notes compiled by Faith T. Campbell

The following members of the Founding Board participated in the meeting: Carole Bergmann, Faith Campbell, Joe Demko, Larry Hurley, Kerrie Kyde, Betsy Lyman, Lisa Smith, Jil Swearingen, John Peter Thompson, and Louisa Thompson.

Our discussion fell into the following topic areas:

FORMING MAEPPC: ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND TAXEXEMPT STATUS

The principle business of the Founding Board is finalizing formal creation of MAEPPC as a legal entity incorporation and obtaining tax exempt ["501(c)3"] status. First we discussed the functions of the Founding Board. Kerrie said the Founding Board is charged with leading the organization until it is a formal legal entity which can elect a board of directors and officers. Lisa noted that the Founding Board must make certain decisions, specifically the size of and constituencies to be represented in the Board of Directors (see Article IV, paragraph 2 of the Bylaws).

Our goal is to complete both incorporation and tax exempt status in time for our first Annual Meeting to take place concurrent with the August 2001 conference at Swarthmore (see below). Since the Bylaws require that names of nominees to the board of directors, notice of the Annual Meeting, etc., be sent to the potential members 60 days in advance, in practice that means we must complete incorporation and nominations by the end of May 2001. We tried to establish a timeline that would ensure that we complete the many separate tasks needed to meet this goal in the time allowed.

Filing for incorporation and for tax exempt status will cost money. Filing for incorporation costs $140; filing for tax exempt status costs $600. Furthermore, we may need to hire an attorney for some work at a minimum, reviewing our drafts to ensure that they are complete. Faith volunteered to draft a solicitation to the MAEPPC "members" (those whose names Carol Jelich maintains) to ask for small contributions to defray these costs. This contribution would be a gift; we cannot at this time promise that it will be deductible.

The first duty is to incorporate MAEPPC. Kerrie volunteered to take the lead, in consultation with two attorneys: Mark Kell (an expert in tax law who will charge his usual fee for reviewing our documents) and Marshall Hamilton, a volunteer working with PA TNC. Kerrie and Faith agreed to be the "officers" of MAEPPC for the purpose of this filing (our status ends when a formal BoD is elected). Our goal is to complete the Articles of Incorporation and file them with Maryland by August. Spurring us to meet this goal, Kerrie circulated a draft Articles of Incorporation for comments by the Founding Board on Monday, 17 July.

As soon as MAEPPC is incorporated which we hope will be accomplished by midSeptember, we can send a petition for tax exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service. (Obtaining tax exempt status takes several months.) To ensure that our petition is ready at that time, Betsy will consult with Marshall Hamilton and begin preparing the forms.

Before we submit the tax exempt petition, we must resolve several issues. We must designate an "agent" a person to whom the IRS can go if it has a problem. This person must be in Maryland (since we will incorporate there) and have a street (as opposed to post office box) address. Kerrie said she would ask Mark Kell if he would agree to be the agent; if Kell is too expensive, Kerrie will serve as the "agent". We must develop a "proto" budget for the first five years of the organization. We may also need to decide how large the Board of Directors should be and how to ensure adequate representation of both geographic areas and functions/concerns (e.g., trade, managers of natural areas, etc.)

At our next meeting, scheduled for 21 August, the Founding Board will focus on developing that budget members should come prepared with ideas on budget items. We will also decide how much the dues should be for each category of membership. We will also review progress on preparing the incorporation and tax exempt filings and a membership brochure to be used in recruiting beginning early in 2001.

In the meantime, while the Founding Board is moving forward on these assignments, we will continue to hold regular meetings of the full MAEPPC to work on the projects already under way: developing a list of invasive plants, promoting volunteer weed control efforts and training people in needed skills, developing public education/outreach materials, etc.

UPCOMING CONFERENCES

We then considered the invitation from SEEPPC to participate in the global weed odyssey 2001 to be held in March 2001. We agreed that MAEPPC should be present. But it was unclear from the invitation what our involvement should be in either the preparations or the actual meeting. We agreed that we hoped for opportunities to share experiences and questions with other EPPCs, but that this should not be part of the "formal" sessions. We also agreed that while MAEPPC is too young to have much to offer as a group, many of our members do have experience and knowledge that would add to the meeting. Jil volunteered to talk to Brian Bowen to obtain clarification on what our role would be.

One idea was that John Peter Thompson of Behnke's Nursery should speak on the pressures he faces in trying to be an environmentally conscious plant retailer.

We then reviewed ongoing planning efforts for our own conference at Swarthmore College scheduled for August 2001 and to be cosponsored by the Morris Arboretum and others. This conference will also be the first formal annual meeting of MAEPPC at which the members will elect the first formal Board of Directors and officers. One of the major "holes" in the conference planning committee is a representative from the plant trade those who have been asked have not had time. John Peter expressed willingness to be a speaker at the conference, but we still need additional input into planning. During the August 7 conference call, the planning committee will probably choose a "theme" so that Morris can begin advertising the conference. The intended audience is those who influence what people plant: master gardeners, nursery and landscape organizations, industry, and agencies. MAEPPC wants connections to these groups, and some are important in raising funds to help support the conference. The planning committee encourages all to communicate their ideas about who should be invited to participate, and how to reach them.

In future, there may be a partnership with the organizers of the Millersville Conference on Native Plant in the Landscape, which meets annually in June in Millersville, Pa. MAEPPC had a significant presence at the 2000 conference: Faith led a "chat session" on invasive plants and MA EPPC, Master Gardeners, and Louisa Thompson all had displays highlighting the invasive plants problem.

TRAINING MATERIALS FOR VOLUNTEERS

Jil led a discussion of the status of the WeedBusters' Handbook. The handbook is to be part of a broader program for advising and training primarily volunteers interested in helping to control about 30 species of invasive plants. The Handbook would be a joint project with the Plant Conservation Alliance's Alien Plant Working Group. While work on the content is nearing conclusion, neither group has funding to print the handbook as envisaged. Obtaining funds through a grant may prove difficult, as Jil has already experienced difficulty in obtaining non federal matching funds for a project to prepare additional fact sheets for the Alien Plant Working Group's web site. Jil plans to complete the project by the end of the year after MAEPPC members have a chance to comment on the draft.

Lisa displayed a volunteer training manual she had compiled using fact sheets from the Plant Conservation Alliance's Alien Plant Working Group, Tennessee EPPC, and other web sources.

Louisa reported on her project, based at Patapsco State Park, to establish a volunteer weed control program and develop the techniques for ensuring success. Louisa reported that about 100 individuals participated over the course of the year, and they had some success in clearing weeds from some localities within the park. She had "great" success in educating the volunteers (although she did not attempt to get the volunteers to fill out questionnaires). The project needs a big marketing push to expand. Louisa concluded that incorporating weed control information into the context of teaching the ecology of the site is the best way, especially when working with novices.

Louisa is also going to revise the Maryland Native Plant Society's control guide and would appreciate input on better methods of control.

Faith suggested that MAEPPC might undertake a project to train resource managers and park administrators how to set up volunteer groups. The National parks in the region now have the services of a shortterm regional "swat team," but they will need to be able to maintain the "cleaned" areas once the "swat team" has departed. To do the maintenance, they will need volunteers.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND CONTROL METHODS

We then discussed concerns about the environmental effects of methods used to control invasive plants. We accepted Louisa's idea that we post a statement on our web page concerning safe and environmentally responsible use of chemicals when they are the best alternative.

EXPANDING MEMBERSHIP IN MAEPPC

>We had a brief discussion of whether to invite the New York group to join MAEPPC. Several remembered that last November, at the conference in Swarthmore, the representatives from the New York group clearly stated their preference to be a separate entity. We agreed that we should encourage the New York group, and the New England group, to tell us regularly what they are doing. We also wish to set aside some time at the 2001 invasive plants conference (again, cosponsored by the Morris Arboretum), to exchange information among the EPPCs.

Next we discussed when to begin encouraging formation of state chapters. In the case of MA EPPC, the regional entity is forming before state entities unlike the situation of SEEPPC. We generally felt that we are currently too busy forming MAEPPC to work on forming state chapters, but we should make it known that we welcome such developments, perhaps by putting a statement on our web page. In some states, such as Virginia and Maryland, the native plant societies are fully active on invasive plant issues and might become de facto if not de jure state chapters.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH STATE INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCILS

As part of the discussion of state chapters, we also considered the relationship between the EPPCs and the Invasive Species Councils being formed in many states. First, we clarified the differences. Invasive Species Councils are governmentbased, while the EPPCs are non governmental. Many of the ISCs deal with all taxa, and most are oriented primarily, although not exclusively, to pests damaging agriculture and forestry. The EPPCs usually focus on plants invading natural systems.

Delaware was the first state to form an ISC. Although noone from Delaware was at our meeting, we believe the DISC is taking an activist stance. Maryland formed an ISC earlier this year. It is apparently trying to serve as a forum for information exchange rather than a focus for generating action. We agreed that plants invasive in natural areas are a "stepchild" of the MISC but the forum provides MAEPPC and MD Native Plant Society opportunities for input [Donnelle Keech, bob Trumbule, and Kerrie Kyde are active members of both MAEPPC and MISC]. Pennsylvania has formed an ISC [evolving from its noxious weed task force], but officials are so busy combatting plum pox that the PISC has not met. Lisa Smith and Betsy Lyman were both invited to participate in PISC. We know of no initiative in Virginia. West Virginia is believed to be forming an ISC. We agreed to consult with New Jersey Department of Agriculture to learn more about what is going on there.

Jil expressed the concern that the ISCs and federal officials encouraging their formation have not acknowledged the EPPCs as active players in all areas of invasive plant management, from "early detection" to management and policy. We hope that this situation will improve as EPPC representatives make their presence known. Jil urged the group to make use of opportunities to do so.

Jil also mentioned that people who are involved in the invasives issue may not have time to be active in both MAEPPC and the appropriate state ISC. For this reason, we may lose the services of some good people. On the other hand, we welcome the increasing attention to invasive species issue and involvement of more people and organizations.

We agreed that the EPPCs play a distinct role as collegial nongovernmental organizations, focused on plants invading natural systems. We want to work with ISCs and other organizations.

NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN