IAC...Contrary to Bylaws?
This post is to try to describe one more time a very serious problem we
face in the AHS. The Executive Board one year ago passed under its
assumed authority, the IAC Policies/Program containing new rules
regarding registration. The Program provides for promotion, education
and use of hostas which are registered but intends to "minimize" ( I
assume it means discourage, discriminate against, blackball, prohibit
certain activities and to coerce growers, gardeners, hybridizers,
scientists, writers, exhibitors and buyers and sellers of hostas from)
engaging in activities involving unregistered hostas.
This Program of segregation, apartheid and discrimination between
registered and unregistered hostas appears to conflict with AHS Bylaws.
Where in the Bylaws is the Board authorized to make an arbitrary
separation between one group of hostas which it will maximize and
another group which it will minimize? Article II, Section A states that
"the Society was organized exclusively as a non-profit educational
society formed to foster and promote knowledge of and interest in the
genus Hosta, to encourage the introduction of the genus into
cultivation, the development of new and improved varieties and to
promote International Hosta Registry". If even a part of the strategy is
intended to minimize some hostas, this is just the opposite of its
stated goals regarding these hostas.
Which hostas will it minimize? IAC policy intends to minimize
unregistered hostas. These include:
1. all hosta species in gardens as ornamentals
2.all hosta species used in breeding programs
3.all unregistered hosta hybrids or sports used in breeding programs
4.all unregistered streaked breeder plants that differ from their
registered unstreaked siblings or progenitors
5.hundreds of thousands of seedlings being produced by hundreds of
6.all seedlings or sports one year or older undergoing evaluation until
they are mature
7.all plants used in research and development ( such as natural or
induced polyploids, sports, or tissue chimeras, plants used in
physiology studies or pest control research)
8.all unregistered plants in tissue culture or other propagation
9. all plants in collections from the wild or from other collections
The IAC Program is claimed to be a well thought out Program. Really?
Then why does it appear to violate existing Bylaws? Why has there been
so much opposition to it? Why has it created more problems within the
AHS than any unidentified or any undescribed nomenclatural problems it
was designed to correct?
IMO, registration is not a crititeria important enough to establish an
artificial distinction of two distinct groups of hostas...one
registered, one un-registered... which is so divisive in character.
In addition to the hosta problem, there is the people problem. I have
learned from experience that if a person dissents against IAC, the
person gets minimized also. Because one dissents, one may become
punished and have his rights as an AHS member taken away.This whole
policy is un-American, undemocratic, irrational, silly, divisive and
unwize. Because I have also called it stupid, I get accused of personal
attacks and get "minimized". This is insane!!! Where is our sense of
What makes unregistered hostas less "preferred", less desirable for use
in our gardens? Why is the sigma attached only to those which are bought
and sold? This looks like interference in the marketplace ( not the role
of a non-profit organization), which is a requirement under Article II,
Section B of the Bylaws.
Is IAC contrary to our Bylaws? I suggest it is. Opinions from anyone of
the several lawyers on or outside the Board?
To sign-off this list, send email to email@example.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN