 |
It was with great interest that I read through a recent thread on the IPMS Forum regarding the selection of Head Judges and the role of the 2nd Vice President on the NCC. Some of the postings reminded me of my good old days as a PoliSci graduate student, endlessly debating the number of freedoms resident on the head of a pin. Few of us had a clue about the actual mechanics of government, and some didn't even care beyond the pure philosophy. But we sure were passionate! Parts of the thread were quite intriguing. Under the category of "if I repeat it often enough, it must be true" there were assertions regarding the final decision concerning sweeps. Unfortunately, no matter how many times you play it over, a decision that goes against you really isn't the same as a decision made in complete disregard for the competing arguments. Then, there was the issue of secrecy and unresponsiveness of the NCC; a charge levied or implied by some members who to the best of my recollection have never sent me or any other member of the NCC a question for clarification, or made a direct recommendation. I was especially taken, however, by a posting by David Knights, who identified a very useful distinction concerning two roles of the NCC. First, the execution of the actual contest, including the oversight of the judges, the judging process, issues of integrity, etc. Second, a regulatory function with regard to the Rules and the Categories, where he saw a need for the 2nd VP to be a voting member of the NCC: carrying the water, so to speak for the rank and file. In response to a question Mr. Knights' sent to me, I pointed out that the 2nd VP has not been a member of the NCC, but that like any elected officer, he is perfectly free to attend and participate. Ron Bell attended our meeting in Kansas City, for example, as did James Corley and others. The issue of voting is not as important as it may appear for two reasons: first, the NCC tends to work principally by consensus – there is very little specific up or down voting that goes on; and second, the NCC does not make decisions that are directly opposed by the 2nd VP. Why? Because the NCC reports to the President, and it's hard to see a situation in which a President would disregard the strong objections of one of his principal E-Board members. The NCC honestly believes that it has and does uphold the interests of the rank and file of the organization. How else to explain the Committee's history (under various Chief Judges and a number of different Head Judges) of rejecting proposals that it sees as contributing to the reputation of IPMS as a place for elites and masters at the expense of regular modelers? For example: the rejection of judging against subjective standards that would tend to over-reward the "upper classes" of modelers at the expense of others in the contest; the rejection of sweeps, which concentrate awards in fewer hands at the expense of the others attempting to compete and have fun doing it; and efforts like Out-Of-The-Box and Premiere awards, which increase the number of modelers who can come to a convention and feel like participants and not bystanders. But, getting back to Mr. Knight's posting, it made sense and we've taken action. Effective immediately, the 2nd VP is a formal, voting member of the NCC. We're sure that Ron will continue the fine tradition that Mike Brickman outlined in his postings. And, there was no need for a torturous amendment process or even more torturous vote. The NCC is an executive committee and changes can be made as quickly and as simply as this. I see that as a real advantage in a volunteer organization. But, as the Ginsu Knife commercial puts it, wait, there's more. Regarding Head Judge selections, the comments in the postings ranged from "it's an old-boy system" to "don't fix what ain't broke." Both are correct. We've really been lucky thus far in terms of the folks tapped to perform the job of Head Judge, but the way it's been done can hardly be called orderly. President Jack pointed out that they're chosen according to some basic and irrefutable standards, but the way the names came up in the first place was certainly not a coherent process. So, effective immediately, each of the Class Head Judges will maintain a list of qualified IPMS National Judges who desire to be considered for subsequent openings as Head Judge. The list will be self-selected. It will be up to a judge to decide for his or herself whether they have the experience, standing, etc. to be competitive for the job. If they feel they do, they have only to notify their Head Judge, who will append their name and a short statement to the list. The NCC will then use that list to make selections for future openings, avoiding the possibility that we may have overlooked a viable candidate. So, to close, thanks to Mr. Knights for having provided the stimulus for what I expect most (but never all) will consider a significant improvement in our formal system of management within the NCC. I only regret that excellent recommendations like this one aren't submitted directly for consideration: it could save a lot of people a lot of time sitting at a computer that they could have spent enjoying our hobby. Hope to see you all in OC, which is shaping up to be a great convention! Aris Pappas October 2006 |