This sums it up perfectly

[Guest JClark]

All

    This E-Board (Who runs un-apposed) is running rough shot over all things in their quest to (change for the better) the National contest. The current constitutional re-write was the last point. They only listen to who they want, most of whom on social media are not even members. All in the name of "Making it better". Never mind that we had near record turnout of models and that the survey after the 2022 show stated the biggest problem was the awards banquette. This year may have been different with a ton of new members that HAVE to be catered to. Most of these new members only complain as they do not read the rules, or just disagree so they go all social media and not understanding the history behind the rules as written. No, they just want it their way acting like spoiled children. But then again its just a direct reflection of society in general, isn't it?

    Below is a letter I and others received from the current national head judge. He spells out perfectly what is going on. This is a takeover by the E-Board. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now you see why they wrote the first constitutional re-write the way they did, and why they dis-regarded the constitution in the voting. ONLY after being held accountable by the members did they re-submit another watered down version but were also held accountable for the timeline of presenting this to ALL members via the journal and presented to all at the National convention (Where I still didn't see it presented but may have missed it) . Their original plan was to ram it through at the beginning of this year, so even they don't read the rules but do what they want since they feel they have some sort of mandate. Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but running unopposed isn't a mandate. So read the letter below, it's what I have been saying all along... So much for transparency.

 

I Quit the NCC, Effective Immediately!  Why?  See (way down below) the message I got from Dave Lockhart earlier this Sunday evening, and the Attached "E-Board 608 Judging Statement" that came with it.

 

Just two weeks ago (Sept-17th), I had a Zoom meeting with President Dave Lockhart and Director of Local Chapters John Figueroa, in which they presented their proposed "joint" statement about the Chris McLain bull!.  There were just a few points in their "joint" statement that I asked them to change, to reflect what the NCC has done to-date to address the McLain bull!.  They did so, and then posted their statement on IPMS website's page-1. Part of what they had said during that Zoom call, was that in the future, a member of the NCC would be part of all E-Board meetings; yet to be determined was whether the NCC member would have voting privileges or just be an "advisory" role. 

 

Then a day later, the "outrage" started anew on IPMS' Facebook pages.  When I last corresponded with Lockhart a few days ago, he said there was going to be another E-Board meeting, where they would redo their earlier "unanimous" E-Board public pronouncement.  No mention was made by him, about having either me or Phil Perry included in that E-Board meeting.

 

So now, with this brand-new "unanimous" E-Board decision issued today, you can see that ALL contest-decision-making authority that the NCC has had for almost a half-century, has been claimed by the E-Board.  So, if they want to directly take-on the task of writing/re-writing rules, guidelines, etc, well then, they're welcome to have it all.  And so much for anyone from the NCC being at all involved in this most-recent series of broad decisions!

 

I'm done!  I will not be sending along any draft documents for contest Rules or Categories for the 2024 Madison contest.  I will not be sending along any draft text for any revisions to our online Competition Handbook or Modelers Guide to IPMS Contests.  I do not intend to send along any pdf or power-point copies of our What Judges Look For slide show -- it was particularly criticized by Rob Booth's cohort Dana Mathes right after the San Marcos show, for failing to adequately cover in all aspects the ratios of different model subjects - after all, he counted the number of aircraft photos versus other model-subject photos, as if a failed seam or alignment error wouldn't apply in other types of craft, figures, or objects.  So now, Mathes can show all of us his "much better" version of what the judges should look for.

 

The E-Board's action to disqualify our long-time NCC members and check judges is unprecedented, ill-advised, and wrong!

 

Not that it needs to be said to any of you, but to be very, very clear, Manny Gutsche and his check judges have done nothing wrong and are undeserving of this punitive action by the current E-Board.  The NCC's investigation - my inquiries and discussions with ALL the relevant parties - are being completely ignored / dismissed / overturned by the E-Board.  Since the E-Board is refusing to hear from the NCC, then I see no need to be a puppet in this losing battle.  All of the Facebook ranters are demanding "transparency" at the same time they completely annihilate everyone who attempts to support our judges and judging processes.  So there's simply no need to jump into the rancid social -media pool.  Let the E-Board attempt to satisfy the FB ranters, since they now accept this input over and above their own NCC.  The precedent has been set now -- no matter what irritates you, the effective action to take is to go onto IPMS' Facebook pages, and just keep hammering away there, until you get what you want.

 

I think the strong drivers on the E-Board for taking away all decision-making authority from the NCC are Recruitment & Retention Secretary David Knights and Secretary Rob Booth; Booth's writing style is obvious in all the recent press releases.  I believe that Prez Dave Lockhart, 1st-VP Phil Peterson, DLC John Figueroa, and Treasurer Mike Oberholtzer are generally supportive of the NCC and how it's been managing the annual contests.  But their stated support hasn't translated into their being able to resist those E-Board members who want to completely redo the NCC. But seeing today's E-Board decision reported as "unanimous", seems to show that we really don't have their support.  (I have no idea of what the opinions of the new 2nd-VP Len Pilhofer or Historian-Publications Director Ro Annis may be.)  The first "secret-emergency" E-Board meeting right after the San Marcos convention, that resulted in the so-called "unanimous" "no-more-touching-the-models-during judging" decree (as stated in Secretary Booth's reporting of the E-Board's decision) was not a unanimous decision.  Neither 1st-VP Phil Peterson nor Treasurer Mike Oberholtzer were present for that meeting.  So much for accurate reporting of E-Board sessions by Secretary Booth!

 

I recommend that all of you getting this message from me, should specifically resign or withdraw your recent selection to be a new Class head judge.  To do that, just send a resignation statement to all the E-Board members; I won't presume to speak for any of you, about what you may decide to do.

 

From this current E-Board, you will not be directly informed by them that your services are no longer required or desired -- you'll read about your "de-selection" in the next press release posted online by Secretary Booth -- or the next Facebook rant by McLain!

 

For those of you who were told by me in the past few months, that your names would be forwarded to the E-Board for their confirmation of our NCC selection of you as new Class head judges -- well, that ship has been sunk by the E-Board's take-over of the NCC's functions, and I'm very sorry it has turned out this way for you.  

 

And for those of you who have worked with me on the NCC for the past several years, I want to thank you very much for all your work over the years!  I'll look forward to seeing you again at future national conventions, when we can reminisce about the 'good old days'!

 

And for any of you who are still interested in working with the E-Board, to implement whatever they may decide for future judging standards and procedures -- well, just keep an eye out for future super-happy-talk press releases from Secretary Booth, and follow his guidelines for new Class head-judge applicants.

 

All of you getting this message from me are welcome to distribute it to whomever you wish, on any forum of your choosing.  After I've sent this message along to all of you, tomorrow (Monday) morning, I'll be sending my immediate resignation notice to all the E-Board members.  And after that, I'll be sending this same message to my other IPMS friends and associates.

 

My best wishes to all of you for better experiences than what we've had since the end of the San Marcos convention,

 

Mark

 

 

So there you have it. The e-board wants nothing but yes men and puppets working (For) them. Absolutely no division of powers. I have to laugh at some who called the NCC the politburo, seems the E-board are doing just that, being the Politburo. This is all the result of Social media and podcasts where two members of the board can pontificate all they want without any counter point being given.

 

Jim

[Ron Bell]

Just to be clear, was that letter from Mark Persichetti? You don't mention his name and the last name was not given in the 'signature'. Wasn't he stepping down as Head Judge anyway to be replaced by Phil Perry? I just want to ascribe things to the correct people as we wade through this drek. 

[jcorley]

" Below is a letter I and others received from the current national head judge." - So, Yes, Mark P.

[jcorley]

And for the sake of completeness, here is the referenced letter "See (way down below) the message I got from Dave Lockhart". Read it all before replying, please. I post it here as it has not been posted on the website as yet.... trying to maintain neutrality for now.

 

October 1, 2023

To the Membership of IPMS/USA and the hobby community,

The appearance of impropriety or questionable integrity is unacceptable in any sector of this organization. The IPMS Executive Board
will work diligently to fix those issues when they arise.

We owe the membership more details on the matter than were included in our September 19 statement. More information has come
to light in the interim, prompting us to revisit the Category 608 judging incident reported at the 2023 IPMS National Contest. As a
result, three senior judges involved in this matter will be suspended from participation in the IPMS/USA National Contest judging
corps. They may choose on their own to present themselves for consideration as supervised OJT judges for retraining in the application
of the rules in place at the 2025 National Contest.

Additionally, the judging rules, procedures, and protocols for administration of the National Contest will be reviewed by a newly
formed Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. The goal of this temporary committee is to identify and recommend rule
updates to prevent this issue from happening again. We are currently identifying committee members. The committee will be
established on November 1, and will serve for as long as necessary for the updated rules to be issued to the membership by January
15.

We will also consider drafting a charter for an Ethics and Standards Committee to recommend language and procedures to guide an
inquiry into incidents such as this in the future.

For any interested in why, the following is our reasoning and actions in coming to these decisions:
Actions and Conclusions Prior to the First Statement

Absent any specific vehicle or language for guidance in the matter in the IPMS/USA Constitution and By-Laws, the Executive Board,
and others in leadership positions acted to resolve this matter in a fair, appropriate, and just manner. That absence of language and
guidance is the first problem identified here that needs to be addressed, and with your help, we will.

After reviewing the letter submitted by a member of the original judging team to the Executive Board and the NCC, a board member
was directed to investigate the judging of Category 608 – Mecha at the contest in August. Members of the original judging team were
interviewed by the representative from the E-Board. The letter was also submitted to the NCC for their response to the allegations
cited. Three senior judges were directed to provide their statements in response, which were then forwarded by the Chief Judge to
the President for our review. In hindsight, we would do this differently. After review by the Executive Board, the findings of that
investigation and statements from the senior judges were inconclusive as to any clear violation of the published rules for the 2023
National Contest. The findings of the matter from those interviews and statements concluded the results of the initial judging team
were overturned by senior judges under the premise that the original team had incorrectly applied the weight of the scope of
work/effort of the judging evaluation of the eventual winner. The published rules are not clear on this action.

Two additional factors complicate the matter. First, there was an appearance of impropriety by the check judge, considering his close
association with the entrant of the eventual 1st place winning model. Second, the entrant has been nominated by the NCC as the
incoming Head Space/Sci-Fi Class Judge for Category 608. The entrant was observed hovering near the area during the judging
process.

The proof of intent is exceedingly difficult in a court of law, let alone an organization of hobbyist volunteers. The check judge claimed
there was no bias on his part in his reasoning for changing the results of the category and did so only on his interpretation of the rules
regarding the weight of the scope and effort of the work vs the other criteria involved. The overturn of the original team’s results
was not communicated nor explained to them until after the revisions were recorded into the permanent judging records. The Head

Class Judge agreed to the change, altered the judging form, but did not initial or sign the document in the box provided to indicate
his concurrence.

In the view of the President and the Chief Judge, they felt no specific published rules had been violated during this incident. The
appearance of impropriety was strong, but we choose to err to a benefit of doubt to those involved, because the rules as they exist
allowed them to be placed in their tenuous positions. Official actions in response to matters of integrity have consequences for
individuals, and as such should not be rendered in haste, or without clear proof of wrongdoing. The Board felt that we lacked
“sufficient proof” for any actionable sanctions to the individuals involved. However, a review and update of the Contest Rules and
Procedures is clearly due.

In a follow-up executive session on the evening of September 24, the Executive Board revisited this issue in light of new information.

Results from our 9/24 Executive Session

Our discussions prior to this meeting were focused on clear violations of the published 2023 Contest Rules. Many have suggested
that other documentation could be relevant. Upon review of the generally accepted judging protocols presented in the pre-contest
judges’ meeting, the actions of the check judge in independently making his decision to change the judging results are unacceptable.
The documented rules are unclear on this; we will address that with the temporary committee.

We investigated language in the Modeler’s Guide and Competition Handbook published on our website and slides presented by the
Chief Judge during the pre-contest judges’ meetings at our 9/24 executive session, the following statements are emphasized:

• We apply impartial consideration and integrity in our decision-making.
• Go to your Class Head Judge to resolve a stalled/undecided team.
• Please don’t:
o Hover around a team that is judging your entry!
o Advocate a friend’s work!

 

None of the log sheets for Class 600 were signed by the Head Class Judge to indicate his concurrence with the results. In fact, very
few log sheets in the results book were signed by the Head Class Judges for other Classes. This indicates a lapse in due oversight by
the Head Class Judge in this case, and a clear need for documented oversight procedures.

What is now evident from the investigations and reports presented and our review of the accepted judging guidelines, is that all the
above apply to what happened in this case. Because of their actions, lack of attention to verifiable accountability, and a clear violation
of some rules and certain accepted judging protocols, the three senior judges associated with this matter are suspended. We will
codify a version of the above statements into effect as documented rules, rather than an annual reminder, quickly referenced in the
pre-contest judges' meeting.

Moving Forward

The Executive Board is drafting a charter for the Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. This committee will be charged with
updating the current judging rules to prevent future incidents such as this and any conflict of interest without obvious malicious
intent. A viable contest will be held within the existing format and structure, albeit with appropriate rules and procedural revisions
noted above. Those of you who have submitted other judging concerns to the Executive Board and the NCC, please know that they
will be presented to this committee for action and follow-up.

We sincerely appreciate your patience in our handling of this matter. We hope we have reached an outcome that is fair to our
members.

Thank you for your interest and membership in IPMS/USA.

The Executive Board of IPMS/USA

 

[Ron Bell]

2 hours ago, jcorley said:

" Below is a letter I and others received from the current national head judge." - So, Yes, Mark P.

Just didn't know when the change actually took effect as the letter was written after the convention. Like I said, I wanted to be clear on who was speaking. 

[Guest JClark]

So no real new evidence. Just more investigating after the social media flare up. They investigated, with the NCC and all was found to be in order until it wasn't after the published "Signed" letter. So they were not very through in their investigation or they are pandering. My bet is on the latter. I haven't seen one bit of evidence, just accusations. The board can't have it both ways. First all is well, then 2 weeks later after the voices on social media are riled up they have to do something?. So to put out the fires they do "more" investigating saying new evidence has turned up, well lets see it, Going back and using items from meetings and twisting the judges handbook is not evidence, just a way to look good and pander to the vocal minority on social media. Which all plays into their agenda. So glad I'm done with all this nonsense. This was the goal all along, dismantle the NCC and they accomplished that with a photo posted by a judge during judging, humm funny nothing was done about that but only the fact that a judge held a model that they were allowed to do by rule. Now this accusation with no evidence of malicious intent. So ban three judges with no evidence, just bad looks. Humm I wonder what will be deemed "bad looks" going forward from this e-board since that's all they operate on, looks and likes on Facebook. Sure smacks of what the first constitutional rewrite that got canned was all about so they are doing as they please and what was written the first time around with all the shall nots...

   As for class heads signing the sheets, that has never been done. If there was a requirement by the Head judge to do so then there would have been a spot provided to do that. None of what they are pointing to has ever been required. So lets make things up to make themselves look good is as always par for the course with this bunch.

 Everything has been fine until recently, wonder why that is. Again, hummmm very interesting...

 

Jim

[EFGrune]

I have today also submitted my resignation effective immediately.    I can no longer effectively serve the current organization.

Ed Grune 

(former) Head Ship Judge

[Chris Bucholtz]

Hey! Please volunteer! So we can screw you when weasels scream about something on social media!

 

This is no way to run a railroad. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Scalemodeldoc]

Stepping away from the decision to suspend judges around the specific incident described, I’m not sure how setting up a committee to delineate a code of ethics is a bad thing?  As well they identified significant ambiguity in the proper process when a check judge overrules an already signed judging sheet— to what degree should the class head judge and/or the chief judge be involved? Should the entire category be judged anew? Apparently the rules as written don’t have a clean process for this.  I think we can ALL agree overturning ANY judging decision is a powder keg, even if everything is above board— why not have a detailed process to ensure the sanctity of results is maintained?

To a relative outsider these look like reasonable and balanced responses to situations that, at the least, looked bad and gave the organization a bit of a PR black eye.  I’m not sure why experienced judges would want to resign because of these recommendations?

(I refer to the following sections from the EBoard letter, copied above)—

“Absent any specific vehicle or language for guidance in the matter in the IPMS/USA Constitution and By-Laws, the Executive Board,
and others in leadership positions acted to resolve this matter in a fair, appropriate, and just manner. That absence of language and
guidance is the first problem identified here that needs to be addressed, and with your help, we will.”

“The Executive Board is drafting a charter for the Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. This committee will be charged with
updating the current judging rules to prevent future incidents such as this and any conflict of interest without obvious malicious
intent. A viable contest will be held within the existing format and structure, albeit with appropriate rules and procedural revisions
noted above. Those of you who have submitted other judging concerns to the Executive Board and the NCC, please know that they
will be presented to this committee for action and follow-up”

”Additionally, the judging rules, procedures, and protocols for administration of the National Contest will be reviewed by a newly
formed Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. The goal of this temporary committee is to identify and recommend rule
updates to prevent this issue from happening again. We are currently identifying committee members. The committee will be
established on November 1, and will serve for as long as necessary for the updated rules to be issued to the membership by January
15.
We will also consider drafting a charter for an Ethics and Standards Committee to recommend language and procedures to guide an
inquiry into incidents such as this in the future.”

[Guest JClark]

Ed

     Thank you for your guidance and assistance for the few years I was part of it. This organization is loosing some truly great people all in the name of "progress"

 

Jim

[Guest JClark]

Scalemodeldoc

 

  And why should their be a need for any of this. We haven't had a need for over 50 years. But now one person make the suggestion something wrong has happened , without proof only accusation and all hell breaks loose AFTER the Eboard and NCC have completed their investigation and found no wrong doing. The only reason this is still being talked about is the social media uproar. So again the E-board found nothing wrong, had been done with it, only to reopen it after more backlash. Can you say pandering to a vocal minority?

  Do you really think this organization can come up with rules and regulations for every possible senerio that "may" play out ? no. But hey they are going to do it anyways with more committees doing the NCC's job, more charters writen and while were on the subject of charters what happened to the one that the head judge wrote over a year ago and submitted to the Eboard? Funny how that got swept under the rug when it didnt say what the E-board wanyed it to say and all the NCC heard was we'll get to it.

   All I can say is good luck. I'll be saving 30 bucks a year. And telling everyone I know not to join or reup. I personally know of two vendors who have told me they are having 2nd thoughts. So while one vendor threatened to pull out if judges were allowed to continue handeling models like they have been the past 30 plus years I now know of two not coming due to perceived lower attendance due to all this . I feel for the Madison guys because non of this was of their doing.

 

Jim

  

[RainingOil]

5 minutes ago, JClark said:

Scalemodeldoc

 

  And why should their be a need for any of this. We haven't had a need for over 50 years. But now one person make the suggestion something wrong has happened , without proof only accusation and all hell breaks loose AFTER the Eboard and NCC have completed their investigation and found no wrong doing. The only reason this is still being talked about is the social media uproar. So again the E-board found nothing wrong, had been done with it, only to reopen it after more backlash. Can you say pandering to a vocal minority?

  Do you really think this organization can come up with rules and regulations for every possible senerio that "may" play out ? no. But hey they are going to do it anyways with more committees doing the NCC's job, more charters writen and while were on the subject of charters what happened to the one that the head judge wrote over a year ago and submitted to the Eboard? Funny how that got swept under the rug when it didnt say what the E-board wanyed it to say and all the NCC heard was we'll get to it.

   All I can say is good luck. I'll be saving 30 bucks a year. And telling everyone I know not to join or reup. I personally know of two vendors who have told me they are having 2nd thoughts. So while one vendor threatened to pull out if judges were allowed to continue handeling models like they have been the past 30 plus years I now know of two not coming due to perceived lower attendance due to all this . I feel for the Madison guys because non of this was of their doing.

 

Jim

  

I bet you numbers are the same if not better. That’s exactly why things are happening now after 50 years. More people are joining, more people are attending, more people are competing. And now that they’re members all the same as us, they want to make things better.

If a change such as “head judges can’t arbitrarily override the volunteer judges’ decision with 0 oversight” makes you want to leave… maybe it’s for the best, as that seems awkward for a head judge to be upset about.  

[Scalemodeldoc]

Why should we have a code of ethics and a concise, delineated framework of how judging results are internally appealed and revised by check/head/chief judges?  Seems rather self-evident to me.  Also, this would have prevented the “social media uproar” that appears to have bothered you.  At worst, it’s a waste of a few hours.  At best, it makes the national contest appear more rigorous and eliminates any hint of impropriety.

I can’t speak to the fact that all contests have been perfect prior to the past couple years when I attended them; I also don’t know anything about the various revised charters you mention. 

I would add that.. we are speaking on social media currently, and it’s really the only way for IPMS members to discuss the Nats 360 days out of the year!  It’s not like we have monthly national meetings we can all phone into and discuss things.  We have elected representatives, and we have various forums to discuss amongst ourselves.  I do agree that the tyranny of the crowds must be resisted, but we need to balance that with the thoughts/opinions of dozens if not hundreds of members.

[Ron Bell]

As Aris Pappas used to say at the judges' meeting, all judging is, by definition, subjective, whether using numbers, rankings or personal opinion. If this committee can come up with something that actually quantifies judging with NO personal opinions possible, we need to copyright/patent it and sell it to the world 'cause' we'll make a pile of dough. But as a personal plea, let's not penalize Madison for any of this as they had no role in it. If you don't like how the contest was run, then don't enter. Just enjoy the seminars, tours, venders' rooms and fellowship. But don't penalize the hosts. You can send the same message to the powers that be that you want by staying away from the contest but enjoying the convention. I haven't entered in years and I don't have any interest really in who wins what, but that has not reduced my enjoyment of the convention experience one jot. 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Ron Bell

[Guest JClark]

Johnathan and Ian

                   Tyranny of the crowds must be resisted but yet that's all that has happened. Knee jerk reactions to accusations. So are we to have committees every time someone doesn't read the rules gets a fart crossways and wants to complain? And making things better is relative at best. I say they are making things worse. When entrants can make accusations without proof to get the board to do things "they want" then all credibility is lost. But lets make things better by changing the constitution to where only one entity has any say over EVERYTHING. Yeah that makes sense. 

 

Ian stated > If a change such as “head judges can’t arbitrarily override the volunteer judges’ decision with 0 oversight” makes you want to leave… maybe it’s for the best, as that seems awkward for a head judge to be upset about. 

                    They can, and have done so in the past but now it's an issue? why? I made a change in 2022 after the check judge raised an issues and I consulted the team leader. In 2019 a category came back after 20 minutes. The check judge went out and said there were issues. So the class head went over and looked, and agreed. So the solution was to get the team together and watch a more experienced team re judge the category and we used it as a learning tool, but no, lets just toss all that out and make charters, amendment's and procedures for every possible scenario. Why are there even head judges if there hands are tied at every situation? we certainly don't need them now as they have no authority to do anything That is why IPMS does not currently have a Head judge or a head Aircraft, armor, ship, Space and Sci-fi judge. What you have is 3 people who have severed for one year in Jr's, Figures, and one in Auto who has served for 3 years (whom I'm betting will be gone within the next day or two)  based on nothing more than over reach by the board. That's all that's left.  Do they now have to get the ok from the E-board if a decision needs to be made? I guess so since they run everything now. They have written out the very entity who ran the contest with this current constitution. They have crafted a document based on hearsay and jumped on that bandwagon with this latest fiasco since absolutely not one shred of evidence was presented, only hearsay but that's enough so it seems. So YES this is all about power. Well if they want it then they can have it. They will run everything in to the ground via committee. Then when that crashes you'll see the eventual outcome they want. An open system where everyone with glue on canopies can get gold to feel good about them selves. And yes it happened... Plus there was oversight this year, the class head okayed the change and said so to the NCC and E-board so there is process in place to handle this but no, all this has turned out to be is an E-board saying one thing, then when they don't' get the response they want they then change it up . That's the point in all this. It was ruled a non issue by both entities, until it wasn't.

 

Jim

Edited October 3, 2023 by JClark

[Scalemodeldoc]

34 minutes ago, JClark said:

In 2019 a category came back after 20 minutes. The check judge went out and said there were issues. So the class head went over and looked, and agreed. So the solution was to get the team together and watch a more experienced team re judge the category and we used it as a learning tool, but no, lets just toss all that out and make charters, amendment's and procedures for every possible scenario. Why are there even head judges if there hands are tied at every situation? we certainly don't need them now as they have no authority to do anything That is why IPMS does not currently have a Head judge or a head Aircraft, armor, ship, Space and Sci-fi judge.

They will run everything in to the ground via committee.

Then when that crashes you'll see the eventual outcome they want.

An open system where everyone with glue on canopies can get gold to feel good about them selves.

 

Jim

(1) Your 2019 method looks exemplary.  Check judge found category results wanting.  Bumped to class head judge who agreed.  3rd party team of judges brought in (I assume unbiased) to re-judge.  Initial team not punished, instead educated.  I think this is a good system! So codify it in the rules.  That way it doesn’t seem class head / chief judges are randomly ruling by fiat; they are following the strict and fair pre-determined “this category has questionable judging” pathway.

(2) Not sure what is wrong with a committee; the NCC is a committee?  If the EBoard didn’t create committees to address issues, they’d be acting like oligarchs/dictators and I suspect you (and I) would have bigger issues with that.  Of course, one can have too many committees…. Doesn’t make all of them default useless.

(3) Not sure what GSB open system has to do with our discussion; I saw poor builds get 1/2/3s in San Marcos in categories with very few entries… those are true participation awards.

[RainingOil]

44 minutes ago, JClark said:

Johnathan and Ian

                   Tyranny of the crowds must be resisted but yet that's all that has happened. Knee jerk reactions to accusations. So are we to have committees every time someone doesn't read the rules gets a fart crossways and wans to complain? And making things better is relative at best. I say they are making things worse. When entrants can make accusations without proof to get the board to do things "they want" then all credibility is lost. But lets make things better by changing the constitution to where only one entity has any say over EVERYTHING. Yeah that makes sense. 

 

Ian stated > If a change such as “head judges can’t arbitrarily override the volunteer judges’ decision with 0 oversight” makes you want to leave… maybe it’s for the best, as that seems awkward for a head judge to be upset about. 

                    They can, and have done so in the past but now it's an issue? why? I made a change in 2022 after the check judge raised an issues and I consulted the team leader. In 2019 a category came back after 20 minutes. The check judge went out and said there were issues. So the class head went over and looked, and agreed. So the solution was to get the team together and watch a more experienced team re judge the category and we used it as a learning tool, but no, lets just toss all that out and make charters, amendment's and procedures for every possible scenario. Why are there even head judges if there hands are tied at every situation? we certainly don't need them now as they have no authority to do anything That is why IPMS does not currently have a Head judge or a head Aircraft, armor, ship, Space and Sci-fi judge. What you have is 3 people who have severed for one year in Jr's, Figures, and one in Auto who has served for 3 years (whom I'm betting will be gone within the next day or two)  based on nothing more than over reach by the board. That's all that's left.  Do they now have to get the ok from the E-board if a decision needs to be made? I guess so since they run everything now. They have written out the very entity who ran the contest with this current constitution. They have crafted a document based on hearsay and jumped on that bandwagon with this latest fiasco since absolutely not one shred of evidence was presented, only hearsay but that's enough so it seems. So YES this is all about power. Well if they want it then they can have it. They will run everything in to the ground via committee. Then when that crashes you'll see the eventual outcome they want. An open system where everyone with glue on canopies can get gold to feel good about them selves. And yes it happened... Plus there was oversight this year, the class head okayed the change and said so to the NCC and E-board so there is process in place to handle this but no, all this has turned out to be is an E-board saying one thing, then when they don't' get the response they want they then change it up . That's the point in all this. It was ruled a non issue by both entities, until it wasn't.

 

Jim

Your example about the judges getting overruled is exactly how it should be handled. Everyone straight up admitted that is NOT how it was handled. I have a conversation with Kaliste himself saying he wishes he did it like you had happen in 2019, not how they handled it which created this issue. If everyone did it properly there would be no need for this. But here we are. 
 

and you’re right about this being about power but not how you think you’re right. You see, the NCC by all accounts had no oversight, and now that a little is being applied, everyone is quitting. You guys are upset you don’t have the unlimited power you once had, and I get it; that’s hard to take. But really as you said, you resigned over this, so it’s up to the rest of the membership that is still in to carry on and figure it out. You had a great many years of service, and for that we thank you. 

[Highlander]

33 minutes ago, RainingOil said:

...the NCC by all accounts had no oversight, and now that a little is being applied, everyone is quitting. You guys are upset you don’t have the unlimited power you once had, and I get it; that’s hard to take. But really as you said, you resigned over this, so it’s up to the rest of the membership that is still in to carry on and figure it out.

Not at all.  One of the most, of many, frustrating issues in this the latest, and most serious, scandal is the lack of knowledge among the general IPMS membership and others of the former NCC's scope and depth of work in preparing and conducting the annual contest.  And the efforts the former NCC made to invite and include the EB and, in some cases, the host chapter ... in its deliberations and decisions.  I offer that if you don't show up for a meeting, it is disingenuous to complain that the deliberations were not transparent. 

One example, of several, was the attendance for the annual NCC public meeting held, usually, on the Saturday afternoon of a Nats.  The agenda included both old and new business.  The entire NCC was present to respond the attendees questions and suggestions.  Items were recorded for further action.  Attendance was sparse.  Against this background, I have heard multiple complaints about the inaccessibility of the the NCC to IPMS members.  In some cases, when informed that the annual public meeting was open to all for direct interaction, the response was that the complainant had other, more attractive things to do.

Note that I said "former NCC".  Because the NCC of the past no longer exists and its replacement has not been created.  I think we can all look to those who demolished the NCC and the way it conducted the annual contest over 50 years to deliver a new, improved, nearly perfect, completely transparent, smoothly conducted contest that will please everybody.

It will be a blessed relief for some of us to attend Nats to enjoy ourselves.  And not be vilified for being imperfect during our hours and hours of volunteer work each Nats and for contributing years and years of service to IPMS.

 

Addendum:

"....by all accounts."  So every account of the NCC confirmed that it had no oversight?  Accounts by whom?  When?  In what forums?  Because that's not what happened if you were sitting on the NCC.  That allegation feels like a strawman used to justify the purge and  elimination of the former NCC.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Highlander

[Highlander]

Just got off Facebook.  My initial reaction was to post there.  But i decided that I've simply had enough.  Naive as I may be, i was, and after all I've already heard, surprised and dismayed by the vitriol aimed at the former NCC.  Simple nastiness.  By those who know little to nothing about the issues at hand.  However, the interweb and all.

I contemplated the myriad of suggestions about improvements and changes and training and certification and procedures and rejudging, some of which contradict others, that are now on the table.  Nowhere did I see a suggestion about who was going to accomplish all of them.  Or any of them.  Or one of them.  Could be the professional judges, as one poster suggested.   Or the EB.  Or other, this time, ethical volunteers.  But one thread, I intuited, permeated all of the suggestions .... somebody else will need to do it.

Time to saddle up and head into the sunset.  All of us old guys and unethical volunteers and stubborn elitists and enemies of the people.

Oh, and, believe it or not, the NCC has nothing to do with the distance between contest room tables.  Or the weather.

 

Addendum:

I went back to Facebook.  Because I'm a masochist.  In the various derogatory and demeaning posts, I found two of particular interest.  One asserted that those who deny wrongdoing are demonstrating their culpability.   Thus the former NCC is guilty.  Another stated, in essence. that failure to speak up to deny wrongdoing demonstrates culpability.  Thus the former NCC is guilty.

Two points.  First, it's all my fault.  Cause I went back to Facebook. Second, Orwell was right.  He pointed out that ... “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”  And, Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Highlander

[Guest JClark]

  We the NCC had limited powers in that it was in charge of running the contest  in regards to rules and categories per the old constitution 8D2. That's the way it had been with no issues with any E-Boards for over 50 years but in just two years with this current board all has hit the fan, I wonder why, can you say agendas? That power now resides with the E-board along with everything else. Why is that? Why is that there is now one body alone in charge of EVERYTHING? In my opinion that's never really worked out very well for any organization.

      It's not that its hard to take, questionable yes, hard no. What is hard is the E-Board handing down edicts from on high BEFORE the new constitution was voted upon, where they had no authority to do so. Why were they not held accountable for that action? Telling NCC members that "We work for them" . Tell the head judge his presence isn't required in matters regarding the national contest for a zoom meeting then boom, edicts are handed down. It seems to me that the NCC are not the ones with a power problem but the ones who wrote the current constitution giving themselves all the power by getting votes form those who one don't care and two who have no idea on what they are voting for. Why do you think they tried to ram this through at the beginning of the year without following the process as laid out in the current (at that time) constitution? And now its all do as I say, that's why they are all leaving. Its not about anything other than being micromanaged. If the board was so unhappy with what the NCC were doing why didn't they fire all of them? I'll tell you why, because they did nothing wrong that they could fire them over, so they pushed them out with these edicts and now creating of even more committee to do the NCC's job. So I'll ask again, Why have a NCC? It's pointless now. Just disband it and the board (who maybe three of which are actual judges) can handle the issues as they arise. Seems that's the job they want anyways.

  You guys can laugh all you want at my comments but the one fact still remains, Why does the board get a pass when they agreed with the NCC that nothing happened and both signed an agreement to such? And now its all we have to ban judges again with absolutely no evidence of wrong doing just because of "feedback" on social media. If that's the way this board is going to run itself in matters, by listening to people who are not even members on social media then this will all fail. And this forum isn't really social media since only dues paying members can post here. This is society business and it should be discussed here and not on Facebook IPMS groups.

   Sure, I will admit the situation as presented looks bad, sure it could have been handled better, But I wasn't there and I do not know the particulars other than the board and NCC agreed that nothing wrong happened and that nothing more than accusations were presented. To ban three guys from judging over nothing but accusations? really is that how this is supposed to work? You get accused of a crime, you testify in your defense along with others , you're found not guilty but then 2 weeks later boom, you canned for a year. Because of supposed "new evidence" which was nothing more than social media hyperbole that the defendants had no chance to counter. Hell one was banned from merely defending himself on the IPMS FB group. Again really? 

 I've said all I'm going to on this. You can have the supposed transparent politburo you all voted for. 

 

Jim

[mec011]

3 hours ago, Highlander said:

That allegation feels like a strawman used to justify the purge and  elimination of the former NCC.

It's not a purge if you resign...

[Bert]

I've read the post by the member of his accusations of bias, conspiracy et. all. in the mentioned category. It's obvious, well at least to me, his feelings were hurt which resulted in his decisions. Read his post about how he "felt".

-Bert Reynaud

[RainingOil]

14 hours ago, Highlander said:

Not at all.  One of the most, of many, frustrating issues in this the latest, and most serious, scandal is the lack of knowledge among the general IPMS membership and others of the former NCC's scope and depth of work in preparing and conducting the annual contest.  And the efforts the former NCC made to invite and include the EB and, in some cases, the host chapter ... in its deliberations and decisions.  I offer that if you don't show up for a meeting, it is disingenuous to complain that the deliberations were not transparent. 

One example, of several, was the attendance for the annual NCC public meeting held, usually, on the Saturday afternoon of a Nats.  The agenda included both old and new business.  The entire NCC was present to respond the attendees questions and suggestions.  Items were recorded for further action.  Attendance was sparse.  Against this background, I have heard multiple complaints about the inaccessibility of the the NCC to IPMS members.  In some cases, when informed that the annual public meeting was open to all for direct interaction, the response was that the complainant had other, more attractive things to do.

Note that I said "former NCC".  Because the NCC of the past no longer exists and its replacement has not been created.  I think we can all look to those who demolished the NCC and the way it conducted the annual contest over 50 years to deliver a new, improved, nearly perfect, completely transparent, smoothly conducted contest that will please everybody.

It will be a blessed relief for some of us to attend Nats to enjoy ourselves.  And not be vilified for being imperfect during our hours and hours of volunteer work each Nats and for contributing years and years of service to IPMS.

 

Addendum:

"....by all accounts."  So every account of the NCC confirmed that it had no oversight?  Accounts by whom?  When?  In what forums?  Because that's not what happened if you were sitting on the NCC.  That allegation feels like a strawman used to justify the purge and  elimination of the former NCC.

You’re right, per the constitution of the org, the eboard and president determine how long committees run (article VII, section B). And above they in section A, they are under the control of the president being a “titled position”. 
 

Jim’s whole thing has literally been “we didn’t have any issues for the past 50 years”. Read that as “we didn’t have the eboard, namely the president, tell us what to do in anyway for 50 years”. 

So I’m practice, they did what they pleased, and now that that is being reigned in to what the constitution lays out, they’re all rage quitting. Which that’s fine. I think they were hoping people would jump up and shout “woah now wait a minute! Don’t quit! We can do this another way!” 
 

But that didn’t happen. Full steam ahead. 

[RainingOil]

11 hours ago, mec011 said:

It's not a purge if you resign...

Bingo. If anything I doubt their commitment they keep touting to have for this organization if at the slightest reign-in on their power, being brought into line with the constitution, they all rage quit. 

[CaptainAhab]

13 hours ago, Highlander said:

Just got off Facebook.  My initial reaction was to post there.  But i decided that I've simply had enough.  Naive as I may be, i was, and after all I've already heard, surprised and dismayed by the vitriol aimed at the former NCC.  Simple nastiness.  By those who know little to nothing about the issues at hand. 

I agree, the way the people who have volunteered hundreds of hours of their own time (and money) over the years to make IPMS what it is today, and they were involved in a lot more then just the contest, are being treated is disgraceful. The groveling to the Facebook pot-stirring non-members by this e-board is pitiful, and using that to justify an agenda of change has never worked out in anyone’s history. In my opinion they will learn that those same “allies” they are pandering too will turn on them at the first opportunity. I hope that IPMS can survive this chapter, maybe when a completely different group of people are elected to the e-board, I guess time will tell.

To anyone I’ve worked with judging over the past 32 years, thank you for all your hard work and dedication!! I for one appreciate it!! My advice to anyone who continues to judge, please be aware that you could be photographed at anyone’s whim, whether you did anything wrong or not, and used to further an agenda, so proceed at your own risk. There was a time I put up with this sort of disrespect and drama, but someone else was paying me a lot of money to do so, not the case anymore.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by CaptainAhab