I have once again received a letter from Kent Whealy urging members to take action. Since the letter is incredibly long, I am choosing not to publish it as I have done previously. If enough readers request the letter, I will consider publishing it on the web site. Further, Seedsavers.org has a forum but they have chosen to ban any discussion on this topic.

Before, we get into the meat of his letter, I urge all of you to visit Seedsavers.org. It is an amazing organization founded by Kent Whealy. The members are very helpful and friendly. This discussion regarding Kent, surrounds his termination from Seed savers. He has been blocked from any access to his research spanning over 33 years. I urge any board members to respond publicly to put an end to this issue.

A very broad summary of his letter includes some of the following points.

1. SSE deposit of seeds in the Svalbard seed bank.
2. Amy Goldman’s misuse of power
3. Reasons for his termination
4. Logo change

Some of my thoughts on the above topics.

1. Kent points out that SSE’s deposit of seeds in the Svalbard is the only deposit from a private company. He points out concerns over any country being able to request seeds from Seed Savers. Because of the signed agreement and the linked FAO Treaty, Seed Savers cannot deny a request for seed. His main concern is the ability for companies to genetically alter those seeds and then patent those derivatives.My question is; Why is Seed Savers depositing seed in a seed vault whose main goal is to breed new varieties? The summer harvest edition from Seed Savers on page 30 goes into great detail on this topic. I always was under the impression that Seed Saver’s main goal was to recover and maintain heirloom varieties. These varieties already show great diversity. Seed Saver members certainly breed new varieties but this doesn’t seem to be the main focus of the organization. This coupled with questions over patents does indeed raise concerns.
2. While I cannot go into detail about Amy Goldman’s misuse of power, Kent’s letter does give enough examples that she or the board should respond to any allegations.
3. The reasons for Kent’s termination is still unclear. It seems that he was terminated for purchasing a storage shed without board approval. The problem is that he states that it was a misunderstanding due to poor communication between himself and Amy Goldman. He also points out that the storage building was needed and in the end, another structure was repurposed for this need. Unfortunately, the original shed was converted into a seed storage facility instead of building a more appropriate structure.
4. The Seed Savers Exchange’s logo was changed. While it seems silly, this irritates me immensely. Firstly, there wasn’t anything wrong with the original logo. Secondly, there is a huge amount of cost associated with a logo change. Anything that contains the logo needs to be reprinted or changed as is the case with digital content. Lastly, the logos are very similar. Why not change the logo completely if there is a problem? The original logo shows an adult hand passing seed to a child’s hand. This certainly seems to convey the intention of The Seed Saver Exchange.

This short list certainly does not cover his 14 page letter, but I still feel that Kent is being treated unfairly. There is no evidence to date that suggests Kent was hurting this organization. Because of this, I urge the board members to give Kent access to his writings and resources.

“November 24, 2008

To the Listed Members of the Seed Savers Exchange,

I have just learned some extremely disturbing news that strikes at the very heart of SSE. I am deeply concerned about the willingness and ability of SSE’s current Board of Directors to protect SSE’s greatest asset – our invaluable and irreplaceable collection of heirloom seeds. The issue involves SSE’s recent affiliation with the Svalbard seed vault. Amy Goldman’s introduction in Seed Savers 2007 Harvest Edition stated, “…..we are preparing seeds to be sent for safety duplication to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway for its February 2008 opening. It is exciting to be part of this worldwide preservation effort.” Also in February 2008, SSE’s website posted a press release (“American food supply safeguarded by SSE contribution to Svalbard Global Seed Vault”) which states, “…..It opens officially on February 26, 2008. Seed Savers Exchange is among the opening-day depositors, making an initial deposit of seeds from 485 different vegetable varieties. With planned annual deposits of 2,000 vegetable varieties over the next several years, its deposits will eventually be among the largest at the Svalbard vault.”

SSE’s greatest treasure is its unique seed collection of 26,000 rare vegetable varieties (being permanently maintained at Heritage Farm), which represents the legacy and combined efforts of more than 3,500 Listed Members who have selflessly shared their families’ heirloom seeds during the last 33 years. SSE’s current leadership, with Amy Goldman as its Chair, may have exposed for patenting the 485 varieties that SSE deposited at Svalbard’s official opening last February. All depositors are required to sign the Svalbard Depositors Agreement (actually an international treaty with Norway) which links those deposits to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.), Article 7 of which states, “The Depositor agrees to make available from their own stocks samples of accessions of the deposited plant genetic resources and associated available non-confidential information to other natural or legal persons in accordance with the following terms and conditions:….” The agreement goes on to dictate that “original samples” (the other seeds of those 485 varieties being stored at Heritage Farm) are also covered by the terms of the FAO Treaty, which allows patenting on “derivatives” of those samples.

By signing the treaty, Seed Savers apparently cannot refuse any requests for seeds of those 485 varieties in storage in the seed vaults at Heritage Farm. That would mean Monsanto and others now can, as a right, request those 485 varieties of SSE’s heirlooms, splice in GMOs, patent the product and sell the seed. The actual movement of each sample covered by the FAO Treaty (including the “originals” of all samples deposited in Svalbard) will require the use and signing of FAO’s Standard Material Transfer Agreement (also part of the FAO treaty) that includes language describing a 1.1% tax on patents (the main way that the FAO Treaty will generate funding for itself).

Amy Goldman nominated Cary Fowler (head of the Global Crop Diversity Trust that is in charge of Svalbard) to be on SSE’s Board of Directors at the Santa Fe board meeting (March 2007). I never was involved in any discussion about whether or not SSE’s seeds should be sent to his “doomsday vault,” probably because they both knew I would be opposed. Svalbard has never been a necessary step for SSE – duplicate samples of SSE’s seed collection are already stored in a separate seed vault at Heritage Farm as insurance against fire and tornadoes, plus duplicate samples are also in “black box storage” at the National Seed Storage Lab in Fort Collins, Colorado. (Black box storage means the seeds belong entirely to SSE, are being stored only against catastrophic loss, and can be returned upon request.) Also I had become increasingly concerned because Svalbard’s corporate donors include Seminis and DuPont/Pioneer.

SSE’s seed collection is very much a Peoples Seed Bank, actually quite similar to countless collections of traditional seeds being maintained by villages of indigenous farmers throughout the world. Since the late 1970s Gary Nabhan and I have both been fighting individual battles to keep traditional seeds from being patented (for example, Hopi Blue Popcorn). A few years ago I sent Gary samples of all the Hopi varieties in SSE’s collection which – along with the Hopi varieties
being kept by Native Seed/SEARCH – were given back to the Hopi in a ceremony that was the largest repatriation of native seeds in history. The summer before I was fired, I included in Heritage Farm’s growouts nearly 100 Indian varieties from about 20 different tribes (20 sovereign nations) in anticipation of also repatriating those seeds. (Svalbard and the FAO Treaty don’t even recognize country of origin, much less indigenous farmers’ rights, which has already created serious problems involving sovereignty.) Are those Indian seeds now in Svalbard? That would certainly be touchy!

If all of this turns out to be true, then a portion of SSE’s invaluable seed collection has just been opened up for patenting, with the stated goal that SSE’s entire collection will follow. SSE’s board has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the organization and its seed bank. Please join me in asking SSE’s current leadership, with Amy Goldman as its Chair, how they can possibly be doing this on behalf of SSE’s membership? Does anybody really think that the stewards of SSE’s nonprofit seed bank – the only non-governmental organization involved – should be signing international treaties with seed banks and governmental agencies from 155 countries? We should all demand that the contract which put SSE’s heirloom seeds into Svalbard (who signed what and when?) be posted on SSE’s website, so SSE’s members can compare that contract with the documents below (which, be warned, are deliberately deceptive) to determine for themselves if SSE’s seeds should be returned. Nonprofits are supposed to be transparent. Make SSE’s board answer you; it is your right.

SSE’s current leadership, with Amy Goldman as its Chair, must show all of us any passages in any of these documents that would disprove our grave concerns. You can expect, however, that SSE’s board will instead issue a defensive statement (a non-answer) on SSE’s website, claiming that the seeds in Svalbard belong entirely to SSE and cannot be distributed, patenting cannot occur, SSE can get its seed back upon request. Only part of that is true. While it is true that the seeds actually stored in Svalbard can’t be distributed and can be returned upon request – in that sense all of the samples deposited in Svalbard are in black box storage – it is the linking of those deposits to the FAO Treaty that makes possible the distribution and patenting.   And don’t let them tell you that your fears about opening up SSE’s seed collection to patenting are unfounded and will never actually happen. If it is written into the treaty, it will eventually happen (exactly the same way the rights of farmers to save their own seeds have gradually been made illegal by similar treaties).

Fortunately all of this is reversible – Svalbard’s depositors can annul the agreement and recover their seeds. SSE’s next Board of Directors meeting is scheduled for December 4, 2008. Instead of trying to contact each of SSE’s board members individually (all of them will get this letter), send your concerns directly to SSE’s office at Heritage Farm (e-mails to: steph@seedsavers.org and phone calls to George DeVault: 563-382-5990 and letters to: Board of Directors, Seed Savers Exchange, 3094 North Winn Road, Decorah, IA 52101). Also, please share your thoughts with the board about Amy Goldman’s new SSE logo that’s being increasingly displayed on SSE’s website.

Recently I had the chance to gain limited access to my files (33 years of my speeches, writings, photos, research), but once again only if I signed away my voice, which I will never do. I fully accept my lifelong obligation to always speak the truth about what is best for Seed Savers.

Deeply concerned,
Kent Whealy
P.O. Box 653                      (phone: 231-547-7374)
Charlevoix, MI 49720          (e-mail: kentwhealy@gmail.com)

Svalbard Depositors Agreement: http://www.nordgen.org/sgsv/files/sgsv/SGSV_Standard Depositor_Agreement.pdf

FAQ’s International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources: ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/it/ITPGRe.pdf

FAQ’s Standard Material Transfer Agreement: ftp ://ftp. fao. org/ag/agp/planttreaty/agreements/smta/SMT Ae .pdf“

• Other staff members being released
• Denied access to his research. It was through his generosity that Seed Savers became the benefactor of those riches. To deny him access to his own life’s work seems unconscionable.
• No comments on the substantial influx of cash

As a member of Seed Savers I sincerely hope that the air clears over the coming months with more forthright information. I do understand the desire to abstain from commenting on some of the details of the departure. Unfortunately, this all too often, provides a veil, for corporations to disclose far too little information. I do appreciate the letter from the board but it seems to fall short on offering a substantial explanation.

Dear Members and Friends of Seed Savers Exchange:

By now some of you have probably received or heard about Kent Whealy’s unfortunate and lengthy letter about the end of his employment with Seed Savers Exchange. SSE acknowledges the resulting confusion and appreciates the expressions of support it has received. Kent’s letter has many inaccuracies, half-truths, and omissions. We cannot and will not comment on everything, as it would not be in the best interests of SSE to publicly reveal, discuss, or debate confidential internal personnel matters. However, the Board wants to correct a few of the most misleading points that were made in Kent’s letter so that you can better understand the history and the Board’s position.

First and foremost, we want to assure you that SSE is in excellent shape and is moving forward to achieve its important mission. SSE retained Phillips Oppenheim Group to conduct a national search for a new President/Executive Director in November 2007. In the interim, there is continuity of leadership at SSE. Diane Ott Whealy (co-founder and Vice President of Education), Aaron Whaley (Vice President of Sales), and Matt Barthel (Vice President of Gardens & Collections) remain in key roles and continue to bring their expertise to SSE. Staff have redoubled their efforts for SSE.

Kent’s letter, by its tone and content, demonstrates that his relationship with the Board had deteriorated beyond repair by the time of his departure. This did not happen overnight, nor was it based on a single incident. The Board’s unanimous decision to terminate Kent’s employment at the end of October 2007 was the culmination of years of fundamental problems with Kent’s performance, management, judgment, and conduct. The Board’s attempts to address and correct these problems with Kent were unsuccessful and matters only worsened. Kent mentions a few of these problems specifically, but provides only part of those stories. Just one of the incidents in this series of problems is the “shed” referenced in Kent’s letter. This is actually a 5000 square foot building that Kent ordered constructed at an estimated cost of $70,000. This was done without Board consideration or approval of the project, despite direction that this was required. This building has not been completed. The $70,000 Kent obtained for it, via a special anonymous donation, was insufficient, and the Board is now considering options and alternatives for the building. In summary, the ultimate decision to terminate Kent’s employment was not without warning; it was not unforeseen, capricious, or malicious. It was difficult and heart-wrenching, but inescapable.