IAPT - Restoring some balance

[Lyn Craven]

Fellow Taxacomers,

In the interests of fair play, I have forwarded the text below.  The text
was in a message received by me from the US four days ago.  It is of
interest that the first suggestion of moderation and internationalism in
this debate had to come from a non-US zoologist, and that the present
forwarding to Taxacom of  comment by Dr Greuter has come from a non-US
resident also.

If the proposed new order in IAPT comes in, the Americanisation of IAPT will
be nearly complete.  To most people, the public face of IAPT probably is the
journal 'Taxon'.  Should the executive officers of IAPT be US citizens and
should the present editors of Taxon be replaced by those officers, US
residents will dominate IAPT.  The prospect that, to "internationalise"
matters, some of the present Taxon editors be sacrificed to permit their
replacement by persons from other countries is treated with concern by me.
For example, I have limited funds with which to purchase library items and
Schmid's column is extremely important in the decision process as to how
those funds will be spent;  I do not want to see that jeopardised by
political machinations.

The publication of financial accounts, etc in Taxon would be welcome,
indeed, these documents need to be made known to the membership.  But I
object to the present proposals to remove effective workers from their
offices; we should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Regards,   Lyn Craven
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>>Date:          Thu, 13 Aug 1998 11:36:27 -0500 (CDT)
>>To:            ctaylor at lehmann.mobot.org
>>From:          biosrenn at admiral.umsl.edu (Susanne Renner)
>>Subject:       forwarded from W. Greuter (please circulate to whom it may
>>concern at MO or NY) Cc:            pjorgensen at lehmann.mobot.org,
>>wthomas at nybg.org
>>
>>Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:40:43 +0000
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Subject: Re: ???
>>Priority: normal
>>
>>....... [German first few lines directed to S. Renner, followed by:]
>>
>>Having now succeeded in getting hold of the text on which your
>>reaction was based, I feel compelled to respond. Please bear with me
>>if the reply is lengthy. When you have read it, I would value to have
>>your considered opinion on a number of points.
>>
>>The text of Anderson et al. is flawed and misleading to an incredible
>>degree. It is in fact the most wicked case of spiteful mobbing with
>>which I have ever been confronted. Some of those commenting to me have
>>obviously taken its statements, which I consider libellous, at face value.
>>I am particularly grateful to those who did not! Here are the main facts.
>>
>>When the IAPT Officers held their annual meeting in mid-July, the date for
>>submitting nominations (set too late due to an unfortunate oversight) had
>>not yet expired. Since this was to be the last pre-electoral Officers'
>>meeting, we then decided to act on the nominations received so far (which
>>comprised a lengthy list submitted by Funk, plus others including our own)
>>by drawing up a preliminary list, and to take subsequent nominations into
>>account through consultation by mail. At that point there was no nomination
>>yet of Prance, nor had Pat Holmgren been nominated for Secretary (nor had
>>we any foreboding that either would be). In our preliminary list, Holmgren
>>was one of three nominees who, subject to their agreement, were to run for
>>President.
>>
>>Naturally, when Holmgren's nomination for Secretary came in, I sought
>>immediate contact with her to explain the situation. I informed her of her
>>intended nomination for President. The statement that I (personally)
>>offered to put her up for President is thus inaccurate, and the inference
>>that this was done to lure her away from running for Secretary is base.
>>
>>I also informed Holmgren that, for objective reasons (to be explained
>>below), there had never in the long history of IAPT been more that one
>>candidate for either Secretary or Treasurer (the contrary statement you
>>have read is just plainly untrue); that the Officers had considered the
>>option to do so in the future but had discarded it; and that the other
>>Officers had considered my and Brigitte Zimmer's offer not to run again but
>>look for other nominees instead, and had declined it.
>>
>>For the case she would, after due consideration, prefer running for
>>Secretary, I explained to Holmgren what was needed from her side. The
>>Officers could not in earnest consider her offer without a proper
>>institutional bid and commitment to host and provide adequate
>>facilities for the IAPT Secretariat (or, in the somewhat outdated
>>language of our Constitution, the International Bureau for Plant
>>Taxonomy and Nomenclature). If such a bid was made and judged
>>satisfactory, I expressed my intent to withdraw my own nomination in
>>her favour. Please compare this with the statement by Anderson et al., the
>>"He [I] informed her [Holmgren] that the Officers would not allow anyone to
>>run against him for Secretary ...", and judge on your own.
>>
>>Finally, when asked by Holmgren how soon I needed her answer, I said
>>that it would be convenient to have it within a fortnight, so as to
>>keep things moving. The inference that I was setting deadlines to put
>>her or anyone under time pressure is unfounded, and my alleged
>>mentioning that I was "trying to finalize the ballot form as soon as
>>this week" [when the elections will take place next year] is
>>ludicrous.
>>
>>Now to democracy. Believe it or not, I am a firm adept of democracy as the
>>best possible way (the least bad, if you prefer) to run human affairs.
>>Democracy is the shared responsibility of many within a defined framework
>>of rules. Democracy in my home country (Switzerland, by far the oldest
>>extant example) follows different rules than it does in the States, or the
>>U.K., or Germany, yet all qualify as democracies. Democracy in IAPT,
>>naturally, follows IAPT rules not the U.S. constitution nor that of other,
>>e.g. national, scientific associations. Can we agree so far?
>>
>>IAPT was founded in 1950, and its constitution (modified only in minor
>>details since) was worked out by its first, co-opted Managing Board,
>>notably its initial officers who were a Swiss, a Dutch, an American, and a
>>Belgian. That constitutions places stress on stability and functionality -
>>rightly so I believe. It minimizes the risk of geographical unbalance and
>>limits the possible impact of pressure groups. It places the responsibility
>>of preparing candidates' lists for election upon the Executive Committee
>>(Officers plus Past President) since they are best placed to present a
>>balanced slate of competent persons. Members are asked to suggest (!)
>>nominations. The Executive Committee, an elected body, thus has a clear
>>statutory mandate.
>>
>>Funk has been spearheading a (so far anonymous) group of IAPT members
>>whose declared goal was to elicit suggested nominations for the next
>>IAPT elections. Fine. But then this group went on to draw up a slate,
>>even making its own selection among those nominated. "The number could go
>>no higher"; "it was not possible to include everyone nominated". Sorry, but
>>to me this is censorship by a self-appointed group usurping the role of the
>>competent constitutional body. Is this what you would call democratic? Just
>>think of what would happen, in your country, to a group crying for "revolt"
>>outside the constitution.
>>
>>Enough of this. I can inform you of the firm intent of the Officers to
>>present a widely open slate from which to choose. Whether Pat Holmgren's
>>name or mine will be on it for Secretary remains to be seen. This is one
>>point on which I would like to have your considered opinion. Before, let me
>>explain a few essentials on IAPT set-up and the duties of its Secretary.
>>
>>Under the joint responsibility of the Executive Committee, the
>>Secretary has the task of running the Secretariat (the "Bureau") and
>>is thus charged with the editing of the Association's publications. It is
>>therefore not only traditional but mandated by our constitution that the
>>Secretary carries a heavy work load and the concomitant responsibility
>>(call it influence if you wish). It is also imperative that he can avail
>>himself (or herself) of a very solid institutional base. Without a firm
>>commitment of the Secretary's home institution to support him (her) in
>>these duties, the functioning of IAPT would be seriously impaired.
>>
>>The IAPT has had two seats for its Secretariat so far: Utrecht
>>(1950-1987) and since then Berlin. The host institutions have in
>>either case been offering very satisfactory terms to IAPT: free office and
>>storage space, equipment, supplies, functioning costs, and above all,
>>substantial shares of time of its salaried staff. The main reason why the
>>IAPT has been discreet about its finances in the past (no accounts
>>published since 1959, which is indeed unusual and will change in the
>>future) was the wish not to risk losing that support by making it public. I
>>cannot tell for Utrecht and can only estimate for Berlin: the total input
>>in cash and kind into IAPT, over the last ten years, has been more than one
>>million dollars, which are the total assets of IAPT at the present date.
>>This includes half of my own working time and two-thirds of Brigitte's,
>>figures which are very much on the low side of reality.
>>
>>What does this mean in practice? IAPT has from the onset had a policy
>>of low membership fees, principally in order to be affordable for
>>botanists from less privileged countries. Regular membership fees at
>>present just about cover the printing and mailing cost for Taxon. The
>>whole editing, down to the production of camera-ready copy, is done at the
>>Secretariat at no cost for IAPT. Had IAPT to pay for this service, the cost
>>of Taxon (and logically the membership fee) would at least double. IAPT
>>might be reduced to a much smaller size by consequence, and become a
>>largely North American and European association.
>>
>>This background explains why, so far, the Secretary-to-be has always
>>been selected on an institutional basis. It was a negotiated position, and
>>will by necessity have to continue being so. The Secretary and Treasurer
>>(or Secretary-Treasurer, if no suitable second person was available at the
>>same institution) have always run unopposed, in full abidance to the
>>Constitution. I will in many ways be relieved if New York comes up with an
>>acceptable bid and I can thus step down (although deploring the
>>circumstances which may lead to such a change). I do not think that Berlin
>>should in any event run against New York; competition between persons may
>>be good sport, but between institutions it can be very negative.
>>
>>I am at a loss to understand the aggressiveness and enmity that
>>transpires from the Anderson et al. text and from a few of the
>>consequent reactions. I would of course appreciate to know what, in
>>your opinion, may be at their base. Can the mere fact that I hold a
>>few positions be the answer? In actual facts, the positions mentioned
>>are two: Secretary of IAPT and Rapporteur-general of botanical
>>nomenclature, all the other functions being automatically linked with
>>these two. Can it be that disagreement with me on nomenclatural issues is
>>the cause? But then, certainly, I am entitled to hold my opinions just as
>>others are (except that I am bound by decisions taken by the Nomenclature
>>Section, such as the charge for IAPT to set up and try out a system for
>>registering new plant names).
>>
>>In short, I would appreciate your advice. Please give it openly and,
>>may I ask, in a friendly spirit.
>>
>>Yours sincerely
>>
>>Werner Greuter
>>Professor Werner Greuter
>>Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem
>>D-14191 Berlin
>>wg at zedat.fu-berlin.de
>>http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/bgbm/staff/wiss/Greuter+W/default.htm
>>