More Resignations

[RONBO]

2 more E-board Resignations no ejector seats on a sinking ship. The announcement leaves me less than confident that IPMS can continue as a viable organization plugging holes adhominem won't cut it. 

It's sad that all of this could have been avoided a decade ago. The mantra of " We always done it this way." Really doesn't work for 50 yrs. For the history folks among us we are currently viewing the end of the Roman empire. Just a different type of empire. 

The president's statement leaves me less optimistic and somewhat less than truthful sort of like your urinating on my leg and telling me it's raining. 

I have no confidence in this E-board except for the DLC and one of the current resignations.

In defense of the current E-board they got cought holding the bag just their dumb luck it had to happen to somebody. 

Well so much for the complaining. I do have some suggestions #1. A total rewrite of the Constitution one that doesn't favor the E-board running roughshod without checks and balances. #2. Quit printing the Journal go digital ASAP. I know members treat it like some holy book. The Journal is disimanated by members and non members on the web. Unless you want to add a large legal team everytime it shows up on the internet it will be a big expense and waste of time.

#3. Please remember that all politics are local if IPMS wants to standardize contests to match the National Convention it just won't work. If a club wants to run a contest using GSB for the love of all thing holy let them unless the E-board wants to stand a post and work the local contest. Chapters know what works for them. The chapters are responsible to their own treasury for meeting places and have a contest and pay to be a certified club in the national organization. Just remember a home run in Wrigley Field is different from a home run in Yankee Stadium. Local clubs know they're customers. Better than any National board

I do hope that IPMS goes forward but as of now you cannot even find a gear. Backwards you've been there. Find first gear in the 21st century it's different and will be scary and will take time that I'm not sure that you have. We're getting older. IPMS is not a attractive side gig at our age. Leave it to the young I'm sure IPMS will change I hope to be around long enough to see it. If the young do anything at all. I sure hope so.

Ronbo 

Ron Thorne Jr.

Head Bottle Washer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PaulBradley]

I see it as two opportunities for those who think IPMS is broken to step up and volunteer - this is their opportunity to put their words into action and try to fix what they think is wrong. Phil has already put out the call for a volunteer to be 2VP...

[ghodges]

"This current Eboard got caught holding the bag"?

I beg to differ! The ONLY new person on this current Eboard after the election was Len Pilhofer, the 2ndVP. Other than that, the entire slate of members ran for re-election. The president resigned shortly after being reelected, and Phil Peterson took his place and now holds the reins of the Eboard. Len Pilhofer just resigned from 2ndVP after only being in the job (possibly) long enough to find out how bad things had gotten and/or how difficult it would be to work with this Eboard (SPECULATION on my part, but reasonable without any other explanation offered).

As for Secretary Rob Booth, from what I understand, he's doing IPMS a service by stepping down, and the only question in my mind is can we recover from the direction he tried to steer the Eboard and IPMSUSA. 

And in BOTH cases of the recent resignations, NO explanations are given except "different reasons". Again, I'm waiting for a leader with the guts to declare what the problems are, where the current members EACH stand on those problems, and how they plan to work together toward solving those problems. The past statements implying unity were obviously complete bull, so please don't start off any newly comprised Eboard with some less than transparent statement of "solidarity" unless it's transparent and truthful.

As for the comment "we've done it that way for 50yrs"..... yes.... that can lead to complacency against needed change. BUT, it can also be used (as it was recently) as a tool to try to make radical, unneeded changes. You have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater or do a complete engine overhaul on something only needing a tune-up! As the old saying goes- if ain't broke, don't fix it. Part of the problem right now is we (the members) are being kept in the dark as to what is broke and how badly broke it is. I believe the President's statement as to the items he listed (except maybe contest status).... but he left out a litany of other things.

I'm still worried when I read the Presidents statement that the Eboard is still trying to create a "Social Media Director" when two MUCH more important positions need filling first. It shows me THIS Eboard still has their focus on the WRONG things, like trying to control FB and creating "ethics committees" (according to the Dec. minutes); when they've communicated NO solutions for revamping the NCC and getting the new contest rules they proposed for Madison printed and rolled out in time. Could THIS be the problem on the horizon causing Eboard members to resign before the crap hits the proverbial fan?

This could indeed be a great opportunity for a couple of people to step up and help guide IPMSUSA back onto a path to of stability and to hopefully rebuild the trust they broke with the membership. But WHY should anyone join the group blindly without knowing why the people they're replacing left? And WHY shouldn't we, as members know that too?

Gil 

Edited January 10 by ghodges

[Eric Aitala]

We've been working on the Director of Social Media position for two month(?) now and completed the interviews on Monday January 8th and sent our recommendation to the Executive Board before the resignations were announced. This is a needed position for handling our social media, now and in the future.

Eric

14 minutes ago, ghodges said:

I'm still worried when I read the Presidents statement that the Eboard is still trying to create a "Social Media Director" when two MUCH more important positions need filling first. It shows me THIS Eboard still has their focus on the WRONG things, like trying to control FB and creating "ethics committees" (according to the Dec. minutes); when they've communicated NO solutions for revamping the NCC and getting the new contest rules they proposed for Madison printed and rolled out in time. Could THIS be the problem on the horizon causing Eboard members to resign before the crap hits the proverbial fan?

Gil 

 

[ghodges]

Why Eric? Please explain why it's needed, and what "problems" this person is supposed to solve?

I understand the idea of IPMSUSA wanting to be able to say they have "someone on the job".... but to do what exactly? Monitor? Try to control? Censor posts?

 

Gil 

[Eric Aitala]

Let's see -

• set up an actual social media strategy, now and for the future
• has experience in the various platforms
• find new ways to engage our current membership and prospective members
• be able to set up rules for the various platforms, and chain of command for the moderators, admins, etc.
• co-ordinate between Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and other platforms, including ones IPMS is not currently using
• interact with our other public facing spaces - the Journal, the home page, the reviews site, the forums, the gallery, etc.  Which may include strategic planning and co-ordination

I made an argument a while back (8 months ago?) that we needed an overall Director of Communications to handle many of the situations we find ourselves in...  Given the silliness that took place before and after, the DSM role is a start.

E

54 minutes ago, ghodges said:

Why Eric? Please explain why it's needed, and what "problems" this person is supposed to solve?

I understand the idea of IPMSUSA wanting to be able to say they have "someone on the job".... but to do what exactly? Monitor? Try to control? Censor posts?

 

Gil 

 

[ghodges]

Sounds good Eric, though when you start mentioning rules, besides the common sense idea of civility, I get leery. Also, IF whoever gets the job thinks they'll be able to limit or control trash talking IPMS on any social media, I believe they'll resign in frustration.

Although it does seem obvious, when the President mentions filling this position in his statement while at the same time trying to fill the more current urgent needs, it makes me wonder where the true priorities reside. And no.... I have not seen evidence this Eboard can multi-task with any success.

Thanks very much for stepping up to give some solid, sensible answers to my concerns!

 

Gil 

[Eric Aitala]

I agree that in general rules for content are difficult - Masnick's Impossibility Theorem - if not impossible. But there has to be something, both for the members and moderators.

Here is an example, we've had companies submit multiple (10+) posts to the FB Group at one time.  If there is no hard rule on number of ad/company posts per week, I as a moderator am not going to know what to do.  If another moderator allowed all 10 at one point and I do not, then one company is going to be really annoyed.  There needs to be a consistent approach to handling known issues that arise. Where things break down are when there is not an objective item (number of ad posts per week) on which to set a rule.

E

[jcorley]

Write down the rules and post them. 

One announcement per day? Two?

Anything over that gets canned.

[RONBO]

8 hours ago, ghodges said:

"This current Eboard got caught holding the bag"?

I beg to differ! The ONLY new person on this current Eboard after the election was Len Pilhofer, the 2ndVP. Other than that, the entire slate of members ran for re-election. The president resigned shortly after being reelected, and Phil Peterson took his place and now holds the reins of the Eboard. Len Pilhofer just resigned from 2ndVP after only being in the job (possibly) long enough to find out how bad things had gotten and/or how difficult it would be to work with this Eboard (SPECULATION on my part, but reasonable without any other explanation offered).

As for Secretary Rob Booth, from what I understand, he's doing IPMS a service by stepping down, and the only question in my mind is can we recover from the direction he tried to steer the Eboard and IPMSUSA. 

And in BOTH cases of the recent resignations, NO explanations are given except "different reasons". Again, I'm waiting for a leader with the guts to declare what the problems are, where the current members EACH stand on those problems, and how they plan to work together toward solving those problems. The past statements implying unity were obviously complete bull, so please don't start off any newly comprised Eboard with some less than transparent statement of "solidarity" unless it's transparent and truthful.

As for the comment "we've done it that way for 50yrs"..... yes.... that can lead to complacency against needed change. BUT, it can also be used (as it was recently) as a tool to try to make radical, unneeded changes. You have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater or do a complete engine overhaul on something only needing a tune-up! As the old saying goes- if ain't broke, don't fix it. Part of the problem right now is we (the members) are being kept in the dark as to what is broke and how badly broke it is. I believe the President's statement as to the items he listed (except maybe contest status).... but he left out a litany of other things.

I'm still worried when I read the Presidents statement that the Eboard is still trying to create a "Social Media Director" when two MUCH more important positions need filling first. It shows me THIS Eboard still has their focus on the WRONG things, like trying to control FB and creating "ethics committees" (according to the Dec. minutes); when they've communicated NO solutions for revamping the NCC and getting the new contest rules they proposed for Madison printed and rolled out in time. Could THIS be the problem on the horizon causing Eboard members to resign before the crap hits the proverbial fan?

This could indeed be a great opportunity for a couple of people to step up and help guide IPMSUSA back onto a path to of stability and to hopefully rebuild the trust they broke with the membership. But WHY should anyone join the group blindly without knowing why the people they're replacing left? And WHY shouldn't we, as members know that too?

Gil 

Gil, just to reply on some of your thoughts and or positions.

#1 The current E-board board got cought holding the bag due to past E-boards hiding all of the things we are seeing now by being not transparent. Also past E-boards chose the path of least resistance. Silence on not so favorable things that should have brought into the light. Truth good or bad should be in the light. All the past sins just cought up to the current E-board. 

#2. Rob Booth as Secretary in most organizations the secretary records meeting minutes on what transpired for the record. His input as I see it he has a vote. And now voting I was pleased to see a up and down vote the the Journal nice to see that it's a very small step in the transparency front also as a member it will help form a opinion on how I decide to vote on future E-boards. Just jumping out a limb here the two no votes cought my attention in a positive way.

#3 I think the NCC is dead until the members decide what the National organization and the National contest will change into. Honorable Men and Women will step up to make sure Madison will be a successful National will it be the same as before absolutely not. I have hope that the contest changes over time because if we continue do do what this organization in the past IPMS will wither on the vine we will all die out.

#4 IPMS needs more than a tune up. We need a true forward looking E-board. One that will looks outside to see what is truly happening in the modeling world and engages with thoughts and processes that may beneficial to IPMS at the very least to keep IPMS relevant to the world. Let's take the I in IPMS and truly make International. Right now foreign modelers look at IPMS and laugh or Wiskey Tango Foxtrot. If there's not a massive change over a relatively short time IPMS is doing to blow up like a Ford Pinto. I may be just too late. I hope not but I  have hope 

Ron Thorne Jr 

Head Bottle Washer. 

 

 

 

[ghodges]

Ron (and all): I think you and I are actually discussing two distinctly different things without doing a good job of defining them....

The first is the current situation which was created by THIS Eboard, and not by any of the past ones. By that, I mean their knee jerk reactions to the social media fuss over the tank picture where they failed to support our judges, and by that failure made IPMS judging look like a fiasco; and then pointed the finger at the NCC and handed down edicts to them instead of trying to work with them. They also are the ONLY Eboard who pushed through a dozen amendments to the IPMS Constitution in a single vote, the sum of them all being they now "legally" control the NCC and Nats contest, something never sought nor needed by any previous Eboard. That, when combined with the judging fiasco, caused the resignation of most of the 2023 NCC (and yes, the NCC failed in their judging investigation of the Sci-Fi genre). ALL of those items have left the judging corp in a shambles and cast some doubt as to how the Madison show will go. I happen to agree with you that "honorable men and women will step up"; but that is the ONLY way it will be a success unless this current Eboard starts showing us some concrete progress and plans on who comprises the new NCC and how the new rules (like their "no model handling" edict) will be implemented. And.... I also firmly believe that the creation of ANY sort of ethics committees is simply an attempt at another level of control they want to exert over the membership and yet another example of an area that no Eboard before them ever needed. That is why I believe the "bag" they're currently holding is one they've filled themselves.

The second thing we're debating is the general future of IPMS... and that is where I can agree with you more, to a degree.

I agree that the Eboard (and the new NCC, whoever that will be) needs to be VERY transparent. The listing of the voting in the minutes was great step in that direction, although I was NOT happy that 2 of the members voted against free speech for the editor. I agree with your assessment that most past Eboards have "kicked the can" of problems and needed changes down the road and that in the long term, they're now a part of this Eboard's problems, though not as high as a priority as those I listed above. 

I'm going to agree AND disagree with you on the subject of change in IPMSUSA being up to the membership in general....

Where the NATS CONTEST is concerned, I believe change there should be driven only by the attendees, and not the general membership, since MOST members never attend the Nats. The FACT is that the Nats has consistently grown and thrived under its current 1-2-3 format; like that or not (and I'm a GSB guy myself). ANY Eboard who wants to play around and mess with that winning formula/money maker for IPMSUSA and the clubs that host it is NOT serving IPMSUSA's best interest; and THAT is exactly what THIS Eboard has done. Any changes there should be tweaks and not wholesale overhauls, as it's something that has worked well and grown MORE successful over the last 20yrs. Is there room to experiment within the current contest format? Yes.... I believe so.... but again... IPMSUSA has a first obligation to protect what has worked before committing to anything unproven in wholesale fashion. Overall, since the majority of IPMS members have no interest in the Nats, the NCC, or its contest; I think they should have little to say in how it's run and leave that up to those who attend and participate in the Nats and those directly involved with its administration and running it.

As for other areas.... Local and Regional contest formats in general should be up to the membership and the clubs and NOT to the Eboard. If any other format (GSB, AMPS style, NNL style) should ever become SO popular that it becomes the norm and 1-2-3 passe, then IPMSUSA can look at changing formats at the Nats to conform and "fit in". But let popular demand determine that, and not some Eboard driven edict of change.

Overall I believe IPMSUSA needs to change its image so that (as you rightly point out) we are more interesting and palatable to more modelers in general. I believe that we should try to emphasize the artistic side of the hobby and de-emphasize the competitive side, which is where most of the criticism of IPMS stems from. I also agree with your idea of offering the Journal in digital format, at least to some if not all, IF it's affordable. In the past it didn't offer any financial advantage, but with the progress of technology perhaps it can do so now. I believe those two things MIGHT offer growth past our seeming ceiling of 4000+- membership numbers.

We both have the hope to see IPMS grow and thrive, even if we differ somewhat on our views of the current situation and the exact paths we need take to get there, and that's the light at the end of the tunnel! Now if we only knew where our current Eboard stands on these things and EXACTLY how they plan to tackle them.

 

Gil 

Edited January 11 by ghodges

[PaulBradley]

8 hours ago, ghodges said:

Overall I believe IPMSUSA needs to change its image so that (as you rightly point out) we are more interesting and palatable to more modelers in general. I believe that we should try to emphasize the artistic side of the hobby and de-emphasize the competitive side, which is where most of the criticism of IPMS stems from

Gil 

This. 100%. 

[patd]

  Gil sez:                                                                                                                                                                

"Where the NATS CONTEST is concerned, I believe change there should be driven only by the attendees, and not the general membership, since MOST members never attend the Nats. The FACT is that the Nats has consistently grown and thrived under its current 1-2-3 format; like that or not (and I'm a GSB guy myself). ANY Eboard who wants to play around and mess with that winning formula/money maker for IPMSUSA and the clubs that host it is NOT serving IPMSUSA's best interest; and THAT is exactly what THIS Eboard has done. Any changes there should be tweaks and not wholesale overhauls, as it's something that has worked well and grown MORE successful over the last 20yrs. Is there room to experiment within the current contest format? Yes.... I believe so.... but again... IPMSUSA has a first obligation to protect what has worked before committing to anything unproven in wholesale fashion. Overall, since the majority of IPMS members have no interest in the Nats, the NCC, or its contest; I think they should have little to say in how it's run and leave that up to those who attend and participate in the Nats and those directly involved with its administration and running it."

Yes! The Nationals have become more and more successful over the past years. Face it almost 3000 models in San Marcos when it was 106 F outside, a real well run show, ditto Columbia, Chattanooga, Phoenix, etc,etc.  Newer categories like BKB are very well subscribed, and we are seeing more and more splits in heavily subscribed categories, due to the organizers looking ahead. Years ago, in aircraft you could see categories with 40+ models in it and judging till the midnight hours. Now the general trend is to try to keep a category about 20-25 models, true it always does not work out but it the splits crew and Head A/C Judge try to head it that direction, and it pretty much winds up in that area. All of the A/C judging except for Best Of is done by 10-10:30 and most of the judges are released.  The vendors rooms are packed. So I think the basic formula works and I also think pushing the contest to evolve into something else may in fact dissuade the people who come and make it successful. I hear much gripping about the IPMS being stuck in the past, the NCC is not relevant, etc.  The amount of models on the tables and the crowd around those tables seem to render a different verdict. As time goes on it may evolve into something else but it will only work if it can attract modelers. There always seems to be some type of controversy after a 'Nats and no matter what shape the convention evolves into (if it does) THAT is never going to change. All in all for a volunteer run convention I think the society does pretty well, and those who take on this task should be applauded.

Pat D

 

                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                    

[highflight]

Why? This is a long ramble, but if you’re really interested …

I had promised myself I would try to stay quiet about all this, but I want desperately to steer this in the right direction. To be very clear, I left the IPMS/USA Executive Board not because the other seven members are bad people. They are friends, and all good people doing the best they can to hold together a widely diverse association of hobbyists. We just had an honest disagreement of opinion at the December working session about what a seat on the Board means, and how it affects the freedom to express our opinions. I was in the minority. I walked away after several weeks of honest reflection.

Here is verbatim what my emailed resignation to the Board said:

“I’ve been reflecting on the job the members of this organization elected me to in the weeks since our working meeting in December. I promised to be transparent to the membership if they elected me, and to work for positive change to many things within IPMS/USA. I believe I have effectively carried out all the Secretary’s duties outlined in the C&BL to that end, and then some.

However, my understanding that an elected seat on the IPMS/USA Executive Board is the best of all possible places to express my values and opinions, and work towards a vision for the future of this organization based on the input I get from the membership who put me here, is wrong. My views and values just don’t mesh with a status quo that is so entrenched and inflexible that it does not allow for consideration of the changes I have lobbied for at the urging of the membership. The rebuke of my public comments on social media and my addition of the “heavily redacted” comment in the closing of the published minutes regarding the Bucholz editorial made an expectation clear. I am not here to actually represent, speak, or work for the members of IPMS that voted for me. I am expected to fall in line without publicly expressing any dissent, to present the appearance of a unified Board. I’m sorry, but I can’t and won’t do that to the people who put me here.

With that, please accept my resignation as Secretary on the IPMS/USA Executive Board. Respectfully, I’m done today. I will assist in any way I can with the transition of the Secretary’s duties to your appointed replacement. Just let me know how you want to do that. I plan to maintain my IPMS/USA membership and continue working from within to effect positive change to the Society. I look forward to joining you along with my modeling friends in Madison this summer.”

The fact that I had added the notation to the December minutes that they were “heavily redacted” prior to publishing them was not well received by several on the Board, and they told me so. So much for transparency. And with that, I was done. It took less than 30 minutes to receive an email that all my access to the membership database had been locked out.

I struggled with the free speech issue regarding Chris’s editorial. On the one hand, he has every right to express his opinion on whatever he chooses. On the other hand, I just don’t think that the Editors page in the official publication of IPMS/USA was the appropriate place for that particular opinion piece. IMHO, that space should be used, to quote Jeff Herne, “Educate, entertain or inform.” True, any of those terms could be slanted and used to describe the piece, but I just thought it was incredibly bad form to poke at that incident after it had finally sort of gone away. Just my opinion, but it was incredibly damaging to the organization as a whole.

As to the source of the controversy, the tank picture, that issue will likely be debated as long as there continues to be competitions in our hobby. I happen to be one who feels that it is a matter of respect to the piece and the builder that it not be subjected to any more risk of damage than is absolutely necessary. It’s an opinion, that’s all. If the “rules” say otherwise, pay your money and take your chances, or don’t play. Don’t sit on the sidelines and bitch about it. The rub is that “the rules” vary on this, depending on where you look, or whether you were listening closely at the judges meeting.

I don’t spend a lot of time in these forums as many of you do. And I wasn’t ever informed that “official IPMS business” should be posted here for discussion. I don’t mean to digress, other than to say I think that after reading many of the comments here from Gil Hodges and others, I am not the wildly radical, social media trolling instigator that some of you have made me out to be. My values, opinions and agenda initiatives don’t differ much from yours. Example:

“Overall I believe IPMSUSA needs to change its image so that (as you rightly point out) we are more interesting and palatable to more modelers in general. I believe that we should try to emphasize the artistic side of the hobby and de-emphasize the competitive side, which is where most of the criticism of IPMS stems from. I also agree with your idea of offering the Journal in digital format, at least to some if not all, IF it's affordable. In the past it didn't offer any financial advantage, but with the progress of technology perhaps it can do so now. I believe those two things MIGHT offer growth past our seeming ceiling of 4000+- membership numbers.

We both have the hope to see IPMS grow and thrive, even if we differ somewhat on our views of the current situation and the exact paths we need take to get there, and that's the light at the end of the tunnel! Now if we only knew where our current Eboard stands on these things and EXACTLY how they plan to tackle them.”

These are EXACTLY the things I have been championing for the membership while I served on the Board. 

The issue I have is that the “institution” that the Board has become is paralyzed by the fear of doing something wrong and being criticized for it. It takes FOREVER to convince a quorum to take action on anything that might be perceived as controversial to anyone. These forums and the world of social media have a lot to do with that. I listened when people (members) talked to me about issues, and tried my best to incorporate their opinions, initiatives and ideals in Board discussions. In the end, I became frustrated when I was told that as a Board member, I should refrain from discussing such things in public forums.  Even though clearly stating that my opinions were my own, and not reflective of the Board or the larger organization, their concern was that by voicing them in a public forum, they would be perceived as “Board policy”. During the December meeting discussions, the implicit approval for Chris Bucholz to do the same thing IN THE OFFICIAL IPMS/USA PUBLICATION, well … here we are.

So, I still want the same things for IPMS that I noted from Gil’s post above. I assume he, and many of you on this thread do too. I would be happy to host a monthly members town hall on Zoom (or any other appropriate medium) where such things can be openly discussed (within some respectful ground rules) to any who would like to participate. I meant what I said in my resignation about remaining as a member and working from within to affect positive change. Let me know at rbooth@hctc.net, and we can take it from there.

Whether we agree on things or not, thanks for being a valued member and your support of IPMS/USA.

Edited January 12 by highflight
clarity

[Highlander]

Sometimes it helps, I think, to step back and try to discern a big picture ... seeing the broad currents that are moving the IPMS boat.  IMO, the big picture forecasts a period of both ongoing and near-term uncertainty and difficulty for IPMS.  The currents, as I see them, are:

1.  The ongoing disintegration of both the IPMS E-Board and NCC (if there still is one).  With the many resignations associated with social media and internal IPMS snarking, it seems that the IPMS powers that be are resolutely hoping for the best while not actually preparing for the worst.

2.  There is an ongoing revolution within IPMS to change the character of the National Contest and the NCC, the conduct of the National Convention, the operations of local chapters, internal decision making, punitive mechanisms for dealing with members deemed problematic, and moving out those who are seen as the old boys.  Like most revolutions, actions are taken and the consequences reveal themselves later.

3.  The rising tide of taring and feathering, both on social media and in the context of internal IPMS activities, those with whom you disagree.  And those who won't fall in line.  While claiming to be on the side of the angels.   This is coupled with a rise of an "us vs. them" posture in IPMS governance and communication.  There seems to be a message that you are with the changes or you are against IPMS.

 

I may be detecting signs of calls for help as the scope and depth of the consequences reveal themselves.  But I may be wrong.

Edited January 12 by Highlander

[noelsmith]

This thread has made interesting reading from an IPMS UK member's viewpoint. The US Nationals appears to revolve around the competition whereas at SMW on our side of the pond, the competition is still very important, but the current show that it has evolved into over the years does not totally revolve around it any more.

IPMS executive board members come and go. It's just natural evolution. The notion that IPMS USA could become a basket case just has to be viewed with disbelief. Complacency can creep into any organisation at top level. It is a matter of recognising it and dealing with it at the time. Nobody is indispensable and there will always be someone that will step up when really needed.

I don't know how the US exec committee runs, but all UK board members hold a two year tenure in each position at which point their jobs are put up for re election to the whole of the membership. Present incumbents have to lobby for their position against candidates who would like to be elected to their position.

[Nick Filippone]

In the face of this deepening crisis, especially the disappearing leadership at both the E Board and the NCC positions, then those remaining to manage IPMS/ USA must assume a caretaker role and concentrate on the one and only important task facing the Society this year: the planning and carrying out of the National Convention and Contest in Madison. Policing social media, rethinking how to judge any contest, how to award winners- now or in the future, challenging the freedom of expression rights of the Journal Editor, electronic journal vs. printed, cogitating on how competitive we should be, etc., etc., etc. are all, now, unimportant compared to Madison! 

This will mean that the rump E Board will need to suppress their collective egos, admit that the Society was not ready for the changes the leadership sought (and certainly, in many cases, not accepting of they ways they were rationalised and then rolled out), however well- intentioned, and put all their efforts into recruiting a complete and competent as possible NCC who will administer the National Contest in Madison exactly the way we have always done it! There is no time, no Society-wide will and no apparent man power to implement drastic philosophical and procedural changes in the National Contest for this year. With the likely ad hoc Head Judges team we will we lucky to cobble together and who may be unfamiliar and inexperienced in their role, by sticking with well known and successful procedures, the line judges will at least have comfort in the historically successful. With this, we, the experienced troop of National Team Leaders and Judges can support each other and fill in the knowledge gaps in operations if and when they appear. 

It would be grossly unfair, disrespectful and ungrateful to Jeff Herne and his team to sabotage the 2024 Nationals over silly ideological differences in which most of the membership and most of the National registrants have little or no interest. 

Let us set aside, at least for now, all these discussions and differences and concentrate on another successful Nationals. 

Respectfully submitted, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge.
 

 

 

 

 

[ghodges]

To begin, I want to thank Rob Booth for stepping in here to explain why he resigned and for stating his sincere beliefs. I also believe, as he says, that HIS goals for IPMSUSA and his feel for the need for change does coincide with much of the membership. I also can sympathize with him to a degree about his frustrations in fighting for change with a seemingly entrenched bureaucracy. If you dig around these forums you'll find my fights against the NCC and the Eboard as well as more than a decade of trying to point out the benefits of GSB.

Where I part from Rob is the idea that the end justifies the means. It does not, no matter how much you believe in something. HOW change is instituted is important, especially when it only involves a hobby, and not anything truly momentous, important, or personally life altering. "Revolution" may be needed for political change in a country, but not in a hobby organization where FUN should be the focus. The posting of the tank picture was step over the line as it cannot be taken as anything but an attempt to belittle IPMS judging. The failure of the Eboard to push back against the ignorant posts on social media, and their almost immediate caving to perceived pressure (much of it from non-members there) by issuing edicts to the NCC is what precipitated ALL of this. The amendments they pushed also did harm by their getting the ability to take over the NCC "legally". How could anyone on the outside, or on the NCC look at the combination of the two as nothing more than a power grab in order to FORCE change? And THAT has been the problem... not the desire for needed change but the forceful implementation of it.

I agree that the NCC has been much too entrenched in its views against change in the past. I've fought against that and their lack of transparency. That said, as I've posted above, I understand their VERY good reasons for being that way. There's a LOT on the line IF you try to make radical changes to the Nats, and the financial consequences could be far reaching; to the point that money for the Journal printing and mailing could become restrained, let alone having any sort of financial safety net for IPMS and the ability to keep holding Nats of the same size and scope. The Eboard should be looking to PROTECT that investment and be very careful of anything that might start it on a downward spiral, especially when it's been successfully growing as is.

So you want change? what SHOULD have been done? The Chief Judge was already retiring.... so the Eboard should have looked for a new person who was more amenable to change over time, and who could lead the NCC in that direction in a series of steps; not all at once. Someone who understands the need to protect what works so well while also understanding the need for better communication with the membership and that eventually the contest may need to move away from being so cut-throat. I don't know that they can still do that, as many very qualified people are now leery about working for them, since they're now the "bosses" of the NCC, something NO previous Eboard ever sought to be.

This may be whistling in the wind, but if the Eboard wants to solve this problem and go to Madison with some confidence, here's what I think they should do:

1) Issue a written apology in the Journal to the NCC and the judging corp for their mishandling of the tank picture issue on social media.

2) Pledge that although they support change, they realize that they HAVE to rely on the DECADES of experience and dedication to IPMSUSA that those on the NCC represent, and that they will work WITH the NCC for change as opposed to handing down edicts for change.

3) Immediately withdraw ALL previous edicts and also suspend the start/enforcement of the recently passed amendment that gives them any control OVER the NCC

4) Find and appoint a new NCC Chief Judge with experience with the Nats AND other judging systems with the express purpose of leading the NCC towards change in measured steps while protecting the success of the Nats.

5) Have that Chief Judge ask the Head Judges who have resigned to return to their old jobs with the understanding they are NOT "working for the Eboard" so that we can have confidence in the ability to get the judging done in Madison. Once the NCC has been reconstituted, then THEY must reach out to the judging corp as a whole to be sure they know they can expect to have experienced leadership in Madison.

Yes.... this involves the current Eboard swallowing its pride a bit, and also (to a degree) perhaps throwing the old 2023 Eboard under the bus somewhat. But I think the Eboard needs to take 1-2 GIANT steps backward in order to be able to rectify this situation. Then it can prioritize problems, identify needed changes and move forward once more, but this time trying to use everyone's experience and dedication to IPMS to make changes instead of tossing aside people they feel are in the way of it.

 

Gil 

[highflight]

Nick, completely agree. Board members will come and go, and IPMS will keep going … until it can’t. The membership numbers will ebb and flow not because of who’s in office, or from any sort of proposed value propositions, or what the C&BLs say, but rather, based on how well the last national convention committee’s event was received, and how well the next team’s event gets hyped … until it can’t be sustained anymore. The future of the convention has become the future of IPMS because that is what sustains it. Everything else is window dressing subject to dedicated membership support, which, as the organization continues to discover, can’t be coerced or taken for granted. Lots of good programs and initiatives have come and go over the years because of that. Our single most most divisive issue is always the contest.

The IPMS/USA National Convention has grown and gotten better every year despite the contest, which continues to create more and more controversy and contention every year. The convention grows because of the dedication of the 2VP and host teams to find good, workable venues, interesting activities and seminars, and great vendors, but mostly, because it is the only event available to a full spectrum of modeling genres who wish to gather at one. The contest is the biggest common variable to every Nats event. And because of that, the future of the contest will determine the future of the national convention until it doesn’t, or it can’t … or the leadership sees the wisdom in letting it evolve and/or de-emphasizing competition as the only option for modelers to display their works. The display-only areas at Madison will provide a glimpse into what could be a true celebration of the hobby. 

So for now, regardless of your opinions about IPMS, the contest or who’s in charge (nobody really cares), don’t pass on being in Madison this July. The Nats will continue to be the ultimate model geek Bro-fest that we all enjoy so much, and IPMS will keep going because of that … until it can’t … because someone, somewhere, will see opportunities in providing something better.

[jcorley]

9 hours ago, highflight said:

The fact that I had added the notation to the December minutes that they were “heavily redacted” prior to publishing them was not well received by several on the Board, and they told me so. So much for transparency.

 

Minutes are not transcripts and are, by their very nature, are always heavily redacted.

Change is always a slow process. In 1999, I was appointed by Chuck Davenport to formacommitte to explore GSB. Not because I was a proponent,  but because Chuck knew I had judged in several different systems and understood how each works. We had many meetings and discussions and were finally ready to present some findings.  A seminar was scheduled in Phoenix in 2004. There were several then-members of the NCC that came in and shut down the meeting. They were not about to even allow others to discuss any possible changes to "their system"

Now, the membership is evenly split on the topic. So, two decades later change **might** be something to consider,but I'm not holding my breath.

[jcorley]

7 hours ago, Highlander said:

The rising tide of taring and feathering, both on social media and in the context of internal IPMS activities, those with whom you disagree.  And those who won't fall in line.  While claiming to be on the side of the angels.   This is coupled with a rise of an "us vs. them" posture in IPMS governance and communication.  There seems to be a message that you are with the changes or you are against IPMS.

This phenomenon is merely a symptom of the rising tribalism seen in society in general. Social media is sewer of uncontrolled diatribes, rants and tantrums... it's not just IPMS.

 

[jcorley]

5 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:

In the face of this deepening crisis, especially the disappearing leadership at both the E Board and the NCC positions, then those remaining to manage IPMS/ USA must assume a caretaker role and concentrate on the one and only important task facing the Society this year: the planning and carrying out of the National Convention and Contest in Madison. Policing social media, rethinking how to judge any contest, how to award winners- now or in the future, challenging the freedom of expression rights of the Journal Editor, electronic journal vs. printed, cogitating on how competitive we should be, etc., etc., etc. are all, now, unimportant compared to Madison! 

 

As a good friend of mine says - GAZACTLY!

And there should be a separation of IPMS members from everybody else on our FB page. It seems like the EB paid so much attention to the Never-IPMS crowd that they forgot "them what brung 'em to the dance"

[CaptainAhab]

Volunteering to do anything you are probably not going to get a lot of thanks from the masses, more then likely you will hear nothing from the people who are thankful and a lot from the complainers of everything, volunteering for a leadership position can be, speaking from experience, the toughest of all. Len P has stated his reasons and I will take him at his word, same with Dave L., now Rob B has stated his reasons, I’m glad they stepped up for the society, and glad they were able to realize when it was effecting them negatively.

One thing I will say is I don’t think it’s possible if you are in a leadership position, volunteer or paid, to publicly share an opinion without it being taken as an official stance of the group (e-board) your part of, even if you state it is a personal opinion. Like it or not, when you become part of a group that is seen as the leader’s of an organization or club or whatever, no matter the size, your public face has changed, and everything you do or say will be scrutinized to the highest degree, I’ve learned that from experience.

Despite all the sky is falling, IPMS is dying crying on Facebook I don’t see our current situation as the worst IPMS has faced, or had to rectify, I’ve been hearing that IPMS is dying, no one builds models anymore, blah, blah, blah, for 35 years, since the day I joined, and here we still are. I believe we have members that WILL step up and meet these challenges.

I don’t believe there is a large percentage of IPMS members who want big changes to the society, 80+% of IPMS members never voice an opinion, or vote on officer and/or constitutional changes, saying nothing and/or not voting is also a choice, and a statement, if there is a mandate to do anything, it’s to change nothing, if the vast majority of the membership is really taken into account.

That said I do think IPMS needs to look at updating and modernizing were possible and realistic, and altering practices as needed. But we are NOT for everyone and never will be, we are a club of like minded hobbyists, growing larger for the sake of it, or being everything for everyone should not be our focus, getting like minded non-members to be members is an achievable and realistic goal in my opinion.

And for the record, I have volunteered for a position, just waiting to hear it’s accepted…

[CaptainAhab]

4 minutes ago, jcorley said:

As a good friend of mine says - GAZACTLY!

And there should be a separation of IPMS members from everybody else on our FB page. It seems like the EB paid so much attention to the Never-IPMS crowd that they forgot "them what brung 'em to the dance"

This right here should be the main focus of any new “ Director of Social Media” person! In my humble opinion our FB page should allow IPMS members to post and comment, anyone else can only visit and look.

And on the subject, why are comments allowed on announcements? 

[jcorley]

5 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:

With this, we, the experienced troop of National Team Leaders and Judges can support each other and fill in the knowledge gaps in operations if and when they appear. 

Don't be too secure in that "experienced troop" bit. The San Marcos Show Report PDF showed that  111 (37%!!) of the judges this year had 1 or 2 years experience (1 year is OJT per the page), and only 90 judges (30%) had 10 years or more experience. It doesn't break down how many teams had more than 1 very junior judge on it, nor if any of these led a team. I know it wasn't true in Ships. Perhaps this high percentage accounts for some of the precieved "problems"

https://calendar.ipmsusa3.org/sites/default/files/article/ncc2023finalreport_0.pdf

If this percentage is repeated, Madison will likely suffer the same "slings and arrows" of social media.