October, 1999

This article was originally sent to the NAFEX Board at the 1986 annual meeting in Michigan. As we look to the 1999 meeting, it seems an appropriate time to reconsider Fred's observations. References to Fred's illness and lengths of time, of course, are from thirteen years ago. - Ed.]

The recent illness from which I am recovering and which prevents me from joining my friends at the NAFEX meeting has temporarily forced me into a contemplative fruit-exploring stance. Inevitably, my thoughts wander to NAFEX and its health. Nineteen years ago I was Pomona's midwife when the first issue was born.

At this point in the life of NAFEX nothing is more important than to remind ourselves constantly that, when it comes to our fruit hobby, each of us is an independent personality. Nobody forced us to found NAFEX or to join it and pay dues. Nobody can force you or me to become a pseudo-professional, or a 'hobbycrat'. A truly voluntary organization also implies that all members are equal regardless of function or knowledge, and that all are willing to share their findings as well as the common work- load. This concept is different from that of more common organizational structures such as business enterprises, public administration, professional bodies or churches where we cannot do our own thing but are expected to conform and where we are caught in an established pecking order and subject to somebody's budget. None of us would consciously wish this type of organization upon NAFEX. Could it be that this pattern, so dominant and pervasive in our daily lives, has started to invade NAFEX, like a virus invades a stagnant growing point? Is it producing hobbycrats who, with the best of intentions, start to regulate and dominate the volunteering hobbyist for what they perceive as his own good and that of a higher cause?

In the early years, the NAFEX membership consisted of a majority of active and contributing fruit explorers. Since then the membership has increased tenfold but the overwhelming majority is made up of passive subscribers. They may be progressive experimenters in their fruit garden, but to them Pomona is just another quarterly published by strangers. The explanation is simple: NAFEX has become an institution and is less and less perceived as an open group of enthusiastic people. We don't reach out any more.

We have forgotten that the founding fathers wanted each member to contribute an observation, if not an article, every few years. We don't even encourage members to write and contribute, at least not in the recent Pomona issues. Instead, we feel that they don't have to send in an article as long as they send in more tangible dollars to fill our coffers. We have adopted a non-amateur mentality centred on organization, finances, and stability. We are advertising gift subscriptions, we are gloating over the bank assets of NAFEX which have grown a hundredfold since 1968. We get excited about our Wall Street-type of success story and we act like money gardeners rather than fruit gardeners.

In the early years, we made ends meet comfortably; we had no surpluses bearing interest but we had many dedicated volunteers who did not mind spending their money on postage in order to solicit an article; it was part of the fun of belonging.

If one asks now why we are accumulating thousands over thousands of dollars, we learn that: NAFEX badly needs reserves; it may be hit hard by the next recession, or we just might decide to buy a new computer or a piece of land. However, if we are not able to formulate a sound forward plan, we don't need any reserves. NAFEX will prosper as long as it is generating enthusiasm. If it becomes stagnant in the absence of wise leadership, bank accounts won't be of any help. They may prolong the agony if used as bribes paid to volunteers and functionaries to perform perfunctorily what other members used to do out of sheer enthusiasm. This opens another can of worms, because any member thus bribed is losing his or her independence, joins the pecking order and will, sooner or later, compromise NAFEX's interests for his or her own. There ain't no Saints no more.

I am not advocating that NAFEX officers carry the full administrative workload - far from it. NAFEX is too big now. Their tasks should be minimized as much as possible, not only because they are volunteers and also like to look after their fruit, but even more because they are not clerks, administrators, shippers, or computer operators. Buying services from specialized suppliers is an excellent practice as long as it is done competitively "at arm's length." And the best way to handle the remaining workload is by taking turns without recycling the same posts among the same people.

For a few years now, the NAFEX officers and directors have been preoccupied with organizational and financial expansion - and some other trivia - while neglecting the problems Pomona experiences. To understand them, one has to go back about twenty years to when NAFEX started as a publishing cooperative, serving just ourselves. The editorial board consisted of nine volunteers who not only looked after the various developing NAFEX functions but also contributed articles and news items, written by themselves or solicited from friends and other sources. The late Milo Gibson, recognized as the "primus inter pares", acted as editorial coordinator. When appointed editor-in-chief by acclamation, he promptly declared that he was not a chief but just an Indian with lots of experience and time. He was a great respecter of other members and would never censor or change an article which he had accepted, although he might add a postscript. He reasoned that, as NAFEX did not pay for an article, it remained the writer's property and he, Milo, had no right to tamper with it. As far as I know, NAFEX has never paid for an article. This would be a fatal blow.

After Milo's death, the tradition of non-interference with members' contributions was carried on by the succeeding editors-in-chief. The original editors were phased out and replaced by seasonal or guest editors. They were volunteers, each responsible for the contents of one given Pomona issue. A seasonal editor would have to work hard to get all the manuscripts together, selecting the best and balancing subject matters. He/she wrote to friends and strangers, followed up leads, phoned members who had the knowledge but not the courage to write it down. He begged, persuaded, flattered and tricked members into sending him their experiences. He would also approach professional pomologists for the latest factual information. The next issue would be assembled by a different volunteer with different fruit interests and different friends and contacts and resources. Under this system Pomona issues became more elaborate and substantial, more diversified and more interesting to more people. This increased appeal helped the membership to grow by leaps and bounds and gained for NAFEX the recognition of the horticultural establishment. The alternation of editors was carefully looked after by all editors-in-chief who often had to scout to seek out new volunteers.

This system worked well until recently, when the side effects of an otherwise welcome NAFEX constitution became evident in a gradual entrenchment of functions. In the publishing sector, the editor-in-chief crept from the traditional coordinating job into a 'boss' position, self-appointed censor and head of a paid power structure. The editors who diligently laboured to come up with the best possible Pomona issues found themselves degraded to mere 'gathering editors' who would be overruled by any whim of the editor-in-chief. Theirs became a routine job, not much better than emptying parking meters. As a consequence, the interest in editing a Pomona issue dried up and as the editor-in-chief chose not to scout for fresh talent but rather to strengthen his status, NAFEX was persuaded to pay for his services and those of the gatherers which he appointed.

This may sound more mercenary and power-hungry than it was, but to put this development into perspective, the same four paid gatherers did eleven of the last fifteen issues. This is ominous and depressing, because the fifteen previous issues were produced by eleven unpaid volunteers with eleven different resource arsenals, eleven different minds, and concepts of our common fruit hobby. But we should also consider that even these eleven are only a small representation of the nearly three thousand volunteers in NAFEX. How many of them have lately been offered a chance to be editors, or even been encouraged to contribute an item? And, speaking of new blood for NAFEX, do we realize that two-thirds of the current officers and directors have never volunteered for the great experience of editing a Pomona issue? Shouldn't they all?

No doubt my analysis will be disconcerting to some, disregarded by others who cannot yet see the writing on the wall. It may motivate still others to act to save NAFEX from creeping petrification. I am not making specific recommendations but I would like to affirm again and again the simple fact that if we are true volunteers, hobbyists and not hobbycrats, NAFEX will enjoy continued youth.