One of the most important things to come out of the meeting is the recognition that it is essential that membership adopt the proposed governance changes. The Forum’s assessment of the external environment is that AGU is approaching some difficult times and its reliance on revenue from publications and meetings may soon place it in a less stable situation. The situation calls for a governing body attuned to the business imperatives of the Union that can act nimbly, decisively, and strategically. With all due respect to the current Council, it cannot do so without major restructuring and many more meetings each year. Some might ask, Why not just restructure the current Council, tweaking it a little to make it work? One answer - the answer the Council offers by proposing the governance changes - is that dealing effectively with the business of the Union would deflect the Council from its important role of governing the Union’s science.

The vote is scheduled to open on October 15 and it will be open till the end of October. It is extremely important that people take the effort to vote because the law requires that 10 percent of Union members cast ballots.

Bob Van Hook

I took yesterday off to recover from the grueling 3-day Forum on the Future. This morning, as I reflect on the experience, a quote (or near-quote) keeps coming into my head — “There is no birth, there is no death — only a cycling and recycling of energy.” I feel as if the Forum was a grand recycling of the energy of the Union as it moves into a new era.

The Forum for me was about divergence and convergence, and I’m sure that was the intention of the people that developed the Future Search methodology — Marv Weisbord and Sandra Janoff. It was like a slow ocean wave. We were continually moving from large groups to small; from expansive, “right-brain” ways of thinking to more rational, “left-brain” thought; from big global trends to their effects on AGU. The result was a tired, but energized, group. We all felt that the process allowed to be creative and thoughtful, and that ideas we produced will steer AGU into a bright future.

- Bob Van Hook

On Saturday the group had an open discussion on the key areas of focus that had been identified. Everyone had a chance to share additional thoughts that had come up since Friday evening.

Considerable discussion took place about the definition and role of outreach at AGU. Most participants indicated that outreach and communication are important functions that must be an integral part of each area addressed in strategic planning as it progresses.

A number of patterns emerged from the various exercises and discussions that took place on Day Two. After further exploration, six important themes emerged on which there was consensus. These key areas of focus will be carried forward into the next stage of the planning process:

• AGU and policy
• AGU as an organization
• Societal needs and science
• The cutting edge of science
• Branding of AGU and communications
• Partnerships

Looking 10 years ahead, participants discussed changes AGU would need to make in order to remain relevant, vibrant, and innovative. Collaborations and partnerships were also considered.

As the group talked about elements of AGU’s future environment identified in the Mind Map, several themes emerged. The image below also captured aspects of AGU for which session participants were proud and not so proud.

The group created a map of present trends affecting Earth and space science and AGU (societal, scientific, technological, government, political, economic, educational, etc.) that are shaping our future environment.