Kent Whealy's Letter to SSE Members

[canadamike]

I am a non-listed member since last year and was planning to list this year ( well. sow enough this year to share next year). I posted a general non partisan question, and got zapped and redirected to the admin for a possible answer. It is quite probable that they are simply getting their act together and will emit some form of communiqué once the wording is approved by the board and maybe their lawers.

I wrot to Kent this morning but got no answer yet. He must be inundated.

But I feel it would be innapropriate to make any judgment before having heard both sides.

In my former employment, it was my job to help create non-profit organizations and/or step in to help fix the situation in time of crisis or difficulty. Divergence between old founding members, with their incredible feeling of ''moral ownership'' of the said organizations and new boards and new ways HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE OF CRISIS.

THE EXACT SAME THING CAN BE SAID OF SMALL FAMILY BUSINESSES AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF GENERATIONAL TRANSFER.

TRANSITIONS ARE TIME OF IDENTITY CRISIS IN ORGANIZATIONS, AND IN MOST OF THEM.

THERE IS A FAIR CHANCE, BEING TOTALLY UNAWARE OF THE ROOT CAUSE OF THAT MESS, That I might be ending up thinking that both sides are right to a certain extent however.

Then again, I have to reserve my judgment for later, but SSE'S brass should adress the situation fast. I am confident they are working on it and have enough experience to make sure nobody but the top level gives out any comment before an official position that takes care of all the legal ramifications of the event has been drafted.

And it takes some time, even in the instantaneous world of the internet.

[kctomato]

mischka said:

I honestly see no need to insinuate that the moderators....

Based on some of the moderators that came from TV and knowing their specific histories and rhetoric used in the private moderator forum at TV (and some elsewhere), I do. Therefore, I think it is an important and valid point Bill notes concerning the attitudes of certain moderators to the overall jest and flow of the forum.

mischka said:

/admin of the SSE discussion forums consider the general membership "peons". Neither the moderators nor admin have ever publicly or privately used that term to describe members.

Whether or not the actual word "peon" was used or not is inconsequential to the point being made and the history concerning the attitude of the aforementioned moderators.

Examples of similar discourse and behavior from TV mods do exist and can be easily posted in full context.

[PapaVic]

mischka said:

billpapavic said:

I'd like someone to explain why it's not deemed appropriate to discuss Mr. Whealy's departure from SSE at the SSE forum. If there are two sides, or more, to the issue ... let's hear them. Or is this just one more example of "not fit for consumption by the peons?"

Bill

Bill,

I honestly see no need to insinuate that the moderators/admin of the SSE discussion forums consider the general membership "peons". Neither the moderators nor admin have ever publicly or privately used that term to describe members.

I am leery to answer this question for fear of having my words distorted or taken out of their original context and used for some nefarious purpose.

I will tell you that the discussion forum moderators/admin at SSE are not authorized by the SSE board to field questions and provide answers in this matter.

For now, please understand that this is a legal matter for SSE and as such, they cannot respond to anything without benefit of being advised by legal counsel beforehand.

Hope this helps folks better understand the current situation.

Fair enough, Mischka ...

Sorry if my phrasing of the question appears to be an insinuation regarding SSE forum moderators ... however, I still associate some "history" of persons moderating at SSE also moderatorating at other forums where there were occasions where statements like "those peons" or "keeping the riff-raff at the gate" were uttered by a moderator ... whether or not his attitude reflected a philosophy common to the other moderators.

But that is not the issue here at all, and my interjection of it into this discussion was a very poor choice indeed. So, let me apologize for that slip on my part and rephrase the question more simply and more directly ...

"I'd like someone to explain why it's not deemed appropriate to discuss Mr. Whealy's departure from SSE at the SSE forum."

Okay?

Now, I know "this is a legal matter for SSE and as such, they cannot respond to anything without benefit of being advised by legal counsel beforehand." But I'm not asking "SSE" or "the Board" or even "the SSE forum moderators" to respond to questions or concerns that may be posted in a thread of messages at the SSE forum board. I'm simply asking, right now, at this point in time, "why it's not deemed appropriate to discuss Mr. Whealy's departure from SSE at the SSE forum" if that discussion is between SSE members who are concerned about his departure and the issues it raises for the seed and livestock collections.

Fair enough?

Bill

Edit: I noted two things after I posted this message:

1) Keith posted a message at about the same time. While I agree with what Keith is saying and thank him for his support of my question, I'd like my question answered before we go off on any tangents about the past ... not that what Keith says in his message would lead in that direction ... I just would like an answer first.

2) I re-read Mischka's message and it can be read as though SSE adminstration is telling SSE forum moderators not to discuss anything associated with Whealy's departure ... so maybe my question will never be answered by anyone who has their fingers on the censor button over at the SSE forum. Too bad really. My queston is valid. There are no rules as of this morning given at the SSE forum boards that would prohibit such a discussion so long as the discussion were not a rant and was conducted in a civil fashion.

[lavandulagirl]

I really think sunlight is needed on this. I was reading a discussion about the SSE split on another forum, and it was suggested that there might have been personal reasons for Mr. Whealy's abrupt dismissal. That would certainly be none of anyone's business, in terms of what they actually were, but it would go a long way towards reassuring people that there would be no grand changes as to SSE's mission.

It would behoove SSE to nip all the speculation in the bud, before it does hurt them, Whealy's desires to the contrary or not.

[jtcm05]

Nah! The mods at tville/SSE don't think of members as peons. Nah.


I got the letter and read it last night. Very disheartening, but still only one side of the story. Would love to hear from some of the employees there. Would also love to see the financial statements of SSE to find out where a non-profit organization has the capital to offer him a $240,000 golden handshake.

[paquebot]

Regardless of who started a thread on the SSE forum, the knowledge of its apparent deletion will get around. I didn't see it and thus can't comment on it. However, if it existed and is now gone, it would indicate that SSE doesn't want the general membership to know anything about it for awhile. That may have been possible in the days of the Pony Express but not in this age of instant messaging. Attempting to hide a two-ton elephant under a bushel basket ain't going to work for long!

I've already notified a number of people, SSE & non-SSE alike, to contact Kent Whealy with nothing more than an address to keep it as simple and expedient for him. I want them to get a chance to read the entire letter rather than just excerpts or any individual's condensed opinion. SSE is a non-profit organization supported mainly by donations from the public. Therefore I think that it is a right of those donors to know what in hell is going on!

Martin

[Alan]

Exactly my point, all over the web on every site I've seen this posted on with people asking for the letter to be posted for people who aren't yet members but are thinking about joining the general consensous has been the direct quote from Kent about still supporting SSE, that's fine, but Kent also had to know that this letter and his concerns would in some way affect the membership of SSE.

I personally am looking forward to joining the SSE but would really like to read the content of Kents letter and the accusations from his side as well as the other side before making my decision, I feel that is the business of anyone who is a current member, a renewing member, or those looking at a first time membership, it is our business to know what exactly is going on and what exactly will be done or is being done with our membership dues. I would e-mail Kent myself if I didn't think he was already inundated with messages and would respond to me but I doubt highly that he has time to fool with me our or message board in his ongoing fight right now.

So, if someone is interested in posting the letter here for non-members or unlisted members to read and comprehend prior to joining or to at least post a summary of what is said in the letter I myself would greatly appreciate the shared knowledge which would help me form and educated opinion on whether or not the support to SSE of my membership dues is really going into an organization with it's head on it's shoulders.

Respectfully disagreeing with anyone who thinks this is not non-members or future members business,

Your friend,
Alan R. Bishop

[bluelytes]

ALAN,
You are MOST correct, IMHO re: disagreeing with anyone who thinks this is not non-members or future members business. Good call.

[PapaVic]

Well, in some respects it is solely a "member issue" since SSE is comprised of and supported by its members. And all the fruit and vegetable varieties not specifically maintained by SSE are maintained by the SSE members who list them in the Yearbook.

For example, in the 2007 Yearbook there are 726 SSE members listing 12,920 unique varieties in 20,433 individual listings. These listings reflect God knows how many hours in the orchards and gardens of SSE members who meticulously grow, harvest, prepare and share the seeds.

Bill

[paquebot]

billpapavic said:

For example, in the 2007 Yearbook there are 726 SSE members listing 12,920 unique varieties in 20,433 individual listings. These listings reflect God knows how many hours in the orchards and gardens of SSE members who meticulously grow, harvest, prepare and share the seeds.

Bill

Exactly what you said there is what really got my dander up just about a year ago and woke me up that something wasn't right with our world. A person who seeming had spent many years promoting SSE went on record as advising gardeners to buy their seeds from established companies rather than through the Yearbook. Now that same person goes on record as saying that she knows what's happening with this fiasco but won't say. Leaves me with several options for thought. One is that she's been aiding the party or parties involved in the takeover. The other is that she truly doesn't care who wins or loses as long as it doesn't affect what's left of her shrinking island.

Martin

[canadamike]

The tons of people who admire SSE and Kent might very well think it is a public matter and are right in a way, because of SSE'S importance in the world, in our own vision of the world especially.

But this is nevertheless a members owned organization. I pledged my money to them for the last 2 years. I could not be a listing member prior of being one of course. But I made a decision to step in, it has cost me money and has given me the chance to feel the organisation and decide to be involved.

My plans were to seed enough to offer this year. But at least I put my money where my mouth was and paid my dues and bought seeds from them. It is call member support, or otherwise BEING INVOLVED, EVEN IF IT IS NOT AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, which is especially hard for a newcomer coming from another country.

Although nothing pleases me more than to see that internal matters of a non-profit organisation devoted to save our genetic heritage are becoming a public debate, I WOULD BE GREATLY OFFENDED IF NON-MEMBERS HAD A SAY IN WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT.

It would represent the denial of the usefulness and necessity to take action and get involved.

I am french speaking and do not feel perfectly at ease with the wording of my last sentences...please excuse me if I am rude.

My point is : THE RESOLUTION OF THAT CRISIS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANISATION

[canadamike]

The tons of people who admire SSE and Kent might very well think it is a public matter and are right in a way, because of SSE'S importance in the world, in our own vision of the world especially.

But this is nevertheless a members owned organization. I pledged my money to them for the last 2 years. I could not be a listing member prior of being one of course. But I made a decision to step in, it has cost me money and has given me the chance to feel the organisation and decide to be involved.

My plans were to seed enough to offer this year. But at least I put my money where my mouth was and paid my dues and bought seeds from them. It is call member support, or otherwise BEING INVOLVED, EVEN IF IT IS NOT AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, which is especially hard for a newcomer coming from another country.

Although nothing pleases me more than to see that internal matters of a non-profit organisation devoted to save our genetic heritage are becoming a public debate, I WOULD BE GREATLY OFFENDED IF NON-MEMBERS HAD A SAY IN WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT.

It would represent the denial of the usefulness and necessity to take action and get involved.

I am french speaking and do not feel perfectly at ease with the wording of my last sentences...please excuse me if I am rude.

My point is : THE RESOLUTION OF THAT CRISIS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANISATION is a matter of great public interest. But those who are not members can comment on it as long as they want, they have no privilege in having a word.

The silver lining in that story would be that it gets out in the real world, not only amongst ourselves, the few who care for genetic preservation and enrichment...

If it makes national news, we will ALL have won a small victory, because SEED SAVING will at last be a concern for the medias. But I don't count on it. A couple of small articles won't change the world.

We will do much more by saving seeds. It is silent but pervasive...

Michel

Lets keep everything in perspective

[Alan]

I don't want non-members to have a say in anything that will happen in the situation and don't think they will, even if they could I don't believe they should myself.


My only concern stems from wanting to join the SSE but having reservations knowing the amount of time and passion and the life that Kent Whealey put into SSE has now been taken from him and I would like to know what is going on internally with SSE before I invest money into their organization.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to take anything away from them as an organiaztion and I'm quite sure they are able to handle things compitently, but it would be nice to know why there is such a rift there and if these are major concerns to the future of SSE and how the money is handled then I would like to know what is up before I spend my hard earned money supporting them, exspecially if they have $250,000 to throw around at somebody so that someone doesn't open their mouth and are censoring topics at their message board concerning such topics, to me that sounds kind of fishy and seems like a "Nothing to see here, move right along" kind of dillema to me.

I also don't see what the harm is in posting the letter that Kent obviously wanted to get out to members, I'm sure he would like the un-listed members to have this info as well and also those who are thinking of becoming members could also probably benefit from this information.

This is once again my opinion and I hope I don't offend the current membership of SSE, while I'm not currently a member I've definetly spent more than my fair share of money ordering seeds from their commercial site and supporting them in that way.

-Alan

[canadamike]

Dear Alan:

Got your seeds today by the way, it makes me confident to send you more than a couple of hundreds...And you almost gave me an orgasm...or at least it is what my wife Vivianne said. She asked me to ask you how to transform her into corn seeds LOL

I guess my sex life now depends on your ''experimental '' advice....

On the Kent topic...

I think most of us agree on the attitude to have towards the situation. Reason will prevail. But we are all emotional, which in a sense is in itself an immense testimony of his impact on us.

The guy is kind of the GHANDI of genetic preservation. Sure it is emotional, even for those of us who do not personnaly know him. Now, we realise his impact...

But lets not forget that the world changes. JOHN PAUL 2 is the most revered figure of modern christiannity, catholics and all the others included. No single christian figure had such an impact on modern times, like him or not (kind of like me).

The first thing the catholic church did after his death was make sure a second JP2 was NOT elected. Benoit 16 is a transitational figure...but he represents the roots of a change of personnality for the church. I don't like him, but change is good.

Kent is the same. The embodiement of his ideas are alive, I am my little self a proof of that. And are millions now.

His ideas will prevail.

Ghandi is still alive

[grunt]

"We will do much more by saving seeds. It is silent but pervasive..."
And that, in the end, is what we are all talking about here, is it not?
Cheers
Dan