hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Policy Conflict III

I an very aware that what one writes is written forever, whether in
stone, papyrus, paper or electronic signals.I have written an account of
events that took place at the Mid-West Hosta Society's Meeting near
Chicago on Jan.  23, 1999. It consists of three e-mail posts addressed
to AHS Robin prepard during the period January 26-28, 1999. Its purpose
is to address the substance of discussions  by a panel of AHS officials,
before, during and after  the Winter Meet. It is my own personal
interpretation from observations and participation in the overall
events. I apologize if the material is redundant to those familiar with
it.But it may be new to many others. I submit it as part of my on-going
discussion on IAC Policy/Programs which were approved by the Board in
October 1998. My submission is in three parts as originally presented.
What I wrote in late January is still applicable at this date (early
September, 1999)....only a few minor details may have changed.

After attending the Winter Scientific Meeting sponsored by the Midwest
Hosta Society, I will attempt to respond to Kevin Walek's AHSE-MAILROBIN

post of  Jan 17, 1999 entitled "Dan, I disagree in Part". This post was
a follow-up to Dan Nelson's post of Jan 16, 1999 entitled "Re: Robin
Discussion" and Kevin's post of Jan 10, 1999 entitled "AHS
Decisionmaking". All posts set the stage for a  better understanding of
what happened at the AHS Officer's Panel Discussion, the last item on
the program from 5 PM to 6PM on Saturday, Jan 23, 1999. This post and
others to follow represent my analysis of events prior to, during and
immediately after the Scientific Meeting. If you are doubtful about the
substance  of these discussions, I refer readers to all of the
background material cited as a reference point of departure for this
discussion. If any of my characterizations are incorrect, I invite
comments from readers to make corrections. If you are not reading, then
you are not interested for various reasons. That's OK with me.

As an AHS member of many years with a plant scientific background, I
have attended all of these meetings except the first one ( from the time

I first learned about them). These meetings have been a valuable source
of new information and its exchange. Congradulations to Tom Micheletti
for his leadership and for inviting those ouside the Midwest Region to

On the occasion of this meeting, the Panel Discussion was planned
several months in advance, so I understand. The content of its
discussion was highly influenced by the new Policies and Program of the
Interim Accepted Cultivars as described in an article written in the
Journal by Jim Wilkins, President of the AHS in the latest Edition of
the Hosta Journal. I will not review it because it is available for all
AHS members to study.

Panel Members included Jim Wilkins, Clarence Falstad ( VP AHS), Kevin
Walek (Editor of the Hosta Journal) and Dave Stevenson (Hosta
Registrar).Several questions had been submitted through various channels

previous to the meeting as suggested by Kevin Walek. He indicated in his

post to Dan Nelson that the Officers would NOT be picking the questions
and that the moderator would be allowing questions from the floor if
they were follow-up question to previously asked questions. He indicated

that "we are not just taking the easy ones. Jim Hawes' questions are on
the list". I had submitted in a private E-MAIL message to Jim Wilkins
and Kevin Walek on Jan 14, 1999, the following narrative:

 I have made the case previously that if the AHS allows Zonneveld to
advertise the sale of his Plagiarized Literary Works on the
AHSE-MAILROBIN, then the AHS is condoning, perhaps even ENCOURAGING
plagiarism. This reflects on the image of the AHS negatively.

I request in private that the Majordomo and her Committee act in some
fashion to prevent this ( such as telling him he can't do this).If I see

no action in this matter or receive no response, I intend to raise this
as a policy issue publically at the Midwest Meeting in Chicago on the
occasion of the Officials' Panel Discussion on AHS Policy."

Note that we were advised in Kevin's post of Jan 17, 1999 that the
concerns quoted above would be included on the list. THEY WERE OMITTED.
Also note that my post of concern was addressed in private first to
officals who were in a position to act as requested. They promised to
act as described in Kevin's post of Jan.17 but failed to act as
promised. It is for this reason that I have now made known publically
what I first attempted in private without success.

Kevin set the stage for the Panel discussions in his post of Jan.10,
1999, in which he expressed hope that the post would allow for some
refocusing and help us all move forward toward making a bigger and
better AHS". We all agree with this goal. But I wondered WHO was
supposed to do the refocusing. I found out in a later portion of the
post in which he admonished all..."I know it is hard, but take a broader

view, and I think you will see that I am right... please be
patient...the Board (is) trying to make the decisionmaking process more
open to your scrutiny and comment, but it can never be instantaneous."
He had previously indicated that "Again, due to the speed of the medium,

before we are even able to explain ourselves, the LYNCHMOB is formed and

it is difficult to reach a middle ground". So there you have the
scenario as defined by Kevin...the DECISIONMAKERS vs the LYNCHMOB. Now
lets go to the Meeting to see what was said. For convenience, I prefer
to continue with Part Two ..."What happened at the meeting", followed by

Part Three..."What happened after the meeting".

So stay tuned if interested.

Jim Hawes

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index