|
Post by lavandulagirl on Jan 19, 2008 13:35:40 GMT -5
Alan - can you post a link to the GW thread? I love a good smack down, but I don't have time to wade through all of GW's crap to find it!
|
|
|
Post by houseodessey on Jan 19, 2008 13:48:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lavandulagirl on Jan 19, 2008 14:02:54 GMT -5
TYVM, Michelle... sounds like La Male does lurk... kind of like Zman.
|
|
|
Post by DarJones on Jan 19, 2008 18:28:16 GMT -5
First, let me be very specific about my position. I am NOT a member of SSE nor have I ever been. I don't have a horse in this race so to speak. I am however concerned over the huge amount of negative publicity Kent Whealy's letter has generated. I have a few contacts here and there who know bits and pieces of what is going on. When those pieces are put together, a very ugly picture emerges. I will post what I found and you can do your own due diligence to determine whether this is accurate or not. Please understand that I can't be 100% sure of this.
About 3 years ago, Kent had an affair with a woman and it became public knowledge. Diane divorced him over it. To the best of my knowledge, Diane is very much an innocent party in this, but she was the target of a lot of Kent's subsequent actions.
After the divorce, Kent was still running SSE and he started running it roughshod over the directors guidance. He deliberately pushed issues to emphasize his control of the organization. The board called Kent on some of his more egregious misuses of authority. He agreed to back off on some of the things. Then he went back to 'running the show' as he chose. Long story short, it came to a head 4 months ago.
The board was in a position that they had to rein him in because some of the things he was doing were affecting employees and could have caused SSE to lose not for profit status. He made some veiled threats and they responded by dismissing him. I would point out that a not for profit is a corporation. (emphasize that some parts of this paragraph are questionable) The directors are responsible for the long term well being of the business. Kent was an employee of the corporation. Long and short of it, when the directory was published, Kent pulled the names and addresses and sent out his letter.
He did raise some legitimate complaints. Those complaints need to be addressed. I don't have all the answers. What I have is gleaned from quite a bit of digging around. Just so we are clear, I don't think either side in this is completely right. Just don't get the idea that Kent is the only 'wronged' party.
You have a very well known and publicly accepted leader of an organization who has just been dismissed for serious problems in the way he was doing things. What can he do about that? Well, in SSE, he can go to the members and have them elect HIS CHOSEN board of directors. So what does the current board of directors do? They change the rules of the game. They take away voting status of the members and make the board of directors the final authority. That removes the possibility of a palace coup taking place. This leaves Kent Whealy with only one recourse. He appeals to the sse membership. Do you start to see the maneuvering that is taking place? He can sue for wrongful discharge. But in this case, the board has enough dirt on him to keep him fired.
As stated, take this with a grain of salt. It may or may not be entirely accurate.
Edit to add one significant piece of information. Per Iowa code, SSE members did not have an official right to vote to start with. You can look up the code if you want. That part of the code was revised about 3 years ago. Officially, an SSE listing member does not and never did have a 'vote' with regard to corporate governance of SSE. This means that I was partially wrong in my speculation re the bylaw change. I don't know who the official voting members are.
Dar
|
|
|
Post by kctomato on Jan 19, 2008 21:36:08 GMT -5
TYVM, Michelle... sounds like La Male does lurk... kind of like Zman. has anyone ever seen them in the same room together at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by bcday on Jan 19, 2008 23:06:19 GMT -5
One of the things Kent requested in his letter was that SSE's members demand that SSE's Board of Directors resign and the Board of Advisors replace them. However, fully half of the Board of Advisors has now come out in support of the Board of Directors. This statement was just released:
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
|
|
|
Post by bunkie on Jan 20, 2008 11:51:17 GMT -5
thanks for posting the advisory board letter. one question i have is how come they said 'Kent was trying to take control of the institution'? in his very own words in his own letter he stated he did not want his job back, but would act as an advisor. also, i didn't take his references to what the board was doing as defaming or destructive. i thought he had some good insight of how things needed to be changed to help the process.
|
|
|
Post by flowerpower on Jan 21, 2008 5:38:34 GMT -5
SSE depends on alot of voluntary contributions. They do not want to lose money. They have to pay basic bills and people's salaries, etc. If people think that Ken's letter has validity, donations may decline. What happens if some of the places that contribute big bucks find other worthy causes? They'll be screwed, right?
|
|
|
Post by bcday on Jan 21, 2008 8:23:27 GMT -5
If people think that Ken's letter has validity, donations may decline. What happens if some of the places that contribute big bucks find other worthy causes? They'll be screwed, right? Is that what Kent's letter said he wanted? I remember Kent's letter saying something about NOT doing that. I keep seeing people worrying about what SSE is going to do with the cattle. Where do you think the money for the cattle comes from? What happens to the cattle if SSE no longer has the funds to maintain them? Not to mention all the seeds SSE has that are probably found nowhere else. I am not saying this because I happen to spend time helping with SSE's forum. I am saying this because I care about the cattle and the seeds and what happens to them. Animals and seed banks need to be looked after or it is all of us who will be the poorer for it. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot, eh? Kent's letter was an emotional letter and it is getting an emotional response rather than a logical one. There are three sides to every story, her side, his side, and the truth. The Directors did what they felt had to be done to keep SSE for all of us rather than just Kent. Kent's letter says he wants the Advisors to take the place of the Directors. The Advisors have looked at the information that was available to them and half of them have said publicly that they do not agree with Kent any more than the Directors do. I am going to see what other information becomes available before I decide that they are not acting in SSE's (and our) best interest regarding seeds, cattle, etc.
|
|
|
Post by bunkie on Jan 21, 2008 9:26:49 GMT -5
flowerpower, in Kent's letter he stated the same desires for the cattle, seeds, employees, etc... remember him discussing how the employees needed the shed to keep warm while working? remember how he mentioned the problems now with the disorganization of the cattle, birthing, etc...? from what i saw in the SSE letters, they stated everything will remain the same 'at this time'. what does 'at this time' mean?
Kent also stated a lot of specifics, but the SSE did not.
i'm still waiting to hear more, maybe the truth.
|
|
|
Post by bcday on Jan 21, 2008 10:02:44 GMT -5
from what i saw in the SSE letters, they stated everything will remain the same 'at this time'. what does 'at this time' mean? It may mean "until we have to get rid of the cattle and seeds because our members withdrew the support we needed to keep them". Kent also stated a lot of specifics, but the SSE did not. i'm still waiting to hear more, maybe the truth. Bunkie, we all know how much an ex-employee can say vs. what the ex-employer can say without getting sued. I think you and others are taking unfair advantage of that in these debates. And we all know that we have SSE's side and Kent's side and we may never see anything else.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Jan 21, 2008 12:37:12 GMT -5
$240,000 would have supported those cattle for a long time!
Martin
|
|
|
Post by canadamike on Jan 21, 2008 12:54:24 GMT -5
I have already written privately to some members to express my regret at having said I would ban johnny's seeds and Amy Goldman's book., which was quite contrarian to previous posts expressing my sesire to know more before making a judjment.
I guess, like everibody, I was quite emotional about it. This is a church whose bishops have parted with god after all.
Now, I express my regret to everybody.
And I would like to point out that Mischka has let people express their vews freely on tomatoville, even those contrarian to SSE'S board.
My views on voting rights and the need of a bigger board have not changed, but now I think we all know more and if half the advisor's support the course of action publicly , it takes a new spin...
|
|
|
Post by flowerpower on Jan 22, 2008 8:20:13 GMT -5
Kent said he would like everyone to keep supporting SSE. But bad publicity, even if it is rumour and speculation, is not a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by bunkie on Jan 22, 2008 13:53:27 GMT -5
.......Bunkie, we all know how much an ex-employee can say vs. what the ex-employer can say without getting sued. I think you and others are taking unfair advantage of that in these debates.... i don't think we're doing any such thing bcday.
|
|