Every ASHG President wants to be remembered for something and to leave the Society in a little better shape than he or she found it. On assuming my new title in January of 2000, I was concerned about the role of the Society and how well it performed in its chosen role. Two things were clear—we have a very good Journal that gets better each year, and we have a very good annual meeting that most people in the Society attend regularly. Both make money for the Society. Furthermore, we have a great office staff in Washington, we are financially stable, and people like the membership directory. What more could we ask?Consulting the last two Presidents, I heard from Uta and Art that we are missing something. We serve our members well, but we are not visible enough. We have only a small “presence” in Washington, and no presence whatsoever anywhere else in the United States. When opportunities arise for input on important issues in Washington (and, I might add, in Ottawa), we are not always at the top of the list of organizations to be consulted. The National Human Genome Research Institute, for example, seemed to have far more visibility and influence than our Society, yet it is the Society that represents the majority of researchers in human genetics in North America.But is this bad? Should we be presenting ourselves more actively? Should we be proactive in addressing the issues that are out in the public domain? To address these questions, we decided in October 1999 that it was time for a Board retreat—2 days away from our labs, offices, and clinics, to review the Society, its strengths and weaknesses, and its purpose. We enlisted the help of Brook Rolter, as facilitator, and met for 2 days on May 5 and 6, just prior to the annual spring Board meeting on May 7, 2000. From all accounts, the time invested was worthwhile, and I believe we have set the Society on a new course.In essence, we decided that the Society could not afford to confine its main activities to the Journal and the annual meeting. We decided that we needed to adopt a mandate that includes lobbying, public education, and advocacy. This is not new to the Society, and we have for years had committees that dealt with education and with social issues. We have also provided support for congressional fellows who spend a year in Washington learning the inner workings of government. Despite these measures, the Board’s concern was that the Society itself worked in a largely reactive mode and that it needed to become proactive. Furthemore, I was concerned that the President is expected to function as the “keeper of the light” for the Society, yet I already had a full-time job and often felt like an absentee lighthouse keeper—running to head off impending disaster at every turn in the weather.Given this, the Board took two very important decisions at its retreat and formalized these decisions at the Board meeting the following day. The first is to hire a full-time professional geneticist as Executive Vice President (EVP) of the Society. This person will be a well-respected geneticist who will have credibility with the members of the Society, with government, and with the public. The EVP will report to the Board through the elected President and will not have any substantial administrative duties, as these will still be the responsibility of the Executive Director. We have already circulated notice of this position via e-mail, and the position will be advertised shortly in the Journal.The second decision was to hire a part-time Web Editor to guide the further development of our Web site and to make it a professional arm of the Society, much like the Journal. The Board views the Web Editor as being similar to the Journal Editor. The appointment will be for an extended period of time and will be remunerated by the Society in proportion to the time commitment. The Web Editor will work from his or her academic home base and will be able to hire a full-time Web Master to develop and maintain the site.Although this will be costly, the Board is convinced that we cannot afford not to make this important transition. We are entering into a period when genetics will dominate the field of medicine and health care and when the media will be filled with information about developments in genetics. As Senator Edward Kennedy once said, “The public will immerse itself in the affairs of science. Whether or not it does so constructively will depend on the willingness of scientists to welcome public participation.” The Board has, I believe, taken the necessary steps to ensure that your Society will be at this exciting forefront, able and willing to partake in and occasionally lead the public discourse on the future of molecular medicine.Thank you, and enjoy the rest of the meeting.