Each of us has to make our individual decision. And I stated elsewhere the only way we have to get their attention is not renewing our "memberships." And that is my intent till some changes are made. There will be no changes and they will continue to wreck SSE till they are forced to change in my opinion. They censor anything that isn't too their benefit and allow all positive comments. Not the way that an open and honest non profit should be run. I'm sending an email to them but would bet I get no response. We shall see.
Zeebraman thanks for the warning and I might look at the other one you mentioned.

Guys, the hysteria here grieves me. I've observed similar problems between non profit boards and strong willed founders or champions, either from a distance (albeit the problem was very personal to me) or else as part of the board. When I was on the board, once, I was in favor of the individual staying on (and got outvoted) and once the decision, though very painful, was unanimous. Like I mentioned way up at the start of this thread, the problem is that the departing person can spew all sorts of things with very little accountability, but the organization's leadership is in danger of getting sued if they so much as tell the truth in normal conversational style. In two out of three cases, the "vote" was followed by a lengthy "dirty bomb" kind of a letter to the membership of the organization. In one case the fellow went on tour, holding meetings and getting a large following who demanded a "show down," which was completely inappropriate. It took nearly a decade for the real scoop to hit the fan with the rank and file, and that was because the fellow continued to do what he had done to get dismissed, and gossip eventually spread the word. Yet the damage was IMMENSE!

I hasn't ANYONE here ever been in this situation before?! I don't want to pass judgment on Kent. But his letter sent up EVERY SINGLE WARNING FLAG I've learned to expect from these kinds of situations.

I dont have time to exegete an eight page letter. But there are plenty of indications in Kents letter that hes not telling the whole story. The SSE boards response to all of this is, in my opinion, completely understandable. I can just feel what its like to be in their shoes. And, unless Im completely mistaken, they are not twiddling their mustaches and congratulating themselves for getting away with something.

Doesnt Diane Whealys word mean anything to you? Hasnt she been involved and supportive of the group for as long as it has existed? Why havent we heard any exclamations of support for Kent from a single one of those "big name" (and I am not trying to put them down) advisers or seed saver giants? NOT ONE!

If you want to think the worst of the organization, I guess thats your business. I know its not perfect. I already aired a gripe or two up above. But personally, I didnt join the SSE over 24 years ago in order to follow a single person. I got into it because of the cause. I didnt stay with them, even asking to list, when I couldnt afford to pay my membership and receive the yearbooks, because of a single person. I did it because of the work and the cause. Im not going to let one person cause me to waver in my support, not unless hard facts of clear wrong doing are brought to light, and in that the letter failed. Its mere length demonstrated to me that he was grasping at straws.

The only real facts Ive been able to observe are what Ive experienced through three similar kinds of situations and some obvious logical kinds of faults in Kents letter, along with some very faint rumblings over the last several years. I suppose its possible that Kent is right, and that he simply did a lousy job in his letter. But I honestly doubt it. One of the main reasons an organization has a board is to protect it from undue influence or the bad decisions of one or two individuals. Surely Kent had at least some say on the formation of the SSEs board. Without some solid proof to the contrary I will stick with the board.

The only controversial issue mentioned by anyone was the building (5000 sq feet for 70k, what a deal) so, wondering if you would want to talk about that and its relation to bylaws ect. It looks like the Board and Kent just couln't get along, or perhaps a struggle over power issues. So, Kent, would you like to respond to the "building issue". Was it a straw bail for instance ?

Synergy, good to see you here. My apologies in advance for the length of this post.

Macmex, you raise good points... and I hope that I have successfully conveyed similar thoughts in my own posts. I am trying to see both sides of the issue, as I hope most members will. Unfortunately, for those non-wired members, Kent's letter may be the only side that they see.

On the topic of "big name" advisors and seed savers... some might already be posting on other boards or blogs; and some that I would really like to hear from (like ME BO W) disdain the internet. Some may just choose to be silent. We should draw no conclusions regarding their opinions, based solely upon their apparent absence from these discussions. While I have met quite a few Listed Members here, I have not (to my knowledge) seen any of the Advisors or large listers here on GW previously... although they may join the conversation (I believe that one already has). Several of the SSE moderators are here also, but I doubt that they could (or would) discuss the matter publicly (beyond what SSE has already approved).

While I have worked several times in a management capacity, I have never served on a Board, so I can only speculate about the full ramifications of the process. I am not, however, politically naive... so I know that the reasons given for the dismissal (by both Kent and the Board) could be meant to conceal the true source of the conflict. I strongly suspect that the relationship had deteriorated on both sides for a number of reasons (both personal and professional), and that Kent was just the loser in the power struggle.

Let me be clear about my own stand on this issue. I don't see any "black helicopter" scenario at work here. I do _NOT_ see this as evidence of outside influence by Monsanto, or any entity which would be in direct conflict with SSE's mission. In my opinion, SSE's primary mission is not in danger here, nor is the safety of its seed collection. To the White Park cattle, however, the future may not be as bright. Only time will tell, I suppose.

Nor do I see this as an attempt to drain or re-direct SSE's financial assets... although how those funds are used, and SSE's obligation to report that use to its "members who are not members", certainly needs to be discussed. You mention "warning flags", George... the removal from the Bylaws of a reporting requirement raises one with me. It is a legitimate issue, one SSE has yet to address.

(I really wish we did not have to use "members" with quotes. Thanks to this spotlight on the Bylaws, that is a PR issue SSE will now be forced to deal with.)

////I would never consider - and would most strongly discourage - any boycott of the organization.//// We can't lose sight of the big picture; that the preservation of our vegetable heritage transcends any disagreements we (as members) might have with SSE policy. The damage to SSE could be irreparable, and there is no one else out there that could carry on their mission. Unless I find evidence that SSE has violated the trust of its members, I will continue to support them.

Kent spoke of access to the "non-public" areas of SSE. I am concerned that this could be misunderstood, by those unfamiliar with SSE. Anyone who has not visited Heritage Farm should realize just how vast the _public_ areas truly are. Almost the entire property - including the orchards & nearly all of the preservation gardens - is publicly accessible. This could easily have been otherwise, and reflects the same openness with their property that they preach for their seeds.

What has seldom been stated in these discussions, is that Kent's departure may not be a negative thing (or at least not all negative). There have been, under the same three managers currently in charge, some encouraging changes:
- SSE (as a Listed Member in the Yearbook) has dramatically increased its offerings from their seed vaults, from 1000 varieties (in 2000), to over 2000 (in 2007).
- More isolation gardens are being created.
- An heirloom tomato-tasting event has been added to SSE's yearly calendar.
- Most recently, SSE has launched their own forum, enabling new avenues of communication between members & SSE staff.

In the end, regardless of what actions or motives led to his dismissal, I believe that it was also a failure by Kent to realize that he no longer held the reins. His departure was inevitable, even by Kent's own admissions. The organization will move on without him, and the "membership" should as well.

But for good or ill, Kent has aroused an increased interest in the internal workings of the organization. That could revitalize the organization... or destroy it. The difference could come down to leadership, transparency, and communication. Kent's letter has damaged the faith of the membership, and SSE should, in my opinion, do more to restore that faith. Making them _feel_ like members (with no quotes), and restoring the annual reporting requirement, would be a great start.

"Why havent we heard any exclamations of support for Kent from a single one of those "big name" (and I am not trying to put them down) advisers or seed saver giants?" (Macmex)

Well, George, it seems we have our answer. This is the latest post from SSE's website:

"Seed Savers Exchange Advisors Support Board Actions

Seed Savers Exchange is a world class institution which has led the way for planetary preservation of the genetic diversity of plants. Its growth has been directed by an overarching vision first formulated by its co-founders, Kent Whealy and Diane Ott Whealy, and for more than twenty years refined and realized through the guidance and stewardship of a distinguished Board of Directors.

Like any great institution, it is greater than the sum of its parts and any one individual. In recent years it has become increasingly clear that Kent Whealy has perceived the Exchange as his personal possession to be directed to serve his own interests. The Advisors have had their own issues with Kent. The Board has prudently determined that his thoughts and actions had become antagonistic to the vision and responsibilities of the Exchange. After a long period of counseling Kent, and his failure to follow direction, the Board circumspectly with competent legal advice decided unanimously to terminate his employment as Executive Director. The duty of the Board to direct the affairs of the Exchange in a prudent manner required it to take this action.

It is with great regret that we, the undersigned Advisors of Seed Savers Exchange, have learned that Kent has begun a campaign to reverse this course of prudent action by the Board. He has sent to every Listed Member of the Exchange an intemperately worded letter full of misrepresentations of fact. He has impugned the motivations of the Directors and has harmed the reputation of each of them. He has attempted to enlist the participation of each of us Advisors in his campaign of destruction and defamation in a personal attempt to take control of this institution.

We Advisors refuse to allow him to do so, and we agree with and support the prudent decisions of the Board of Directors of Seed Savers Exchange. We commend each Director for acting responsibly in the best interests of the Exchange and in the faithful implementation of its vision and mission.

SIGNED BY THE FOLLOWING ADVISORS

Suzanne Ashworth
Will Bonsall
Dan Bussey
Keith Crotz
Glenn Drowns
Craig LeHoullier
Laura Merrick
John Swenson"
(end of statement)

This is the statement I have waited for, from parties with no ax to grind. Some of these Advisors go 'way back with Kent, so I'm sure this statement was not made lightly. This vote of confidence in the Board's actions should satisfy all but the most paranoid. I hope that a copy of this statement (and the Board's) will be mailed out with the Yearbook.

So it seems that the theory of "take-overs" or "personal vendettas" has been proven groundless... and some of your suspicions, George, confirmed. In my mind, this "crisis" is now over.

To Belgian Pup

Please contain your personal bigotry. To describe an accomplished author with a Ph.D. as a Jewish American Princess who appears never to have held a real job is about as bigoted as one can get. Feel free to attack her behavior. I fail to understand the reason her ethnicity is an issue?

Doc

Zebraman,

Please refrain from such provincial remarks. I have completed 8 years of post graduate studies and more than that of teaching experience. There are good and educated people all over the place.

"where most of the Literate world exists."

George
Tahlequah, OK (Capital of the Cherokee Nation)

Hey George; If the moccasins don't fit, why wear them?

I still don't think it is over. Note this is on the SSE site and I haven't read or received the same kind of information from any on these on other sites. In fact at least one has stated they have no real knowledge of the inside operations and situation. This is nothing more than more political spinning. And they are hoping everyone will close their eyes while they raid the SSE till it is too late in my opinion. I have seen this same type of moves before in other organizations. Yes they will deny everything till they accomplish their mission. If I receive some information back with answers to my questions and can get reassurances from those behind the scenes then I will reconsider my stand. If these advisor's didn't support and back this letter they could very well be the next removed like the previous two. They have never addressed why the other has been removed. And they also need to bring back full disclosure of all business and an accountability to the membership. Unless you have this there is no way to guarantee what they do or how they spend the money. It can go to high salaries or cruises on ships and big houses. Like I've stated I will no longer pay for a membership that don't exist. And it says in their bylaws they don't exist. Why wasn't disclosure made at the time of the change? And then you trust these people? Everyone has their right to their opinion but don't try to tell me I'm wrong and should continue to support them. Hopefully the uproar will convince them to make the needed changes and be open about their business. I think the original aim and mission is vital but feel at this point the ship is way off course. Time will be the final judge.
I'm still looking for another organizations to support. JMO

Zebraman,
What does Monsanto have to do with this? Just curious.
Yuma

"In fact at least one has stated they have no real knowledge of the inside operations and situation." (Elkwc)

Could you please provide more info?

I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of the statement by the Advisors. This is a publicly-posted document... and if the signatures were "forged", you can be CERTAIN that there would already be a firestorm on the Web, and the statement would have been forceably removed from the website. It should be noted in all fairness, however, that not all of the advisors listed in the 2007 Harvest Edition are signatories.

Because I am an active member & visit Heritage Farm frequently, I have seen some signs of what the Advisors refer to; but I had no way to verify my suspicions. The fact that these Advisors (some of whom go back to the founding of SSE) also believe this, speaks volumes. It appears that there _was_ a hostile takeover attempt... by Kent. I am personally satisfied with their explanation.

There will be those who will choose to disbelieve any explanation that comes forth... and that is unfortunate. Some damage to the organization was inevitable, from the moment Kent mailed his letter. This has been an eye-opener for many of us, and I feel certain that in the future, there will be much more interest in the Board and Bylaws than there has been in the past. I just hope that there comes a time when paranoia fades, and reason prevails.

Note that I am by no means stating that there are not still issues that should be addressed; many have been brought forward in this thread & others, including some by me... and I stand by them. I will continue to push for change, where I feel that it is needed.

And I believe that there is an _immediate_ need to reinstate the Annual Reporting requirement to the Bylaws.

But a boycott is the wrong approach. There _are_ other seed saving organizations, all of whom I endorse... but most of them (SoDC, AHSC, etc.) are regional, limited in scope, or are outside our borders (hence, subject to Customs restrictions). If these organizations focus on your area of interest, then by all means support them. But none of them (except perhaps Kokopelli) is capable of matching SSE's international reach. Were SSE to fail - and failure is, after all, the goal of a boycott - there would be an enormous loss of genetic material.

For those who claim to support the cause of preservation that SSE represents, I pose this challenge. SSE is founded on the preservation AND DISSEMINATION of heirloom seeds. I would expect that strong supporters of this philosophy, regardless of their feelings toward SSE, would be actively sharing seeds of their own. Reviewing the Exchange Lists of all of the posters in this thread, I find this not to be the case.

Whether you choose to remain with SSE or not is an individual decision. But as I stated earlier, the cause of preservation MUST transcend all politics and disagreements. Extinction is forever. If you believe in SSE's mission, but feel you can no longer support the organization, then make an effort to share seeds here on GW or elsewhere.

Zebraman, the comment which I quoted above (from you) came across, to me, as extremely provincial. Do you understand the meaning of provincial? I'm native NJ. There are many fine people in that part of the world. But having lived in many other states and also in another country, in close contact with a good many indigenous cultures, I found that comment to be particularly offensive. I have conversed with a fair number of people from the two coasts, who have expressed such a sentiment, and frankly, they don't know what they're talking about. Whenever they have said such things, I've noticed that they know almost nothing of other places (except vacation destinations). I mentioned that Tahlequah is the capital of the Cherokee nation, because there is a culture here largely unknown in your neck of the woods.

"Provincial" doesn't necessarily mean rustic. It refers to narrow, myopic vision or understanding limited only to a certain region. Instead of snide remarks, perhaps you would like to address this? Was that comment not provincial?

In this thread, when you have met with disagreement you have chosen to make disparaging, faux clever remarks. But you haven't dealt with the issues raised.

"Hey George; If the moccasins don't fit, why wear them?"

If you would care to converse about this further, you can send me a private e-mail. I listed a means to do so in my member profile. Are you a member of the SSE? I wonder. Even if you feel the need to post a parting shot, I'm not going to address it here. It's not profitable for the rest.

Was the heritage farm originally Dianne's property?

No, Kent and Diane started SSE in their Missouri kitchen. SSE purchased the original farm in the later 1980s.

I am heart-broken both about the dissolution of their marriage and about the troubles at SSE. I've been a member for over 20 years and for a time a listed member. Clients of mine have been major supporters in expanding the facilities and introducing the Ancient White Park cattle. I've hosted the Whealys here for talks and workshop and been to the Heritage Farm to do work in the library learn isolation techniques.

I too urge current and potential supporting and listed members of SSE not to abandoned this gem of genetic conservation. If we are to have an impact on the current Board, we need to stay steadfast in the interests of continuing the mission.

I guess my main concern, as someone who has no idea what the organizational politics are in SSE besides what is said here, is that a number of people say they have found very little response from SSE to letters, donations, etc. I have always been interested in participating in some way with this organization, but if they commonly don't reply to mail, donations, questions and feedback, I am less interested. Any thoughts on this?

-L

My experiences with SSE has been just the opposite. My donations of seed and of money have generated thank yous, both form letters and marginal hand-written personal remarks. You have to realize that for much of its history, the available staff to do all that work has been small. Not every email or letter can be answered. I would not think to write and ask for a list of varieties or other information requiring research and data searches. I have called them about specific matters and found Kent, Diane, and other staff ready to chat if available. During peak months of publication preparations, they have little spare time to have even a personal life.

I would not want to make someone think evil of the SSE, though my experience in this area wasn't very good. I haven't tried their web site, and suspect that they will respond well from that avenue. In recent years I've been pleased with their requests for specific seeds I have, and with seeing some of them come back out into circulation. So, please don't take my criticism as a reason not to get involved. Several friends of mine, with closer connections to IA, have commented to me that the workers there are very diligent and hard working; and that they are simply, sometimes, overwhelmed.

So my take, is that the organization is evolving; and at least in these areas, it is improving.

I've also concluded that I should not place all my seeds "in one basket," so to speak. No one and no organization will do a perfect job. I personally have lost varieties and most cases have managed to reclaim them from others (even the SSE itself) who got them from me. So, now, when I want to assure that some rare seed is maintained, I still want to send a sample to the SSE. But I also send samples to a couple trusted friends, who will also keep them.

George

Hey George; All you have to do is open up the current SSE Yearbook to see that I am a listed member. And then you wont have to waste any more of your time wondering. For someone who is "so" educated I'm surprised you didn't come up with this on own. And also the above quote that you took offense to was to someone else. Hello!

I believe that SSE could have done a much more smooth job with Kent. For example they could have offered him a honorary title or job. they could have continued his salary for the next 4 years until his retirement and they could have given him his retirement even if they fired him.

They chopped off his feet. threw him out like a sack of rotten potatoes. They stole all his dignity from him and they stole his retirement and his legacy and his research and his poor heart and soul. Until they make those things right with Kent then I have no use for the organization.

This kind of thing happens often in companies. The person is usually handled much better. as pointed out above. This case stinks to high heaven with actions that are despicable. I will not condone this treatment of Kent.

If the present corporation wants to prove they are good people then they need to make things better for Kent. The absolute minimum is to give him an immediate pension. That belongs to him. He worked for that. It should be against the law to steal someones pension by firing him. That pension was earned by Kent every day for many years as he worked for the organization. He could have set it up as a private for profit for himself organization. He gave it away free as a non profit. He worked hard every day for that dream. It was stolen from him. They have about $5,000,000 in the bank cash. More than enough to pay him his pension and prove they are trying to act honestly.

If they had acted honestly they could have done everything with Kent's OK. But they did not care about Kent. This was a dirty stabbing in the back takeover. Even the Advisors who live all around the country do not know what happened in Iowa. They too were manipulated by Amy and her corporate lawyer who will do anything to any one if he gets paid big money.

The requirement from the board is to act to the highest standards of ethical behavior. Stealing his pension is not acting to the highest ethical standards.

By the way there is a concerted effort for people to join discussion groups all over the internet. and post postive postings about SSE. It looks like the corporation is trying to manipulate us and our disgust over what they did. I will not blindly accept what people post trying to defend people stealing someones pension and life from him. This is a well orchestrated dirty take over of the money. Maybe they will not raid the cash this year. But watch out in 5 years when this discussion cools down and they have solid secret control. The organization will get stripped of the assets. The rich will get richer.

What is right is right. This was wrong.

Dan, what course of action directed at SSE management do you recommend?

I have already sent of emails demanding explanations and, at least in the interim, the boards resignation and a temporary oversight boy put in place. The Board of Advisors have deep roots to the organization and might serve as Kent recommends.

Five million in cash? How the heck would an organization like SSE be so liquid?

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions... He said, she said. That's all this thread shows.

Everyone has a right to their opinion and me, looking from the outside like most others, really can't tell you the new Board is right or wrong in what they did.

I don't know if some realize this or not, but SSE, like all other not-for-profits, is still a business. So even a non-profit still needs to run as a for profit business. If it isn't, eventually they will go out of business.

I don't know if it's different in Iowa but I'm pretty sure that to get 503c non-profit status, the non-profit has to make their books available to the general public. So if you want to know the truth about the $70K Kent supposedly spent unwisely, the cows, or what the board members are being paid, ask to see the books.

As to the comment about Kent's replacement possibly not being qualified, for the position, due to her lack of formal education or her place in life doesn't matter to me. Some of the best workers have no formal education and have come from both poor and wealthy families. It boils down to the person. Some people are very passionate about their hobbies and will have more knowledge then some PHD. I see this all the time so I never discount someone because of their place in life or education.

Zebraman, funny you talk of living in the literate world yet you do not know the proper use of the words "their" and "there", as in your post dated Jan 18, 22:52.

You live in a glass house.

Heh, in fact, the literacy rate in California is near the bottom:

http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2007/section2/table.asp?tableID=679

It's fairly obvious that the seed savers staff and board had trouble with "transformation" from an entirely member based operation to a company with that infamous CORPORATE feel. It reminds me of the casino's owned by little known rural groups in California who now have wealth that they had not ever known. The wealth comes with attachments similar to cancers with some organizations. Hence, the thoughtless, brash, and ungracious developments which were sure to happen given the backgrounds and mindsets of the persons involved. This is EXACTLY why it is quite often said "MONEY IS the root of all evil" rather than MONEY can be the root of all evil". Rather than a separation of the interests of Seed Savers, ie separating membership from the commercial interest of the seed company, the board in their "not so infinite wisdom" sought to "KEEP IT ALL" by running a sham of a membership organization while concentrating almost completely on the SEED COMPANY. GREED is what I see as the motivation. A seperation could have meant that the members would control the seed savers group as a trading and informational group (how it began) and the company could still operate without having to do this drastic surgery (reminds me of breast or testicular surgery !) THINK people !

We do have to accept the important fact that SSE controls one of the most valuable seed collections in the temperate world and a heritage apple orchard of importance. When the USSR went belly up, the Vavilov Institute and other important genetic conservation sites went over to other hands and were in the process of being lost. The world's greatest collection of apple varieties was destroyed for firewood, for spite, and for who knows what other reasons. Luckily SSE arranged expeditions with other individuals and groups to take scion wood and seed and garlic/onion samples from the threatened collections in the early 1990s.

This ain't a fly-by-night outfit, folks.

I need to say something. I am not the owner of synergy seeds, just a volunteer trying to help the efforts of that company. What I have said is completely my opinion based on what I have read from Kent and what I have seen from the Seed Saver staff. It is true that Seed Saver is a valuable company from the viewpoint of the fact that they offer collections that may not be available from any other source. What I see happening that I find worrisome is the fact that the membership has so little say in what is going on, because of changes in the bylaws made by the current board. But, my opinions are completely my own and not made as a member of seed savers or a person who is much more than a complete volunteer to the efforts of the synergy seeds company. I'm not sure what the actual ownership of synergy seeds feels and apologize if it seemed synergy seeds was weighing in on what has happened, it has not, as far as I know. Just me, a volunteer. Sorry George.

Also, when I say cancer, I am not referencing to Kent, but in fact to the boards attitude towards Kent.

My personal viewpoint is that seed savers is not a membership based organization. But, that may not be Georges opinion. And that is completely up to him.

I didn't think you were speaking for Synergy Seeds; at least I hoped you weren't. SSE has outgrown is origins and has expanded the range and complexity of its mission. On other boards there are lot of rumors and dirt being thrown around to disparage Kent, Diane, the Board, SSE, and people speaking up for both or three sides. For this crisis to pass, transparency has to take precedence over who is right or wrong. Members again have to be given a place at the table called the Seed Savers Exchange.

I agree completely. And, others have said that what was done could have been done in a way to not be so damaging. But, I agree, the membership should have some rights in any organization. I have noticed that there is not a listing at Seed Savers called "the bylaws", therefore, any changes are not public. Not only that, there is not one posting talking about the methods we need to follow to "save seeds". You can buy a book, another words, everything seed savers stands for is for sale. Disturbing. Once again, my own observations, and I have not ever been a member, so, I guess one could say impudent observations from an outsider.

Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that SSE stole Kent's life away. I demand that they go back to Kent and treat him honestly. First under any and all circumstances they must give him his pension. That belongs to him.

I want to see some HONESTY in ACTION from the SSE Board.

HONESTY demands that he get his pension.

That will not make everything right but it will go a long way toward treating Kent as a human being with at least some dignity.

I have lived my life by one good principle. If a man works for me he gets paid. Even if he does a poor job he gets his pay as agreed upon. Now if he gets fired he still gets paid all he earned.

In this case Kent earned his pension over many years. He must get paid his pension.

From there the 2nd step is to treat him with dignity and respect. That will take some doing now after all the abuse the Board has put onto Kent.

The argument is never about the other person behaving wrong. In other words it is never about the Board saying Kent did not behave correctly. It is always about is the Board behaving correctly NOW. We have an uproar because the Board is behaving like a thief. Strong arming Kent out of his dignity and pension.

I will not get into returning Kent to his job. I argue that if you fire him you do it with dignity and you do it in a manner that all people will say you did it to the highest ethical standards. All people instead of being angry should right now say that the Board did a good job. They gave Kent his pension and severance pay and other bennies that cost nothing.

Under this circumstance everyone would know they can trust the Board because they acted with high ethical standards.

Instead of that they claim Kent acted poorly and thus they act even more poorly in response. I will never accept that. The board will never have the right to act wrong simply because someone else acted wrong.

The evidence is out there. Even the $70,000 building was purchased as an anonymous gift by someone that Kent found. So let us congratulate Kent on getting a FREE $70,000 building that was needed.

People are not looking at this correctly. This is not about the ethical behavior of Kent. It is about the ethical behavior of the Board. It matters nothing if Kent was ethical or not. He got fired. What matters is that the Board has demonstrated with out doubt that they have not acted ethically at all. They maybe acted Legally with their high priced lawyer but not ethically.

As far as any and all other persons associated with SSE who do not oppose the move. It is all meaningless. They have vested interest which they will lose like Kent did if they give their opinion. I guarantee they have been told they will be fired if they speak out. That everyone must remain silent. They have been told this is for legal reasons. Of course they signed a letter. But instead of focusing on those who signed why not ask about all those who did not sign.

This is a corporate dirty game. The Board won and everyone else LOST. The members were robbed of their membership status. The founder Kent lost his severance pay and his pension. He was dumped in the lowest ethical manner but probably legal according to their lawyers advice who might be wrong. But if it goes to court the lawyer will win again. he will have to be paid big money to defend in court.

Lawyers win when you win and Lawyers win even bigger when you lose. Lawyers always win for themselves.

SSE is not the only seed saving organization. They are not the end all. Bountiful Harvest and Southern Exposure are just two of many that needs support too.
Speak with your money. I plan on doing that. No longer will I suppost the greedy, self serving organization, SSE has become.
This thread can be debated forever. The only true method of change is withholding support of SSE.

Soil Lover, your two examples are seed companies that grow out some of their seed for sale. They are not primarily seed conservation organizations networked with similar institutions and large numbers of contributing growers and gardeners.

Punish people if you must but not functional and near-irreplaceable institutions.

I forgot to add that I buy mostly organic seed from many small seed companies including SESE and Bountiful. I also contribute money to non-profit seed conservation groups such as SSE and Native Seed/SEARCH. The mission of these small regional companies complements the broader mission of the SSE.

Marshall, I think one of the world's most important apple collections - or at least in NA - is at Cornell? I really, really like Bountiful Gardens. I think a good measure of their commitment to the cause is that they offer "mixed" packets - such a boon for the small gardener.

Pat, your right but SSE's is unique in having ~2000 varieties of apples from central Asia, home of apples, rescued from likely loss.

I order from Bountiful even when I don't expect to use the seed myself. I give away lots of seed packets and seed from my grow outs locally.

Clarity please, not polarization. Listening not bickering. and thanks to my volunteer synergy seeds web staff for voicing his opinion as who knows better the sacrifices made in the interest of protecting agricultural biodiversity in the face of the global onslaught on natural resources.
(fyi I'm not the same George writing above)

I am the proprietor of one of the top 12 north american seed 'companies' preserving unique and rare varieties and listed in Seedsavers' Garden Seed Inventory 6th Ed. I was the first farmer chosen to oversee statewide organic certification in CA for CCOF.I was also cofounder (+board vp) of Eco-Farm, sponsoring the most influential conference on organic food. On top of that I was recruited to be farm manager for (Seeds of Change) just prior to incorporation (1990). So I am familiar with the issues and dynamics involved.

Judging from what Kent told me personally, the situation reflects the strain his and Diane's divorce has imposed upon
the organization. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand how destructive this conflict could be for grassroots Seedsavers. While all this attention is riveted upon the grand drama of Heritage Farm, hundreds of farmers and gardeners like myself are struggling just to maintain our private seed collections, without benefits or a truly living wage (not to mention corporate sponsorship).

Since I became a SSE member in 1993 we have endured the internet boom, the explosion of gmos, a corporate takeover of organic food with federal complicity, and increasing pressure upon the land, water, fuel and climate resources which are at the root of a sustainable civil society. Meanwhile SSE has accomplished more in the realm of material acquisition than any of us would have dreamed possible. In fact many have quietly questioned the wisdom of all this expansion, but kept paying our dues while having no democratic voice in SSE affairs.

Visionaries such as Alan Kapuler of Peace Seeds expressed concern over SSE becoming a seed company, and the negative impact of this subsidized competition to small seed farmers business cannot be denied (especially when this new seed company has instant access to proprietary info which listed members voluntarily contribute). We do occasionally get handouts such as the commemorative oak plaques sent outlast summer (at considerable expense), but Alan says he never got one. Go figure...

A few years back some concerned members successfully lobbied for a rate increase to offset higher postal rates and
shrinking seed requests. I doubt this has been effective, except for increasing SSE internet and catalog sales even more. SSE's embrace of high technology is of no benefit to grassroots membership or to our core mission if our open exchange of seeds is not strengthened and supported. There appears to be an inherent conflict of interest in vigorously promoting a commercial seed company while keeping the seed exchange fundamentally unimproved.

Let's hope the grassroots membership will engage and participate in an open and earnest dialog on these and other
issues. If the SSE online forum is closed then we should start our own and demand reimbursement. There is no excuse for inaction when democratic principles are at stake, our livelihoods and our public domain seed heritage is imperiled. And we need directors who understand those concerns and act swiftly and responsibly.

Love comes from strength, fear comes from weakness.

Geoseed, that's for your heartfelt perspective and recommendations. From my more distant relationship with SSE and Kent and Diane, I suspect the worst; namely, the marginalization of listed members and their roles in the whole seed conservation movement. I spoke up against expanding into commercial seed sales for the same reasons you propound. At some point, perhaps now passed, the seed business becomes both more important and more exposed to corporate takeover in one form or another.

I've tried to register for the SSE forum without success. No matter, because any substantive or meaningful discussion on the forum is prohibited. Please let us know if you set up a mirror SSE forum.

Marshall

George, you make some interesting points. I've kind of wondered about the SSE's seed catalog. In some ways it seems like a good idea, since people who don't care to grow and maintain things have a legitimate means of getting varieties in the SSE. On the other hand, like you mention, I've wondered about the competition factor.

The rate increase you mentioned was, in my opinion, a very good thing. I know I request a LOT less than I supply and try to get things from the SSE Yearbook mainly when they are not available through other channels. It amazes me what it actually costs to mail a sample of seeds when one uses a padded mailer.

Also, I appreciated the process by which members were all asked about the rate change. That was the only time I had ever been consulted by the SSE. Which does bring me to conclude that the point Kent made, in his letter, about membership, was really not much of a point at all, but rather a technicality. Once it appears that SSE decisions were made by Kent and Diane, and perhaps some close associates. Later they were (are) made by a board. Either way, I'm not clear on how members like myself "tie into" the process. Personally, I'm a little leery about a democracy, in the strictest sense of the word. I like the idea of a board, though there may be room for improvement in how to get meaningful input from members.

Marshall, I haven't tried to get into the SSE forum. So I have no input in that area. I know, in other forums, I've known individuals to be unable to get in, even when site managers swore that they should be able to. Perhaps a phone call with a request for help might do the trick.

Well, I don't have the materials with me, at hand right now. I'm just going to watch and listen to see how things develop. Will also be out of the country for a couple of weeks, so I may not check in so frequently.

George

Hey Geoseeds; I just checked out your website.This is obviously you-CA ST G2. I found quite a few things that I want.Would it be possible to get an entire list of what you have (by name) in the Yearbook? Anyway I liked your mission statement and would like to help with my purchases.
CA SN F

George (Geoseeds), well stated. I believe you have summarized the debate which _should_ be taking place... and which has apparently already been taking place, albeit unknown to much of the SSE membership (self included).

In the recent past I once stated that the test of SSE was, would it survive the loss of the Founders. Kent's departure serves notice that this time has already begun, sooner than expected... and not as smoothly as we might have hoped.

The question is not whether or not SSE will survive (I believe it will) but what form it will take. It has become a successful Leviathan of preservation, and has the means to preserve thousands of varieties safely in perpetuity. Its center, Heritage Farm, is an inspiration to any dedicated seed saver, and I still highly recommend its visitation. For that, we should thank Kent, Diane, and all of those contributors & staff who have built the organization to its present robust state.

But at what cost? With each successful grant or donation, has the emphasis shifted more & more toward money, and less toward the people who share SSE's original vision? Will it evolve into an increasingly impersonal corporate monolith, where everything revolves around money? Or will the reins - and at least some measure of control - be passed back to the membership, where SSE truly began? As SSE "corporate" has waxed strong, its membership has diminished. And regardless of how the personal & legal drama currently underway eventually plays out, the innocence of the membership has been forever shattered.

Now that the Captain has left the (member)ship, who will determine its course... the crew, or the passengers? Or, hopefully, some combination of the two? There needs to be open dialog, or the wound caused by Kent's departure - and his letter - will only fester. I hope SSE will realize this.

Because if they don't, we're all just beating a dead horse.

It's no longer about Kent, although he lit the spark... it may indeed have been his time to leave. Nor is about retaining (or removing) the current management, who may not be blameless in this whole affair. It's about the role of (and respect for) the membership in shaping SSE's future. The time may have come for the passengers to take a more assertive stance, and insist that their voices be heard.

"Please let us know if you set up a mirror SSE forum."

Ditto.

Dangould- I agree that Kent Whealy should be given retirement and be compensated for any losses due to this takeover, and mediation should be employed to heal the rift.

zebraman- please Email me for a current list of seeds available. The synergyseeds website has alot of good background info and should soon have more links to photos and seedlist pages added soon. It continues to be a labor of love for my volunteer help!

macmex- the SSE rate increase was an easy way to appease listed members. But it made seed acquisitions for other preservationists like myself more expensive: a built in advantage for SSE (now also a seed company) controlling the exchange.
As far as padded mailers go I reuse mailers whenever possible or pieces of bubble pack inside new kraft envelopes for equivalent protection of the seeds (and ZERO waste!)

soil lover and others- Nobody knows the seed as well as the grower, so I direct market the seed I grow and have refrained from re-selling commercial or 'organic' seed. Thus I can share the particulars of any seed I pass on without the hype so common in seed catalogs. And our 'Nature Farming' methods ensure hardiness, vigor and genetic integrity far beyond 'organic' as it currently practiced. How these qualities express in future generations will depend upon many factors so I invite my customers to provide as many details as possible so I can make accurate recommendations with the seed exchanged.
When we were ('writing the rulebook') for organic certification I was adamant that organic seed be required because I already was reaping the benefits of homegrown seed and figured that other farmers would do likewise if it was mandated. 17 years later there are still loopholes in the 'organic rule' allowing certifiers or farmers to get around it, which they routinely do. Thus the continual dependency on expensive seeds and inputs which- combined with bureaucratic inertia- keep organics 'uncompetitive' in the market.

happyskunk- thanks for the excellent Seed Ambassadors (.org) link... great photos of their visit with the Alan Kapuler family and gardens (click on 'recent news'). Nobody who has
been with 'the shrume' comes away unchanged... (also see his paintings displayed here!)

Last- while searching for 'Seedsavers' in this forum I found an entirely different string of messages... is there some way to bring all those SSE related messages in here???

Geoseeds, the other large SSE thread (in the "Growing Tomatoes" forum) had a hard time staying on topic. It became an argument over moderators, between moderators, and discussing the relative merits of other tomato sites. It was, however, interesting in its observation that several tomato-oriented individuals moderate multiple sites across the Web. To the extent that these few individuals censor & control much of what is said across multiple garden forums (including SSE), I found that to be disturbing.

And one of the reasons I stay out of special interests threads. Native plant sites are equally divisive and uber alles controlled by moderators, official and unofficial.

>>macmex- the SSE rate increase was an easy way to appease listed members. But it >>made seed acquisitions for other preservationists like myself more expensive: a built in >>advantage for SSE (now also a seed company) controlling the exchange.
>>As far as padded mailers go I reuse mailers whenever possible or pieces of bubble >>pack inside new kraft envelopes for equivalent protection of the seeds (and ZERO >>waste!)

George, I don't follow you on that one. To me, that rate increase was helpful. Sure, one can save and reuse envelopes. I do at every opportunity. But for true preservationist interests the higher price seems better to me. In regards to people asking for seeds, this helps limit frivolous requests. When I request seeds, precisely because I intend to maintain them, that one time expense is the least of my concerns. And, it's not limited to the SSE. I ordered a sample of peanuts from a smaller, independent seed company, just a few weeks ago. That's all I ordered and, with S&H it cost over $7.00.

It's easy to collect a lot of seeds. It's not so easy to maintain them. Now, that's where the work and expense comes in.

I'm not prepared to say 'yea or nay' about the SSE seed catalog's legitimacy. There seem to be advantages and disadvantages associated with it. But I can definitely see how the SSE would consider it a good way to get some varieties out into circulation without taxing private members.

Is it really best to start with the assumption that the SSE is trying to "pull something off," so to speak? I really really doubt that.

Philosophy regarding how to do the work of preservation... now there is plenty of room for discussion and diversity! The SSE seems to have struck a course for doing much of the preservation right on its own premises, using its own resources. Part of their reasoning may be that they have (as have I) seen many preservationists fail, either through some problem with planning, organization, finances, health or whatever.

My personal approach has been to stick with the SSE and branch out. The GW, for instance, is a good place to cultivate interest in maintaining varieties and in recruiting gardeners to do so. I won't assume that ANYONE is going to be completely dependable.

It's alright to discuss these things. But getting back to Kents letter, it still seems to me that the problem was not related to a conspiracy or dirty work by the board. Kent simply diverged from the board and wouldnt work with them. There are a fair number of references in his letter which I found deceptive; for instance, this thing about a board of advisers. Recently I called one up, which Ive known for years. I was informed that the "board" part of the advisors was really only in Kents mind. The opinion I was given was that it appeared that Kent used the term board of advisors more as a way to gain credibility himself. They were not consulted and had no real say in his decisions. Plus, as has already been posted above, they too, unanimously (if I counted correctly) stood with the board.

There is room for plenty of discussion on particulars for how to do "the job" better. But when the SSE is hurting, under attack so to speak, I dont think its time to jump on the bandwagon.

From sunny Mexico,

George
macmex

It appears to me there is a connection between what is happening at SSE and what is described here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

Check out the connection between SSE's Board member Cary Fowler's employer and the above site's reference to the UN Global Crop Diversity Trust......

Another massive conspiracy theory.

Although they are beguiling, I don't believe that conspiracies can operate at such a widespread scale. I don't believe that any of the scientists that work for ag conglomerates are evil. Can you imagine that the large number of scientists, research assistants, etc who would be involved in something like developing an "abortive vaccine" would each and every one keep their mouths tight shut?

However, it could be that big ag has its hand in Svelbard. If so, I'd like to see the proof. Nevertheless, how can it be a bad thing in of itself to save more seeds, regardless of who is footing the bill? I wasn't exactly counting on Svelbard for the food security of my family or community. I want appropriate seeds and plant material at hand, not in Svelbard, government seed banks, or Monsanto.

sometimes, when there's smoke, there is indeed a fire....

Sorry, but I'm with Pnbrown... tempting as it may be, I don't see a fire here, only a theory that won't hold water.

Burchfield, I'm sure you mean well... but before you cite Cary Fowler's presence on SSE's Board as proof of an anti-SSE conspiracy, you might want to look up his bio (see link) or his books. He has consistently demonstrated that he is no friend of Big Ag. You might also look up his involvement with Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), which was vehemently anti-GM. RAFI is now "Action group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration" (etcgroup.org). Plenty of stuff there in support of _real_ conspiracies.

There may (or may not) be something stinky afoot in Svalbard. The Gene Giants certainly are not known for their altruistic motives, so they must see potential profit (or maybe just good PR?) in there somewhere. But it is less likely that they want to do something _to_ SSE, than that they want something _from_ SSE... namely, their collection of unique genetic material. SSE would never give Monsanto & Co. samples of their entire collection willingly, given their proclivity for patenting lifeforms... so this may be a back-door way of gaining access. And not only to SSE's materials, but those in other seed banks throughout the world as well.

Maybe when the Gene Giants have completely polluted the genomes of the world's major food crops with GM (as is nearly the case now with corn), they want to ensure that they still have some pure stock left for breeding purposes. That way, when disease threatens a crop, they can come up with the only solution... and patent it. Just a thought.

On the other hand...

Fowler's reasons for Svalbard (as stated in the bio) make a great deal of sense. At a time when unstable governments & capricious political funding have imperiled many seed banks worldwide (look up Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry), there is a need to provide a backup plan that is outside the realm (and control) of national or regional politics.

It also may represent not a threat, but an opportunity for SSE. If you read up on the Svalbard seed bank, it will be a repository only. Even under the best of conditions, seed will eventually deteriorate, and require replenishment with fresh seed. With SSE's vast seed production facilities, they could be contracted (and funded) to play a role in that process. In other words, the relationship with Svalbard (through Fowler) could be beneficial for SSE.

There are still questions about Svalbard that I think need answering, particularly as regards security, and who will have access & under what conditions. Pnbrown, I'm with you; I'd like to see what "strings" might come attached to Big Ag's money... but such discussions are best left to another thread. As for _this_ thread, I'm convinced that Dr. Fowler is a good choice as the project's director.

"If you read up on the Svalbard seed bank, it will be a repository only. Even under the best of conditions, seed will eventually deteriorate, and require replenishment with fresh seed."

That's what I don't understand. A cave in a mountain North of the arctic circle may be ideal for protection against theft or nuclear holocaust. But, for saving seeds, periodic grow outs are what is most crucial. In the press I have seen nothing related to this issue. Have I not paid enough attention? Or has there been little or no attention to that aspect of the project?

Frankly, the whole cave business looks to me like it is PR designed to appeal to non-agriculturalists. We humans might like to inhabit that cave in case of nuclear war, but the seeds have other concerns.

Jim

Jimster, don't feel left out... I haven't seen many particulars on the program either. The Vault is scheduled to open this year (February 28, according to their website) and has yet to accept seed, so they may still have some bugs to work out.

Their stated intent is to be a back-up to the existing seed banks, which are each presently responsible for maintaining their own collections. When a seed bank collapses, can no longer maintain its collection, or perhaps loses all seed for a variety, Svalbard would be the safety net. A new custodian would need to be found at that point, to maintain the viability of the endangered seed; I'm still trying to find references to the procedure(s) that would be used. Stay tuned. ;-)

I'm fascinated by the reference to eliminating genetic duplicates, so that only "unique varieties" would be stored. Would this entail actual genetic analysis - which would be a monumental undertaking - or just the use of references?

Just as I suspected... this topic needs its own thread.