Re: Policy Conflict II
At 07:45 PM 09/02/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>Robins,
>
>This is a continuation of a discussion of AHS policies and programs
>flowing from them. They are
>intended to be a summary of events and facts to inform AHS membership of
>policies which affect the
>well being of the Society. It represents a partial critique of the
>policies and in no way is intended to
>be personal judgments of people themselves.
>
>I have assessed the article written by President Jim Wilkins in Journal
>29.2, page 99.. My comments
>follow:
>
>Jim Wilkins informs us that we have an increasing problem with
>unregistered hostas. There are more
>than 700 of them and more are coming in future years from hybridizers,
>nurseries and tissue culture
>labs.He explained that because the registration process was difficult
>and the costs were high, there
>was little incentive to register new introductions. He says the problem
>is complex. I looked further
>for what is the increasing problem. I could find no description of the
>increasing problem except that
>the numbers of plants that are yet unregistered are increasing. But what
>is the problem? He didn't say.
>I suggest that a discription of the problem should have been made
>first, then an analysis made to
>determine if the problem is able to be solved. Included in this analysis
>should be an estimation of its
>costs, in qualitative and qualititive terms as well as expected
>benefits, both qualitative and
>quantitative..Only then should decisions be made to adopt policies which
>lead to program decisions.
>Summary of this portion of the article: The preliminary work in policy
>and program design was
>overlooked. The justification for the program is lacking. No proof is
>given that the program is feasible
>from a financial, economic, technical or social standpoint. Without such
>justification the proposal
>developed by whomever should not even have been presented and
>considered for adoption and
>implementation. The Board approved it nevertheless without meeting
>common sense criteria.
>
>But let us continue to examine other elements of the Policy/Program.
>
>The program flowing from the approved policies will deal only with
>hostas identified by a cultivar
>name. No species names or cultivars with numbers will be included. No
>reason is given for these
>technical decisions.. It was simply a declaration...a rule, without an
>explanation. If people are
>expected to follow orders/rules, they need to be convinced that there is
>a valid reason that they
>should. This decision. IMO, fails the social soundness criteria needed
>for widespread participation
>by the general membership and the many nurserymen expected to be
>involved..
>
>The originator of the program was not identified. This is important
>information to present because it
>may reflect on why the program is being proposed for consideration An ad
>hoc Committee was
>established, composed of Bob Solberg, representing the Growers
>Association, Steve Greene
>(Owner of The Hosta Finder, a reference book for retail prices and
>sources of hostas), Warren I
>Pollock,and Jim Wilkins, Committee Chairman. Others who provided
>services in the development of
>the Policy/Program include C.H. Falstad, W. George Schmid and Dave
>Stevenson.
>No comment is made regarding the selection of this Committee. I prefer
>not to make comments on
>anyone person selected because this could become an inflamatory
>subject. I will let others comment
>in such cases where selection affects them personally. Thus, I will
>remain flame-free.
>
>Rules decided upon are many and detailed. I will summarize the most
>important of them as listed by
>the author.
>
>Starting Jan.1,1999, hostas on the IAC list published in the Journal,
>compiled by Steve Greene, will
>be identified as IAC designated plants.When these plants are registered,
>this designation will be
>dropped. The goal is for all IAC plants to be registered by 1999 and
>2000.
>
>Starting Jan. 1, 1999, all IAC designator plants not registered will not
>be allowed into AHS events or
>publications. They may only be referred to by parentage (meaning
>seedlings or sports of H. "x", for
>example). A list of these plants which have been so designated will be
>published in early 2001.
>
>The details of these rules are so overwhelming in their attempt at
>control and manipulation of
>people's behavior, that no further comments are needed. These rules fail
>in any social soundness
>criteria analysis.. Non- participation by members and growers has
>already occurred on a massive
>scale and is expected to increase. Short term performances and repulsion
>of these rules has been
>observed by many. This points out the failure of these rules to
>encourage stated objectives of the
>Society. These polices are producing the opposite effect of what is
>desired. There certainly has been
>no proof that increased registration of named hosta cultvars has
>resulted from adoption of these rules.
>I give this element of the Program a big minus for obvious reasons.
>
>The program provides for registering proceedures to be simplified and
>that costs be reduced . This
>has indeed provided the incentive for those with new introductions
>"worthy" of being registered, to
>proceed when the plant is considered mature and stabilized to a uniform
>morphology. I think this is
>the best
>part of the Program. In fact, this is the only part of the program that
>is needed to accomplish stated
>objectives. I congradulate the Committee for instituting this provision.
>But the rest of the elements are
>not needed. They should be scrapped as being non- feasible and
>worthless, thus should be
>eliminated.
>
>The program provides for educating AHS membership on the importance of
>registration. The AHS
>will try to influence members of regional and local societies to only
>buy and sell registered hostas
>after Jan 1 2001.
>
>IMO, this smacks of manipulation of membership.. To achieve this goal, I
>suggest that first, it is
>necessary to demonstrate the importance of registration .Since this has
>not yet been done, it is
>important to first identify the reasons why named hostas should be
>registered, and to demonstrate just
>how important registration really is. Until this is done, no claims that
>it is important should, or can, in
>all honesty, be made.
>
>The Program description continues with...Working with the American Hosta
>Growers Association,
>the Committee will attempt to obtain a committment of growers who will
>buy and sell only registered
>hosta plants. A list of Preferred Growers who commit themselves to the
>ethical and professional
>standards (only registered hostas after Jan 1 2001) , will be
>established, promoted,etc.
>
>Only Preferred Growers will be given incentives to:
> - use theur distinctive logos in AHS publications
> - be listed annually
> -be on the hosta growers list sent out to new members
> -listed on the AHS Web Page
> -allowed to advertize in AHS publications
> -allowed to sell at Concventions
>
>In summary, Jim Wilkins explained that the program will be LARGE and
>IMPORTANT. And that
>he will report periodically on progress.
>
>For those of us who are keeping track of the response of growers,
>nurserymen, tc labs and just plain
>hosta gardeners to these rules within the Program, I believe it can be
>summarized that the
>simplification of the registration proceedures and the cost reductions
>are positive incentives to register
>new introductions. Other than that, the rest of the program should be
>scrapped because the devil is
>in the details, so to speak. Many details, rules, prohibitions,
>incentives to some and punishnments to
>others and lack of rational makes the overall program destined to
>failure. If you don't believe it, talk
>to the growers . Almost to a man (and woman) they are opposed the all
>elements of the program
>except the simplification of registration and lowering of the costs of
>registration. My recommendation
>is to junk everything else in the program. It doesn't meet the usual
>accepted criteria for a successful
>program.
>
>This critique has not been requested by anyone. It is my personal
>opinion. In the absence of any
>periodical report from the president during the last year as promissed,
>I can make no other
>conclusions than those I have made based upon my own examination of
>events as they have
>occurred.
>.
>Jim Hawes
>
>The next discussion will be a continuation of AHS policies as described
>by the Panel of AHS officials
>at the Winter Scientific Meeting in Jan. 1999. Stay tuned if interested.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
>message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
>
>jim, i think u hit the nail squarly on the head, in my travels no one has
said anything good about this except let it pass. case closed, let it die.
I dought it well ever be brought up again
indianabob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN
