Greetings.
I wish to respond to some of Mr. Black's comments. First, I would like to say that I am gratified to see a member make use of this forum for contributing to the governance of the Society. I have tried to do so, offering imput from time to time when I thought I had something necessary to say that-- for one reason or another-- was not going to get said otherwise, but over the course of time it seems to me that lamentably few AIS members have availed themselves of their prerogative to participate in these discussions.
First, I want to note that Mr. Black says he has experienced a shortage of communication on AIS matters of interest to him. I believe him, you see, because my own experience --and that of several members with whom I've discussed this-- is that communication in some quarters has reached an all time low. I tell you, frankly, it would never have occurred to me to ignore communications from an AIS member when I was serving the Society at the national level. It seems to me that is the least they have a right to expect. I think it is essential that any sincere communication involving Society business be acknowledged. If it is a crackpot letter, it must still be acknowledged. You may find it useful to develop a repertoire of efficient, courteous, and if necessary, non-committal or diplomatic responses-- I did-- but always respond, and always thank them for taking time to write to you. Members talk it when you don't.
Now, I want to speak to Mr. Black's thoughts on the Sections. I'm not at all sure I fully grasp what is being suggested here, but I would not, myself, even contemplate abolishment or compulsory merging of those organizations and their publications into the larger Society or Bulletin, even if were that definitionally possible. These diverse organizations fulfill a very important purpose, and it is not one which the national Society with its longstanding preoccupation with courting the favor of beginners-- whatever they may be--or the middle of the road member--ditto-- can also accomplish. The Sections arose from within to meet the needs of those who wanted more information about certain sorts of irises and they remain the place where in-depth conversations about and investigations of certain subjects are fully appropriate and welcomed. A person can be a crank and an intellectual in a Section, and it is okay.
In the Sections, specialization is the order of the day, and people can be as intense and fervid as they like without having to answer to pious charges of unwholesome prejudice or lack of balance in their Iris preferences. The Section publications can, in theory, publish material which is more highly specialized, possibly more advanced, than the Bulletin has traditionally presumed to be of interest to its average reader, which it presumes it must please.
Over the years I have, like an endless broken record, yes, but not without some hard-earned insight as foundation,sought to remind all that AIS must ever remember that keeping a healthy Society means not only recruiting a stream of newbies, but also retaining your abiding members in their full diversity, the ones who are not beginners any more, some of whom may by now know a great deal, people whose tastes may or may not be as giddy and mainstream as when they joined, but whose enthusiasms are seasoned and steady and want sustaining. This is for what the Sections are uniquely suited. Don't try to commandeer them and their imagined resources, or, I am confident, you will see an exit of members that will create a wake like the Titanic. The strength of the Sections arises specifically from their diversity and specialization, and you badly need them to flourish.
The wise Abraham Lincoln may have feared the consequences of a 'House Divided," but another wise man once said "In my Father's house there are many mansions." That wisdom, I suggest, might also be useful to bear in mind in this context.
Cordially,
Anner M. Whitehead
Richmond VA