OPEN email to the Eboard on the Journal

[ghodges]

I just sent this email to the IPMSUSA Eboard about the Journal and Chris Bucholz's resignation:

Dear Eboard members:

 

As a concerned IPMSUSA member of almost 50yrs, I'm contacting ALL of you to ask the board to please provide an explanation on the IPMSUSA Discussion Forum as to exactly what is going on with the Journal. There are already at least two different topic areas discussing Chris's resignation as well as the Journal in a more general sense (as in when is the next issue and why is it running so late?).

 

Please note that this email is NOT written to provide me with a personal explanation, but for someone on the Eboard to go to the DF, read the questions posed, and provide some answers. As an aside, I WILL say that in my own personal opinion, as officers EACH ONE OF YOU should be on the DF at least 1-2 times per week; JUST to keep up on things that directly concern the Eboard. 

 

Since there's been no answers coming from ANY of you after several days, I decided to contact all of you directly so that you have no excuse for not knowing about the questions on the DF.

 

As I stated in my post, the Journal is the ONE tangible asset every member gets for their money. Except for its tardiness, it has steadily improved over the years under Chris's leadership and over a constantly changing group of Eboards. Its future, and YOUR plans for the direction you want to take the Journal in (and that Chris felt he could not abide) will have a huge impact on membership AND IPMSUSA income for the treasury.

 

I hope you'll quickly discuss this among yourselves and designate someone to AUTHORITATIVELY provide some answers on the DF. I'll understand if you move the discussion to the Members Only area at the bottom so as to keep the explanation and discussion more "in house".

 

I respectively await for your posts on the DF. Until then, I'll be copying this email ONTO the DF so that the concerned members there will know you've been asked directly to respond. 

 

Thanks!

 

Gil Hodges

IPMS# 10803 (since 1977)

[SkyKing]

Excellent post, Gil. I asked the same question on this forum and also tried to ask it on the IPMS/USA Facebook page. The Facebook page czar has so far deigned to allow my post, and there has been nothing but crickets from the Eboard on this forum.

I’ve been an IPMS member since 1967, but if this silence and lack of transparency from the “leadership” of the Society continues, I will NOT be renewing my membership when it expires and will advise other modelers I know not to bother with renewing either or even joining in the first place.

Michael McMurtrey

IPMS/USA # 1746

 

[ghodges]

Knowing how "committees" like the Eboard operate, and it only being a couple of days since I emailed them, I'm allowing at least a week for one of them to come give some sort of response. It'll take them probably at least that long to get their "story" together and decide who's going to give it!

Like you, I too am greatly disappointed that none of the officers seem to check in here to see if anything needing their attention is posted. It might take them all of 1 hour each week to do so, and in MY opinion goes with the territory of serving in their elected position. Heck, it seems that even the "Social Media" director, whose job IS to keep tabs on this site as well as the FB page seems to not be here to give the rest of the Eboard a heads up!

As for not allowing your post on FB, as long as you asked questions in a polite manner and didn't just want to post a "rant", I can see no reason for not allowing it. The moderator COULD allow the post, then post a REDIRECT to here, and then close comments (to avoid non-member trolls from jumping in).

In my experience, the Eboard wants to be as transparent as possible, but is largely stuck in a bubble among themselves. Whenever they're asked to poke their heads outside that bubble onto a public forum, they're reluctant to do so. I find it quite disheartening, but not unexpected. 

However, my questions to them and my desire for them to publicly acknowledge what their plans for the Journal are remain steadfast. I'll hold off for a time to see if and how they respond. I hope they'll confirm my trust in them, but the more time that passes, the greater the doubts!

 

Gil 

[Highlander]

I don't want to get involved with the latest in this, the trail of IPMS turmoil.  However, it seems to continue a series of events that have marked IPMS governance over the last several years.

Bear with me.

IPMS depends upon volunteers.  That statement is obvious, but, it seems, not really understood.  Because, no matter how noble the goal or counterproductive the edict or critical the event, there have always been good, solid IPMS members who stand up and fill in and keep the creaky vessel that is IPMS afloat.  A prime example was the coup that decapitated the NCC ... somehow folks stepped up and the show went on.

I offer that the litmus test for whether IPMS is successful ... or not ... is whether the Nats (with the all important Contest) come off and whether the bulk of the members attending are satisfied.  IMNSHO, IPMS is graded annually.  If the Nats are OK, IPMS passes.  And, speaking of volunteers, it always seems that some chapter somewhere decides to bid on hosting the Nats, wins the bid, and the future of IPMS is secure for one more year.

The current Journal contretemps seems a bit different.  The Journal is not an annual hurdle ... it is a bi-monthly marathon.  It is not one and done; it is continuous.  Where is the good-hearted volunteer willing to step up and take on that onerous baggage?  Where is the volunteer with the skills and experience and track record to take over the Journal -- a truly professional publication?  We'll find out.

My experience in IPMS and other volunteer organizations (some a good deal bigger than IPMS) is that there is an infinite supply of members seeking positions where they can tell the core  volunteers what to do.  And how to do it.  And how to change the way it is being done.  You know, for the good of the organization.   The result?   It is not uncommon for those volunteers actually doing the work to play their only available card -- "I quit". 

Seems like there has been a good deal of "I quit" in IPMS recently.

Edited August 12, 2024 by Highlander

[Schmitz]

21 hours ago, Highlander said:

My experience in IPMS and other volunteer organizations (some a good deal bigger than IPMS) is that there is an infinite supply of members seeking positions where they can tell the core  volunteers what to do.  And how to do it.  And how to change the way it is being done.  You know, for the good of the organization.   The result?   It is not uncommon for those volunteers actually doing the work to play their only available card -- "I quit". 

The flip side is that some of those core volunteers get tired of the drudge work with no input and no chance to change anything, because the 'mid-level management' is basically appointed for life (or maybe they just get tired after 20 years) - so again, they play the "I quit" card. An organization built on volunteers really needs to understand why those volunteers are there, try to keep them happy, and also be prepared for the inevitable turnover.

[PaulBradley]

There you go. 

[ghodges]

There ya go what? Ok.... so they've made a "statement" on the website for all to see.....

Please note that my email asked them to come HERE and make a statement. They could've posted that statement here in this topic, or down in the 3rd area (for members only) when they posted it on the IPMSUSA website. 

So why NOT post the same thing here? This is just MY opinion, but HERE you can post a response or ask questions of their statement. You certainly cannot do that on the web page. The announcement is also on the IPMSUSA FB page, but then again THAT is NOT the place for debate or questioning of what happened to make Chris feel he needed to quit.

The announcement is also vague (IMO purposely so) as to whether there's a new editor or not yet, or are they still seeking one. It sounds like the Journal will be assembled and edited "by committee" for the time being and that may indeed be a necessity until someone steps up to do Chris's job. But if so, why hasn't there been a WILD SAU email to all IPMS members recruiting a new editor, art director, and any other staff needed? Or did I miss that one?

In the meantime, they pretty much admit the next Journal we'll get is "flawed" and that may continue for the immediate future. How's that going to affect membership, especially those who are due to re-up or who may be seeing the Journal for the first time and may be considering joining?

THESE are the questions that need to be answered. THAT is why they need to MAN UP, come HERE, and give us some idea of what they're doing and how they're going to take the Journal forward. And YES!!! They SHOULD have to tell us exactly why Chris felt he could not work for this Eboard anymore, and what they demanded of him he could not "abide" (which could have certainly been a legitimate demand on their part).

You can be glad they've made a "statement", but they've yet to show the membership any willingness to be "transparent and open"; or they'd be HERE to face us. I hope they will be soon!

 

Gil 

[ghodges]

By the way.... below is my post under the Eboard posting of their Journal Statement on the IPMSUSAFB pg:

Gee.... it's a nice sounding statement and I do believe they're dedicated to getting the Journal back on schedule. HOWEVER, it's also a blatant whitewash in saying they're not going to get into "WHY" Chris quit (and he QUIT, he did not "retire" despite they're acting like he did). I agree there's no need for the Eboard to do that here on FB, BUT they have been specifically asked (by me) to post their statement on the IPMSUSA Discussion Forum FOR discussion (where members only could discuss it and ask questions), and have not yet done so. I'm hoping they'll do so by next week, but thus far appear to be like every other Eboard in that "transparency" is just a catchword, but NOT their practice!

I'm posting this here in case it's later removed from the FB page as being inappropriate; as it obviously is not.

 

Gil 

 

Edited August 16, 2024 by ghodges

[dmorrissette]

Sorry. Agree with the board Gil. Chris quit and it is his call to get into it, not theirs.

As far as posting here. one place seems enough. Kill the forums and just use Facebook

 

Dave

[Eric Aitala]

I'd rather kill the Facebook Group as its a moderation nightmare...  

1 hour ago, dmorrissette said:

Sorry. Agree with the board Gil. Chris quit and it is his call to get into it, not theirs.

As far as posting here. one place seems enough. Kill the forums and just use Facebook

 

Dave

 

[Highlander]

11 hours ago, Eric Aitala said:

I'd rather kill the Facebook Group as its a moderation nightmare... 

I concur.  But not for the moderation reason ... although that is an issue.  Facebook provides a great place for non-IPMS members to post photos of their various builds.  And to learn a bit about IPMS.  IPMS members have the forums to showcase their efforts -- though most don't.  FB is convenient, and familiar, and easy ... so it seems to have become the default.

FB is not the place for IPMS to air its dirty laundry ... or slightly soiled laundry ... or even pristine laundry.  However, once FB is open to the general public, there is no way to control who posts what .. even with moderators trying (if they do) keep up with it all.

It has been suggested by others, but if the FB IPMS Group was limited to IPMS members, it would make a lot more sense to me.

 

 

 

[ghodges]

Ok Dave.... in that case, then how de WE, the regular members hold the Eboard accountable when we have serious questions as to their actions? If we don't try to demand they come HERE and interact with their own membership, even if confined to down in the members only area, then where else can that be done?

Can we write "letters to the editor" in the Journal to make the membership aware that their actions MAY need explaining? No..... that avenue was done away with decades ago.

Can we write emails to the Eboard, individually and as a group? Sure... and that's what I did. But then they can simply IGNORE those since they're not public unless you come here to make your issue known as I've done. And even with my bringing it here it seems they're ignoring my email anyway!

Can we wait and make our questions or grievances known at the annual business meeting at the Nats? Sure..... IF you're able to attend. But then that also gives a lot of time for the problem to fester IF it truly is a problem and possibly become even worse.

Wait for the next election and lobby to vote them out? Sure.... but in the meantime the Eboard isn't held accountable and can continue bad policies the membership may be against. Remember, it was HERE and on FB just last year that the membership held the last Eboard accountable for their attempts to introduce RADICAL changes to the Constitution and the Nats Contest and was able to make the Eboard realize we would NOT sit still for their doing just anything they want.

And last of all, IF the leadership IS making decisions they think are RIGHT, then WHY is it too much trouble to come here and explain or defend them? It's not like I can "countermand" anything they do whether I agree or not with what they post. It can ONLY be because they're afraid of too many members finding out something they do NOT WANT US TO KNOW!

In this particular case, Chris did not "retire".... he QUIT due to "demands from the Eboard he could not abide". I FEEL THAT THE EBOARD SHOULD HAVE TO TELL US WHAT THOSE DEMANDS WERE THAT CAUSED A DEDICATED 18YR EDITOR TO QUIT. 

Could those demands have been be legitimate? Sure! They may have INSISTED and needed more timely work from him to get the Journal back on schedule and due to personal and business reasons Chris could not meet those demands, so he quit. That's quite understandable.

However, the past Eboard also tried to make Chris have his own Editorial Column "pre-approved by the Eboard" and Chris refused to do that that. If THIS Eboard demanded he do so, then I want to know why? He's run the Journal without such oversight for 18yrs so I think they should have to tell us why THEY suddenly need to control his material (and his opinion) for publication.

WHY are these questions important? NOT to satisfy MY curiosity! They're important because the Eboard's actions, legitimate or not, have now put the both the quality and even the ability to publish the ONE tangible thing every member gets for their membership money, the Journal, in jeopardy AND may have done so needlessly! It's important to know if they had good reasons for making demands or if they were being PETTY and OVERCONTROLLING since the consequences could last for years and directly affect IPMSUSA membership and revenues.

We'll just have to agree to disagree Dave! Volunteering to serve on the Eboard ALSO comes with accountability to the membership. Since there's no office to storm or picket, it seems HERE is where I'll have to try to get some answers!

 

Gil Hodges 

IPMS #10803

 

 

 

[SkyKing]

13 hours ago, Eric Aitala said:

I'd rather kill the Facebook Group as its a moderation nightmare...  

 

Why not make the Facebook group a private one for active IPMS members ONLY?

[Schmitz]

23 minutes ago, SkyKing said:

Why not make the Facebook group a private one for active IPMS members ONLY?

I'm one of the Admins of the IPMSUSA Facebook page. This has been suggested many times, and it is not as easy as it sounds. Yes, we could have a private Facebook group, but there is no way to identify which FB members are actually IPMS members. Anyone can make a FB account with any name; some troll could make a FB account with the name "Phil Peterson" and the admin for that (hypothetical) private group would have no way of knowing if it was the real "IPMS President" or someone pretending to be who wanted to join and cause trouble.  And no, IPMS numbers are not a secure way to identify members - at one time the numbers were published in the Journal, and appear on model registration forms and other places. There are ways we could manually verify identities outside of FB, but then multiply that manual process by 5000 members, where the membership is constantly changing as people join and leave (or just are slow to renew their membership).

Its my understanding that the members-only group here on the Forum requires manual intervention by the Admin; it only works because there are a relatively small number of people participating here. Automating the Forum group membership is at least technically possible, but will require (non-trivial) work to connect the membership data in Wild Apricot to the message board software. Having a larger number of (IPMS-only) members in such a group will also create the need for more active moderation; IPMS has plenty of members with strong opinions, being IPMS-only does not insure well mannered debate.

I believe there is also value in having a FB presence that is open to the public, as it gets the IPMS name out and helps promote the organization, including many chapters who use it to promote their own club and events. Even if we had a way to have a private FB group, I think there is value in keeping the public group too. 

[Chris Bucholtz]

I am attempting to stay out of this because I do not wish to bring harm or discredit on the society or anyone who volunteers to work on its behalf, but Gil is extrapolating some stuff and I want to tamp it down before it gets a bit out of hand.

"In this particular case, Chris did not "retire".... he QUIT due to "demands from the Eboard he could not abide". I FEEL THAT THE EBOARD SHOULD HAVE TO TELL US WHAT THOSE DEMANDS WERE THAT CAUSED A DEDICATED 18YR EDITOR TO QUIT."

The E-board made no demands on me - that was not the reason I resigned. The E-board, on the whole, made few demands on me over the entire 18-year time I was editor.  

"Could those demands have been be legitimate? Sure! They may have INSISTED and needed more timely work from him to get the Journal back on schedule and due to personal and business reasons Chris could not meet those demands, so he quit. That's quite understandable."

Nope - never heard a peep of pressure from anyone. 

"However, the past Eboard also tried to make Chris have his own Editorial Column "pre-approved by the Eboard" and Chris refused to do that that. If THIS Eboard demanded he do so, then I want to know why? He's run the Journal without such oversight for 18yrs so I think they should have to tell us why THEY suddenly need to control his material (and his opinion) for publication."

I submitted the last three editorials I wrote for review - no problem! That did not bug me at all. In fact, I believe the supposedly controversial editorial I wrote last year would have been approved by the majority of those who were then on the E-board. This was not a problem for me. 

I resigned because the process for building the Journal was altered without my input in such a way that I could not exert a positive impact on any aspect of it - timeliness, quality, or content. I was not shy in my suggestions or timid about my cautions. I've been doing magazines for almost 35 years, so I like to think I know at least the basics. 

Anyhow, there will be a suggestion email address in the next issue. The address is contained in Ro Annis' message. You should use it. 

 

 

[PaulBradley]

Thank you Chris for bringing some facts to this thread, rather than speculation and innuendo.  And less capitals. 

I appreciate your service. 

Edited August 18, 2024 by PaulBradley

[ghodges]

Thanks Chris! 

I was obviously completely off base with my thoughts as to why you resigned, and even FURTHER off base in how involved and responsible the Eboard was in your stepping away from the Journal. I appreciate you stepping in to put an end to my speculations and show how wrong I was.

That said.... I still have questions about the future of the Journal and the changes being made going forward. I'm also still of the opinion that a member of the Eboard SHOULD have already chimed in here to first of all dispel my speculations and also to offer some answers as to exactly what their plans are now for the Journal. Their lack of willingness to directly engage with the membership (even if it's only me) is not encouraging and doesn't agree with their "commitment to transparency". 

And by the way to everyone else.... my use of capitals, bold print, and italic print is because MOST people SCAN these topics instead of reading them completely, and those things help draw eyes to the important areas.

 

Gil 

 

[Highlander]

21 hours ago, Schmitz said:

I'm one of the Admins of the IPMSUSA Facebook page. ...

... and so on.  Well explained.  Thank you.

[Circuitrider]

21 hours ago, Schmitz said:

Its my understanding that the members-only group here on the Forum requires manual intervention by the Admin; it only works because there are a relatively small number of people participating here. Automating the Forum group membership is at least technically possible, but will require (non-trivial) work to connect the membership data in Wild Apricot to the message board software. Having a larger number of (IPMS-only) members in such a group will also create the need for more active moderation; IPMS has plenty of members with strong opinions, being IPMS-only does not insure well mannered debate.

...further, and so on...

I am, and have been (quite ineptly, and with much help from Eric Aitala and a great group of moderators) the Forum Administrator for the past few years and can tell you that this is correct info. Not only are there few participants, there are few people (and a WHOLE lot of spammers) seeking to join, and I have to evaluate each request with an inquiry into the membership database. I don't mind it at all and enjoy helping in some small way. But, if the scope was increased to encompass a popular social media platform, this is a task that could quickly become daunting and dare I say almost impossible for someone with a fulltime job.

[SkyKing]

On 8/18/2024 at 1:13 PM, Chris Bucholtz said: 

I resigned because the process for building the Journal was altered without my input in such a way that I could not exert a positive impact on any aspect of it - timeliness, quality, or content. I was not shy in my suggestions or timid about my cautions. I've been doing magazines for almost 35 years, so I like to think I know at least the basics.

 

Sounds to me like the Eboard took complete editorial control away from you. Speaking as a former editor myself, I would have resigned myself if I were to be editor in name only.

So how does the Eboard intend to produce the Journal without a real editor? Do they intend to act as a “lowest common denominator editor by committee”? That’s absolutely the worst way to turn out a publication on time and the best way to ruin the quality of any publication, and it does not bode well for the future of the Journal.

Thanks for your comments on this matter and thanks also for your work in making the Journal the excellent publication that it had become. Maintaining the standard you set is gonna be a hard act for the Eboard to follow.

 

[BWScholten]

9 hours ago, Circuitrider said:

...further, and so on...

I am, and have been (quite ineptly, and with much help from Eric Aitala and a great group of moderators) the Forum Administrator for the past few years and can tell you that this is correct info. Not only are there few participants, there are few people (and a WHOLE lot of spammers) seeking to join, and I have to evaluate each request with an inquiry into the membership database. I don't mind it at all and enjoy helping in some small way. But, if the scope was increased to encompass a popular social media platform, this is a task that could quickly become daunting and dare I say almost impossible for someone with a fulltime job.

Do the individuals give you their IPMS number?

I moderate a couple of FB pages and we use questions to weed out most spammers.

Asking the individual for their IPMS number should make verification a little easier.

[Eric Aitala]

42 minutes ago, BWScholten said:

Do the individuals give you their IPMS number?

I moderate a couple of FB pages and we use questions to weed out most spammers.

Asking the individual for their IPMS number should make verification a little easier.

No, but.... (I am not logged in here)

 

[Highlander]

In light of the refreshing candor and added information above,  the thread asking when the next Journal will appear grows more interesting.

[Circuitrider]

13 hours ago, BWScholten said:

Do the individuals give you their IPMS number?

I moderate a couple of FB pages and we use questions to weed out most spammers.

Asking the individual for their IPMS number should make verification a little easier.

They can and some do, but most don't. However, it would still necessitate an specific, individual inquiry to ensure membership and that the membership is current and has not lapsed.

[SkyKing]

4 hours ago, Circuitrider said:

They can and some do, but most don't. However, it would still necessitate an specific, individual inquiry to ensure membership and that the membership is current and has not lapsed.

But isn’t that the function of a moderator?