As many of you know, a major issue facing our Society this year is the proposal by the editor-in-chief of Plant Physiology, Natasha Raihkel, to change the name of the journal. I want to use this letter to update you on steps the Executive Committee will use to address this issue. I also want to clarify the organizational structure of the Executive Committee, which has primary responsibility for governing the Society.

In the September issue of Plant Physiology, Natasha Raihkel wrote a letter outlining her reasons for proposing a name change for the journal (http://www.aspb.org/plantphysnamechange/letter.cfm). She provided an e-mail address to which the readership could provide comments. In case some members did not see this letter, the Executive Committee notified all members via e-mail and put this discussion on the ASPB Web site. We felt that through this mechanism all interested members could share their opinions with others. After reading through the comments I have arrived at three major conclusions. First, this is clearly a very emotional issue for many members. Second, members can and do disagree on the need for a name change for Plant Physiology. Third, whether the final decision is for or against a name change for the journal, some people will be disappointed. In addition to being an important business decision for our Society, this is a controversial issue with the potential of affecting the attitude of members toward the Society and its leadership. I would like to emphasize that the leadership intends for the name change to be decided openly and only after careful consideration. As discussed above, we have begun to solicit input from the membership. In addition, the Publications Committee has been charged by the Executive Committee to evaluate the proposal. This work involves obtaining additional information to address questions raised by members of the Publications and Executive Committees. Some of the questions being addressed include impact on finances, library subscriptions, readership, manuscript submissions, and membership, as well as legal ramifications. Data are also being gathered on the impact of a name change on other journals that have taken that step. The Publications Committee will submit a written report and make a recommendation to the Executive Committee. I think it is important for everyone to understand that although we need to move through this process in a timely manner, we need to make sure that all aspects have been carefully considered. It is difficult at this writing (mid-December) to provide a timeline for the decision. The process may be iterative. Questions may arise as the reports are being prepared and discussed, questions that may only be answered with more study and by seeking input from others.

For me, one of the most disturbing aspects of reading through members' comments on the Web site was the "conspiracy" theory that surfaced more than once. I suspect one reason for such distrust of the leadership comes from a lack of understanding of how the Society is governed. Those of you already familiar with how the Society is governed can skip the paragraph below, but I think it may be useful to others for me to review the makeup and roles of the Executive and the Publications Committees. I certainly was not aware of the governing structure of our Society until I was elected to serve on the Executive Committee. In my opinion, our Society founders designed a committee hierarchy with election and appointment structures that greatly limits the ability to conspire and prevents anyone from railroading important Society decisions. In fact, one could argue that the structure forces decisions to be made at a painfully slow pace.

The Executive Committee, which is composed of both elected and appointed personnel as detailed in the Bylaws, is the primary governing body of the Society. The nationally elected members include the president, immediate past president, president-elect, the secretary, and three at-large members. At least one candidate for each of these elected positions must come from nominations by members-at-large and the other comes from the Nominations Committee. This structure prevents either the current leadership or a faction of the membership from stacking the election slate. Each section within ASPB also elects a representative (current sections are Midwestern, Northeastern, Southern, Washington, DC, and Western). The appointed members of the Executive Committee are the treasurer and the chairs of the following committees: Board of Trustees, Education, Minority Affairs, Publications, and Women in Plant Biology. The president-elect is charged with making committee appointments to replace the people whose terms expire and appointing committee chairs. All the committees contain multiple members with staggered terms such that no one person can dramatically change the makeup of any committee. For most of the committee and chair appointments, the nomination by the president-elect has to be ratified by the Executive Committee. The Publications Committee has five appointed members with staggered terms. Its mandate is to supervise and report to the Executive Committee on all non-editorial aspects of the Society's journals and other publications. Details on each committee's makeup are provided in the membership directory, as is the Constitution and Bylaws of the Society. Recent committee reports can be found on the ASPB Web site.

I truly believe that the goal of all members, the editors-in-chief, the editorial boards, and the Society leadership is the same: to have the best possible journals in which to publish our science. At the moment, we do not all agree on how best to achieve this goal. It is important as the debate and discussion continue that we keep the journal name change issue in perspective and not let this issue become divisive. One way to achieve this is to respect each other's position and recognize that one of the
strengths of our Society is the right to disagree.

Vicki Chandler
University of Arizona
chandler@Ag.arizona.edu