implement a funding program to bring students to the culture collection workshops (Specific activity #2). For each workshop, applicants will be invite to apply for support to attend the workshop. This support will be awarded by a subcommittee made up of at least three and no more than seven members of the steering committee. Two grants will be made for each workshop and will include travel ($1000) and attendance at the workshop ($400).
In addition to these workshop activities, one goal of the RCN will be to develop educational materials, such as laboratory protocols or career guidance information, available via the central website.
Another way of leveraging the expertise of the membership of the collection community is to establish a speakers bureau listing such that people around the country might identify local scientists who could describe the value and workings of culture collections to diverse groups. Examples of groups that have requested speakers include local mycological societies, master gardener programs, garden clubs, and career fairs. This speakers bureau listing will be maintained on the central website.
Timetable for activities. 341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
Year 1 (2011)
First meeting
Establishment of central website
Year 2 (2012)
Second meeting
First teaching workshop as satellite to APS meeting, Providence, RI
Publication of workshop and other materials on central website
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
Year 3 (2013)
Third meeting
Second teaching workshop as satellite to Fungal Genetics Conference at Asilomar, CA
Publication of workshop and other materials on central website
Year 4 (2014)
Fourth meeting
Third teaching workshop
Year 5 (2015)
Last meeting
Fourth teaching workshop
Management plan
Project Coordinators: Because this is a highly diverse group with wide ranging interests, project coordination will be overseen by the PI (McCluskey) and co-PI(Bennett) including reporting and overall project management. They will share responsibility for coordinating meetings and teleconferences with the Steering Committee. Significant logistic support will be provided by the American Phytopathological Society with the Project Coordinators being ultimately responsible for maintaining the time line for meeting, workshop and related project development. Resources (such as travel funds and internships) will be awarded by the Steering Committee with input from additional co-principal investigators. McCluskey will manage the budget at UMKC.
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
Steering Committee: Comprised of diverse members of the culture collection community, the Steering Committee (SC) shall be responsible for the equitable distribution of network resources. To assure that the SC is able to respond to developing needs, additional members will be added, up to two per year, at each meeting. This has the dual advantages of assuring that different perspectives are represented and that there are sufficient members to carry out the responsibilities of the network. If any members of the SC need to leave the network, they will be replaced at the next meeting. Potential members may be suggested by existing members of the steering committee, by other participants, or they may nominate themselves. Appointment onto the steering committee will be by simple vote of the sitting steering committee members. Any member of the steering committee can request that secret ballots be used.
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
The SC will determine the location and date of each meeting. One member will be selected to head a sub-committee to oversee each of the main activities of the network including the establishment of the website, the organization of the meetings and teaching workshops, the awarding of internships, development of outreach materials, and the establishment of relationships with international partners.
The SC member on each sub-committee will provide an annual written report to the SC describing the outcome of each activity. These reports may be developed as publications from the RCN, either to peer-reviewed journals or the society newsletters as appropriate. Information resources, including protocols and Standard Operating Procedures from the teaching workshops shall be made available on the website. Every effort shall be made to include every contributing participant on a publication as an
386
387
388
389
390
author and the SC shall have the final decision of who should appropriately be included as an author on any publications.
The SC will hold quarterly phone conferences with a report from each sub-committee on the progress towards each goal. Additional participants will be welcome to participate in the conference calls at the discretion of the SC. The PIs will be responsible for reporting on annual progress to the NSF.
Coordination plan: Because this proposal is a natural extension of an existing ad hoc effort to develop a National Plant Microbe Germplasm System, we have a strong platform upon which to build. Additionally, significant effort has already been expended to reach out to international partners including the Global Biological Resource Center Network (GBRCN) the World Federation for Culture Collections (WFCC), the OECD, and to curators at collections in Canada and Europe. The significant advantage that this brings is that we do not need to spend the first year identifying participants for the network.
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
Information and material sharing: 398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
Dissemination of information shall occur primarily by publication, either on the network website or in peer reviewed journals or society newsletters. Every effort shall be made to reach out to communities of interested individuals including members of the American Phytopathological Society, the American Society for Microbiology, the Society for Industrial Microbiology and the International Society of Biological and Environmental Repositories. Materials developed as part of the teaching workshops shall be published on the network website and made available freely for non-commercial use. Because different materials have different histories, different intellectual property issues may pertain. There are existing efforts to define standards for sharing of biological materials and management of property rights and we will endeavor to take advantage of these efforts rather than to duplicate them. An international working group on rights management for culture collections has already had two meetings, most recently in October of 2009 at the US National Academy of Sciences. This meeting was titled "Designing the Microbial Research Commons: An International Symposium" and was sponsored by the US National Academy of Sciences in collaboration with Board on Life Sciences and Board on International Scientific Organizations. The meeting was was carried out under the auspices of the Board on Research Data and Information, Policy and Global Affairs Division on October 8-9, 2009. Importantly to this proposal, the working group is developing a Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement that would allow for transfer of materials without the negotiation of a specific Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) for every situation. Additional input will be sought from relevant stakeholders, including, for example, the US Department of Agriculture which has developed a standard MTA
(http://www.ars.usda.gov/Business/docs.htm?docid=2075) and the US National Institutes of Health which has already adopted a uniform biological MTA
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/odoffices/omo/otd/pdf/UBMTA.htm).
Increasing diversity: 422
423
424
The outreach effort shall include the development of educational materials to demonstrate the use of microbes to students at the graduate and undergraduate levels. These materials may be linked to
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
biological materials that will be distributed through existing portals such as the Fungal Genetics Stock Center. Most of the educational materials will be made available via the network website.
Inclusion of participants from historically disadvantaged institutions shall be a priority, when all other factors are similar. The teaching workshops shall endeavor to include undergraduate students from underrepresented communities and this goal shall influence the travel awards made to attend the workshops and for the laboratory visits. To leverage the ability to include students, faculty and staff from underrepresented communities, workshops will be held in conjunction with meetings in locations such as California (26th Fungal Genetics Conference) or Providence, Rhode Island (APS, 2012), and not at the 2011 APS meeting (Honolulu, Hawaii). Additional venues will be chosen to fulfill the goal of having one teaching workshop each year for the last 4 years of the RCN. One overarching benefit of the proposed network will be to enable outreach to collections and collection users in developing nations. A network, such as the one proposed, will enhance diversity by serving as a central point of contact for scientists in such developing nations.
Initial Network of Participants 438
439
440
The following individuals, in addition to the members of the Steering Committee, have either participated in the past or specifically indicated an interest in participating in the future.
Murali Bandla USDA APHIS-PPQ Prior Participant Phil Berger USDA APHIS-PPQ CPHST Prior Participant Peter K Bretting USDA ARS Prior Participant Carolee Bull USDA ARS ISPP Committee on Taxonomy of
Plant Pathogenic Bacteria liaison, 2010
Bill Dolezel Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl. Inc. Corporate Liaison, 2010 Jacque Fletcher Oklahoma State University APS Public Policy Board liaison, 2010 Cliff Gabriel NSF Prior Participant Scott Gold University of Georgia Collection User, 2010 Kevin Hackett USDA ARS ARS Participant Jeff Jones University of Florida Contributor, 2010 Seogchan Kang Pennsylvania State University Contributor, 2010 Gary Kinard USDA ARS ARS GRIN Database liaison, 2010 Gina Koenig Roche Molecular Systems, Ret WFCC Executive board, 2010 Clete Kurtzman USDA ARS Prior Participant André Levesque Agric & Agri-Food Canada Vincent Robert Centraalbureau voor
Schimmelcultures, Netherlands
Amy Rossman USDA ARS Contributor, 2010 Craig Sandlin Syngenta Seeds Inc. Prior Participant John Sherwood University of Georgia Prior Participant Brett Tyler Virginia Bioinformatics Inst.,
Virginia Tech Collection User, 2010
Anne Vidaver University of Nebraska Prior Participant Gail Wisler USDA ARS Prior Participant Michelle Bjerkness APS APS Liaison, 2010 Micah Krichevsky Bionomics International, USFCC SIM Liason, 2010
L. Alan Prather Michigan State University Collectionsweb Liason, 2010 Aric Wiest UMKC Collection curator, 2010
References 441
442
443
444
445 446 447
448 449
450 451
452 453
454 455
456 457
458 459
460 461 462
463 464 465
466 467
468 469
470
471
472
473
474
475
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Science, Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections. 2009 Scientific Collections: Mission-Critical Infrastructure of Federal Science Agencies. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC
Dawyndt P, Dedeurwaerdere T, Swings J. 2007 Exploring and exploiting microbiological commons: contributions of bioinformatics and intellectual property rights in sharing biological information. International Social Science Journal, 188, pp. 249‐258.
Erko Stackebrandt, 2010. Diversification and focusing: strategies of microbial culture collections. Trends in Microbiology 18:283 ‐ 287
OECD. 2001. Biological Resource Centres: Underpinning the Future of Life Sciences and Biotechnology. Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (ISBN 9264186905).
Lévesque, A. and Bernard, K. 2007. National Centres for Secure Biological Resources. SPOROMETRICS P9224.007
Bull, C. T., et. al. 2008. Demystifying Nomenclature of Bacterial Plant Pathogens. Journal of Plant Pathology 90:403‐417.
Kang, S. et. al. 2006. Plant Pathogen Culture Collections: It Takes a Village to Preserve These Resources Vital to the Advancement of Agricultural Security and Plant Pathology. Phytopathology 96:920‐925
Bennett, R. 2010. Update on the APS initiative to establish a national culture collection system. Phytopathology News 44:33.
APS/USDA NPMGW Working Group. 2010. National Plant Microbial Germplasm System: A National Initiative to Ensure Essential Resources for Research, Education, and Economic Competitiveness. http://www.apsnet.org/members/ppb/PDFs/Whitepaper10‐CultureCollections.pdf
APS/USDA NPMGW Working Group. 2009. National Plant Microbial Germplasm System: A National Initiative to Ensure Essential Resources for Research, Education, and Economic Competitiveness. http://www.apsnet.org/members/ppb/PDFs/2009NationalPlantMicrobialGermplasmSystem.pdf
Smith, D. 2009. Demonstration project for a Global Biological Resource Centre Network. World Federation for Culture Collections Newsletter 46:2‐3
Budget Justification:
Most of the funds requested for this RCN are for support of participants to attend the meetings and teaching workshops. Funds will be allocated by majority opinion of the Steering Committee.
July 1, 2010 Dear National Science Foundation Research Coordination Network Review Committee, Culture collections of plant-associated microbes provide a needed resource of genotypic and phenotypic variation necessary for effective research in plant pathology. Collections provide a genetic link between the past and present and can provide insight on changes that have occurred since previous epidemics. In response to this critical need The American Phytopathological Society (APS) Public Policy Board (PPB) has been working with multiple stakeholders during the past few years in support of a National Plant Microbial Germplasm System (NPMGS). Working with the staff team at APS Headquarters, the APS PPB has hosted two successful strategy sessions with the scientific community to identify gaps and potential solutions. See attached reports of these events as published in the APS member newsletter Phytopathology News. This track record along with the unique connectivity to the key scientists in this area positions APS well to serve in an administrative role for the “Research Coordination Network: A National Plant Microbial Germplasm Network” proposal being submitted by co-PIs and long-time APS members Kevin McCluskey, UMKC and A. Rick Bennett, University of Arkansas. APS’s staff have the expertise and resources to effectively manage the meeting logistics, website development and maintenance as well as committee coordination that has been outlined in the proposal. APS fully supports involvement in this activity and gives its full commitment to ensure a successful implementation of the strategies suggested. If any additional information is required please feel free to contact APS Executive Vice President, Steve Nelson ([email protected] or 651.994.3832) Sincerely,
The American Phytopathological Society
3340 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul, MN 55121-2097 USA
Phone: +1.651.454.7250 Fax: +1.651.454.0766
E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.apsnet.org
Barb Christ APS President
Phytopathology News 55
Under the auspices of the APS Public Policy Board (PPB) and the APS Ad Hoc Committee on Culture Collections and with support and participation from USDA-ARS and USDA-APHIS, a second workshop to facilitate the establishment of a National Plant Microbial Germplasm System (NPMGS) was held January 27–28, 2009, in Arlington, VA.
Some 35 participants, representing APS PPB, universities, industry, the Fungal Genetics Stock Center, USDA-ARS, USDA-APHIS, National Science Foundation (NSF), the Smithsonian Institution, and several international culture collection systems met to define a plan for an NPMGS. Additionally, we were very pleased to have two congressional staff members from the House of Representatives Committee on Science’s Subcommittee on Investigations & Oversight attend and present their perspectives at the meeting. Representative Brad Miller, the chair of the subcommittee, is very interested in BioBanking issues and will reintroduce legisla-tion this year to protect endangered collection resources under federal stewardship and those supported by federal funds maintained by nonfederal institutes. The establishment of the NPMGS is intended to provide efficient preser-vation of, access to, and retrievable documenta-tion for important plant-associated microbial resources. The current lack of such a system is widely recognized as limiting to research efforts and potentially dangerous for our capacity to quickly respond to new disease challenges.
A draft NPMGS plan document was generated from a preliminary planning workshop held in 2007. Prior to the second workshop, working subcommittees from among the participants addressed challenges in the draft plan related to strategies for the future NPMGS, including 1) management structure; 2) cultures and collec-tions; 3) system structure and operations; and 4) budget needs. Each subcommittee produced brief documents addressing these continuing issues that were shared with all participants prior to the meeting and were presented by the sub-committee cochairs to initiate the meeting.
The meeting included several presentations by international culture collection and database experts. These presentations, highlighting exist-ing culture collections and related efforts in Europe and Canada, informed participants about the state-of-the-art database tools for
Public Policy UpdateProposed Structure for a National Plant Microbial Germplasm System More Clearly Defined in Second WorkshopScott Gold, University of Georgia, [email protected]; Jeff Jones, University of Florida, [email protected]; Rick Bennett, USDA-ARS, [email protected]; and Kellye Eversole, Eversole Associates, [email protected]
culture collections, as well as strategies and funding issues related to the various systems. Importantly, the potential for interconnectivity of a future NPMGS and international collec-tions was discussed at some length. Additionally, a presentation on the current status of the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections was delivered by a representative from the Smithsonian Institution and potential interactions with that group were discussed.
Several breakout and roundtable discussions allowed participants to hone ideas generated by the premeeting subcommittee reports and the various presentations. These were wide-ranging discussions and they clearly indicated that many detailed issues will need to be resolved by the management of the NPMGS. The idea of taking incremental steps toward building the NPMGS was discussed.
A proposed structure of the NPMGS was more clearly defined through the second workshop. The current envisioned system includes the fol-lowing core elements.
A centralized hub with backup collec-1) tions located at the USDA-ARS facility at Fort Collins, CO, building on the current structural and expertise resources available through the NPMGS and the Germplasm Resource Information Network (GRIN). Investments in additional equipment and personnel would be required to make this possible, but the existing framework of the NPMGS is viewed as a valuable way to lever-age new investments in the NPMGS. The personnel at the Fort Collins facility are en-visioned to be permanent USDA employees.A system of “BioBanks,” based primarily on 2) existing collections (government and univer-sity, etc.), each with taxon-specific expertise.
A state-of-the-art, federated database system 3) (likely associated with the GRIN system managed through the NPMGS) linking BioBank and hub information with con-nectivity to other domestic and international collection databases to dramatically enhance the usefulness of the collections. More than a catalog, this is envisioned as serving as an integration point for information on collec-tion specifics, genomics, molecular genetics, taxonomy, population genetics, and ecology. Sophisticated user-friendly informatics tools will be incorporated to generate a knowl-edge-rich platform for idea generation.A management structure involving a Steering 4) Committee of federal employees and a Scientific Advisory Board made up of stake-holders, including APS representatives.
The meeting participants agreed to continue as a working group and communication has continued via e-mail. A draft executive summary has been generated and will be provided to the APS PPB for distribution to policymakers during their midyear meetings in Washington, DC. Finally, a white paper more fully describing the NPMGS plan, by incorporating ideas generated at the second workshop, is underway. The executive summary and the white paper will be posted under Public Policy Initiatives on APSnet at www.apsnet.org/members/ppb.
Persons with an interest in this issue or who have thoughts about the gaps in the current system or needed components of an NPMGS are encouraged to contact the organizational committee members listed above or PPB Chair Jacque Fletcher at [email protected]. n
More than 30 participants representing APS, universities, industry, USDA, NSF, the Smithsonian Institution, several international culture collection systems, and congressional staff members met to more clearly define a plan for an NPMGS.