By Marvin Miller, AIB President

As most of the regular readers of the AIB e-newsletter already know, America in Bloom established the John R. Holmes III Community Champion Award in memory of our late Board member and Secretary/Treasurer. As a member of the award subcommittee I recently reviewed the over 30 nominations received for our first annual Community Champion Award, and received a glimpse of the nomination characteristics each of the worhty nominees possess. The winner will be announced Saturday, October 3, during the AIB Symposium and Award Ceremony in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

John Holmes was a close friend during the seven years I knew him. He often introduced himself as “my brother of a another mother.” He obviously had a sense of humor to be sure, and we enjoyed a quality relationship that only close friends have. We could laugh together, but we could also debate and still remain friends. I believe John was often misunderstood by many of those with whom he had contact who did not take the time to really get to know him. In his often quiet way, John usually had a vision on many issues, and he worked toward achieving his targeted goals.

In similar fashion, reading the words offered by the nominators makes me believe that most cities have their champions. Sometimes the champions are politicians or other city employees. Sometimes they are business or civic leaders. Some might be residents wanting to make a difference. Often they are the quiet leaders that just help to get things done, always targeting the goal of what’s best for the community.

The characteristics listed for the nominees exhibited some similarities, but they were also as varied as those individuals who offered the nominations. In a few instances, a certain nominee received multiple nominations, and these descriptions sometimes spoke quite differently about the same individual. Such variety might be the nature of individual impressions, individual interactions, or just the result of limiting essays to 500 words.

Our subcommittee was awed by a number of points. First, we felt these nominees were all worthy candidates. We struggled to agree about the most important characteristics for evaluating the candidates. In the end, we agreed that all were champions, each worthy of being nominated for the strength they exhibited in leading their cities toward accomplishing their AIB goals. AIB wants to salute every nominee, and we hope all will be able to attend the symposium in Hershey so that we may acknowledge your efforts in person.






Secondly, we debated the merits of the nomination process itself. Obviously, literary eloquence played a role. We could only judge the essays as submitted, but it was clear some authors had more experience writing nominations than others. In evaluating the essays, we tried to sift through the writing styles and evaluate what was said about each candidate. Did additional essays on the same candidate help the nominee? We did not always agree on this, probably because we could not generalize on their merits.

So, what characteristics did these champions possess? We read testimony of hard work, folks who rolled up their sleeves and worked alongside other volunteers. These champions got their hands dirty, literally!

Our champions also exhibited passion and often planted their passion into the hearts of fellow volunteers. Champions were said to have vision, strength of character, and conviction. They were successful in turning their visions into reality. Some of these visions related to flowers and plants, some related to fundraising goals, some related to amassing volunteers to get the work completed. And some related to the ultimate goal of bringing the community together. Tallies of trees transplanted, hanging baskets hung, planters positioned, or hours volunteered were offered as proof.

The words leader and leadership were used, often in conjunction with getting the job done, with responsibilities taken, or with “organizing the troops.” Communication skills, dedication, enthusiasm, and generosity were suggested attributes as well. Nominees were said to be positive people, to be positive role models, to have positive attitudes, and to have positive work ethics.

Though not always described, per se, our subcommittee got the sense that most of these nominees truly believed in their cities. Their efforts seemed motivated by more than the desire to just get the job done, by more than the need to plant some flowers, trees, shrubs or sod, and by more than the need to win. Even when the nominee was a mayor, a city manager, or other city employee, one got the sense that the nominee truly believed in the city and what their city was or could be; after all, it was still “their city,” and they still were proud of what had been accomplished. Essays often described the results of the nominee’s efforts, in terms of enhanced beautification, more tidy neighborhoods, and citizenry with greater environmental awareness, better appreciation for horticulture, or even the town’s history.

Yet, throughout these essays, one got the sense that our nominees displayed a constancy of purpose, the need to achieve the stated goals, the need to help their city come together as a real community and shine. Truly, our nominees want to help plant pride in their communities. And for this kind of dedication, I believe John Holmes would have been proud to meet these champions and to have any one of these candidates selected as the Community Champion award winner.

Congratulations, again, to all nominees! You are all winners and recognized as leaders. Every one of you is a champion!