I also received the letter, and have sent an email to an individual on the advisory board with whom I am acquainted. I'll let folks know if I learn anything more.
Susan

Keep us updated. I am interested in this too. Below is a copy of the letter I sent to the board requesting information.

Dear members of the board,

I have been a member of SSE for several years and listed several varieties.I feel that genetic preservation that SSE is doing is very important and have spread the word to many other gardeners. Several are now also members of SSE.

I was concerned when I received a the SSE Fall Harvest Edition and learned that Kent Whealy was no longer with SSE. As there was no explanation on why he left SSE I went through to the old newsletters to see if there was any mention of Kent planning to leave and could find none only generic long term mentions of endowing SSE so it could continue after he and Diane were no longer involved. I found no mention on your web site either. Knowing that life takes many unexpected turns I contacted SSE to find out more information but received no answer.

Now I receive a letter from Kent Whealy about how he was forced out of SSE. I know that there are always at least two sides to a situation and that every party has its own point of view. Before I jump to conclusions as many other member are doing I would like some information.

I would appreciate a (1) response on why Kent was removed if possible, (2) a statement that the Board of Advisors will be retained with its current membership, that the (3) Annual Report will continue to be available either through your web site, in a SSE publication or by request through SSE, (4) that the endowment to maintain SSE's seed collection be established and (5) statement that SSE's core mission will not change from preserving genetic diversity, seed exchanging and making these varieties available to its members.

In the past I never gave it much thought on the board of SSE and what say I had on it as a membership. I always assumed it operated similarly to a public companies board where stock holders had a say on the board. Could you clarify this for me. Is it possible for members to nominate members to the board or to vote on the board make up. This would seem to create a more transparent system and allow the membership to steer the board to meet the memberships needs and mission of preserving the genetic diversity.

I look forward to your response.

Also I would like to forward two names for the Officer position of President/Executive Director ...

Very good letter.

Thanks!

George

I too noticed a change when Kent did not write the Introduction in the past Harvest Edition and I was at that time very surprised. I too received the letter from Kent (sent too all past "listed" sse members from the annual Yearbooks). I am very concerned and would like to find out more.

Blueflint

Just posted:

Here is a link that might be useful: SSE Board Response to Kent's email

I believe the board has provided some valuable information. I have asked the following questions and have receive responses for most:

(1) Response on why Kent was removed if possible.
This seems to go back several years and all the details may never be known. This could be a soap opera. I respect the fact that due to personal or personnel issues all these details may not be available to the public.

(2)A statement that the Board of Advisors will be retained with its current membership
The board has indicated that it intends to maintain the Board of Advisors

(3) Annual Report will continue to be available either through your web site, in a SSE publication or by request through SSE,
They will publish SSE's financial statements in the annual Summer Editions as always

(4) That the endowment to maintain SSE's seed collection be established
No specific mention on that yet, but since the mission of the organization has not changed hopefully this should continue to move forward.

(5) Statement that SSE's core mission will not change from preserving genetic diversity, seed exchanging and making these varieties available to its members.
They have several time reinforced that SSEs mission and vision has not changed

(6) What is SSEÂs governance structure?
This has not changed even with the bylaw changes. We did not have governance before and do not have it now. Personally I feel even though adding governance would add expenses to membership that governance should be provided to members. Members established that valuable seed collection that exists and should have direct say on how it is used.

(7) What committees have been formed since March 2007?
SSE has six committees, in which SSE staff members, SSE Board of Advisors members, and SSE Board Members participate:
Seed Collection Committee
Publications Committee (SSE's publications include membership publications as well as books and a catalog)
Audit & Finance Committee
Personnel Committee
Board Development Committee
Executive Search Committee (ad hoc)
All seem legitimate to me.

(8)Why was the membership bylaw changed?

I believe the response to this is that Iowa non-profit law changed.
My brief research seems to indicate this language change although it seems dramatic, actually changed our member status very little, if at all.

To quote IowaÂs code: "Member" means a person who on more than one occasion, pursuant to the provisions of a corporation's articles or bylaws, has a right to vote for the election of a director or directors of a corporation, irrespective of how a member is defined in the articles or bylaws of the corporation.

We did not have governance before and do not have it now. This change may have the impression that our status or rights have been compromised when in fact they have not been. We never had governance. How that comes as a surprise to me even though I never received a voting form in the past give is alarming. I believe we always should have had governance and this issue just has opened my eyes to that.

Iowa code still allows SSE to have membership and refer to us as members even though we are not members in the by-laws. This was the essentially the case before since we did not have governance and is the case today.

(9) I also feel that an at-large member from a listed member that is not a major donor should be added to the board.
This has not yet been addressed. A boardÂs widespread support requires a diverse board, including representation from groups the organization directly serves. (http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/Nonprofits/IAPP4CNE.pdf) I believe this should be examined as "members" who actually do the seed sharing should have an at large board member to represent our concerns, needs and wants for the organization.

Hopefully the board will eventually fully answer my questions (4,8,9), but I feel they have answered many already.

Two asides:

Upon further research I believe SSE has always been a public benefit corporation even though members may of considered it more of a mutual benefit corporation when it concerned seed sharing.

The board has a Fiduciary Duty. Although its actions may be unpopular nothing in its responses has indicated to me that they are not fulfilling this fiduciary duty.

I just returned from the 2009 SSE conference, where my husband and I were both SHOCKED by the glib, commercial, out-of-touch speech by Amy Goldman. I did research and found out much about this entire sad situation. AND I have found a link to, and information about, Kent Whealy's most recent letter decrying the take over of SSE, which I am posting in its entirety (including the link to a pdf of Kent's letter), from the excellent garden blog, "Bifurcated Carrots."

http://www.patnsteph.net/weblog/2009/07/kent-whealys-latest-letter-to-sse-members/

Kent Whealys Latest Letter to SSE Members
July 19, 2009 · Filed Under General, Getting Political

I seem to be one of the first few to receive Kent Whealys latest letter to members of the Seed Savers Exchange. I dont see a lot of discussion about it on the Internet yet. In the past he didnt send his letters to overseas members of the SSE, and this time international postal delivery seemed to have worked in my favor and I got it here in Amsterdam before people in North America.

Anyhow, I thought I would be one of the first to write some thoughts about it. In short its a 14 page letter (breaking his previous record of 8 pages), detailing his grievances with the SSE and in particular with Amy Goldman and the other board members.

I think its pretty fitting while we get this letter the leader of Honduras is trying to regain control of his country he lost under similar circumstances. Even though many people have problems with President Manuel Zelaya personally, he has wide spread support around the world because the coup that ousted him breaches international laws and norms. This isnt the right way to oust a leader you dont like.

The same applies to Kent Whealy, you dont just cast the founder of an organization out on the street and tell him to shut up.

I am particularly repulsed at the way the SSE has attempted to silence its critics. If you try to discuss Kent on their Internet forum, you will surely be banned. There was at least one person I know of who was banned from the forum a few days ago, apparently in a pre-emptive strike, but in fairness he was reinstated after it was determined to be a mistake.

Kent himself has been harassed by lawyers from the SSE, a situation he compared with Monsanto suing the roughly 450 farmers who have had their crops contaminated with GM genes, then silencing them with non-disclosure agreements. When the SSE isnt threatening him with legal action, they are offering him huge amounts of money to shut up.

The SSE shows many symptoms of an organization losing control of their objectives and purpose. Many members have commented they seem to be out of touch with what their members want. Above all else, I call on the SSE to stop trying to control what people say or think. The days are past where people appreciate this.

If there are members of the SSE management who cant stand up to their critics, its time for them to step down. There isnt anyone in the SSEs management who is simply entitled to be in the position they are in. If anyone exposed their own weaknesses in the course of terminating Kent Whealys employment, its time for them to leave too.

And here is a direct link to the letter itself:

Prairegal,

Here are some things to consider:

1) Of the entire advisory board of the SSE, most of whom were chosen by Kent himself, not one of them has come out against the actions of the organization itself. A good number of these folk have no financial ties to the SSE.

2) Diane Whealy, co-founder of the SSE continues firm in her support of the organization. Why assume that Diane has sinister motives? How did these two split? Diane didn't leave Kent. Who changed?

3) Was Diane any less involved in founding the SSE?

4) Why do so many automatically assume that she is in the wrong?

5) I've seen similar situations from the inside. This does not necessarily prove that Kent is in the wrong. But in other similar situations I've seen the "big man" willing to hurt the organization, once he is not in control. The SSE is an organization. Kent Whealy, while having done some really great things, is not the SSE.

Prariegal, you are barking up the wrong tree. Kent Whealy brought this on himself. You did not do due diligence in finding out what happened. I would suggest a much more thorough search to find the details you are missing.

I went through this whole messy story a long time ago. Hopefully you will take time to do the same now.

This is not to say that I agree with Amy Goldman or her view of SSE.

DarJones

If even 5% of what Kent W has said in his 2 long letters has a shred of truth, then anyone who gives a hoot about S.S.E. should be shaking in his or her boots.