It's been an interesting week since David St. Jean, my opponent for the hotly contested presidency of the Fenway Garden Society, blasted the member list with this obnoxious email.

No one that I know has seen or heard from him since. He did not answer my invitation to meet and discuss the future of FGS.

Meanwhile, many members got involved. I heard from several good folks who were as outraged as I was at St. Jean’s email, and the insinuations, taunts, and insults it contained.

I urged outgoing President Tim Horn to clarify the proper conduct and procedures, frankly worried that the meeting could spiral into chaos without a game plan, which would not be in the best interest of anyone involved, really. It did seem that St. Jean had plans for a rumble – urging members in his email blast: “I need you to hear the argument live this will prove to be a fun event!”

I’m a practiced debater, but from the nonsense spewing forth I had a feeling this would mostly be me defending myself from volley after volley of harebrained conspiracies and wholesale lies spewing forth from St. Jean’s poisoned imagination. Not something I fancied, and not a productive way for our garden society to proceed.

To his credit, Tim has been boning up on Robert's Rules of Order, so that everything is done properly on the 4th. It has been ages since there’s been a contested election, and the way the board has proceeded in the past has been to deliver a slate of officers basically for confirmation by the membership.

The idea of the President handpicking his or her slate gained currency a few years ago when the President before Tim put hers together. She was in every way exceptional, and while I would love to have an eager, competent and committed VP of the Park (like the hunky one she had) to stand up with me December 4th, I don’t. And it’s not for not trying, trust me.  I hit up all the hunks on my list.  It’s a tough sell. 

I have launched a second “search campaign”, asking anyone who might know of anyone who might possibly be interested, or who seems a fit for the job, to get in touch. Barring that I figured someone might be inspired to stand up and serve at the meeting itself.

That is until Tim told me, “It is not incumbent upon me to find a VP of Parks on the floor of the meeting. If that is the expectation, then I will postpone the meeting until a full board can be raised by one or both of the candidates and a full slate issued for nomination for at least one candidate. “

I was a little surprised to hear this, as Tim actually got his VP of the Park, David St. Jean, from the floor (Tim acknowledges this, but says “That should not be the case here as there is plenty of support for both of these candidates. They need to grab the ears of their supporters and fill out a slate of officers they can work with.”)

I read all this as a kind of exhortation.  Because there’s no basis in the bylaws for it. It is not, in fact, the candidate’s responsibility to present a complete slate. It is clearly the nominating committee’s responsibility to come up with one.

This is not to say that it wouldn’t be ideal to have a complete slate going in. It’s simply not required of the Presidential nominee.

Furthermore, my understanding is that if both St. Jean and I came up with suitable VPs, members would still be voting for nominees for each office, not a "slate" of one set of nominees or the other. It’s not like voting for Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, but rather for Clinton or Bush and then for Gore or Cheney. I could run a VP of the Park on my "slate," and still end up with David's VP of the Park, or vice versa, based on the individual members vote for for each individual office.

I understand Tim’s concerns, and share them. It would be better to have a nice, orderly transition.  But it turns out in this case, that's a pretty tall order. 

When a well-meaning gardener suggested a batshit “running mate” for me recently, I could hardly hide the flash of horror at the thought. The problem is that no sane person is crazy enough to take on the job. But there’s crazy, and then there’s crazy.

As in all things, I would prefer young, naïve and unsuspecting. Someone with the still if barely detectable glow of idealism under an attractive patina of false cynicism.

But I'm old enough to know we don’t always get to choose our partners.

And up to now that's been part of the thrill for me.