Mike, Rick Boni, and Jen Ruth and I have been working in this direction and will welcome ideas. We want to have some preliminary guidelines in place by next contest season, and have made quite a bit of progress.
At this time, we have written preliminary guidelines on selection of judges, and have begun to identify possible problem spots in the judging process.
This message has been edited by CCSG on Oct 21, 2005 3:08 PM
Can we expect a full report? Since I was supposed to be in this group, I am real curious what kind of progress has been made. I am looking forward to a full report.
Yes, I know that I also spoke up that I wanted to be involved in this process.....
I guess the only way to be involved is to do my own set on my own. When you get yours set up and going I will announce mine and we can compare I guess. Looks like this is the only way to take an active part in this committee.
This message has been edited by CCSG on Oct 18, 2005 1:14 PM
Cindy,
In Sandringham, Mike, Rick and Liz Boni, Jen, Dennis, and I were all there and making time to talk about judging. I believe that Mike asked you to attend the prejudging meetings he was holding, and my understanding was that you declined.
At Westport, if you recall, you and I sat in Cowboy Bob's for a good half hour, and I showed you and discussed the preliminary work I had done for that event and to get the ball rolling. It seemed to me that you would have liked for me to send that to Brian McEneny so he could consider the ideas for use in the Reedsport show.
Neither you nor Debbie responded to the question I posted on the blue forum regarding the important question of originality.
Of course you can always go off on your own and make your own guidelines, but that would not exactly be in the spirit of the guild, would it?
I am somewhat paranoid about putting what I write out there in the world before it is completed because I have had the experience of seeing my exact words used by, distributed by and attributed to some other person or organization. Mike has had the same esperience.
You and Debbie are welcome to get involved. We can work online or we can have meetings this winter. I believe that Angie is correct in her statement that whatever we develop will only be guidelines and not rules. I would further commit to the idea that the Guild cnan and should act as a resource for carvers. Whatever we come up with, I'd like it ready for distribution by next season's competitions.
I was never asked to be part of the meetings at Sandringham.
I was asked to be there when the judging votes were counted. I declined, I do not believe that the carvers wives should have any part in that.
The only way I found out about the private meetings was through one of the wives. When I asked Dennis about these meetings, I was told he did not know about them either. I would have liked to have been there for the meetings, since a select few had inside information about the changes on how the carvings would be judged.
Oh yeah, I let a lot of those threads slide by, especially if someone else has already said what I think... and I rarely get very serious over there... that's more a place to let your hair down, relax and have fun with friends.... I relate to the forums as the yellow one (carving post) as a school room, if you will.... and the craver (blue one) as more of a lounge environment....(know what I mean)
Cindy denies being invited to the Sandringham meetings?? Of course she was told about the meetings. Not the first one on Friday morning because it arose as an improptu gathering with less than an hour's notice. At that one all that was really decided was that we didn't have a lot of the essentials, like paper, pens, clipboards, marking pens, a list of carvers, a list of the judges, etc. Volunteers volunteered and assignments were made.
The next morning, around 9 a.m. I stopped by the King Carving Corral and told Cindy personally that we were gathering at 10 in the publicity office. She said she had to help Bob and wouldn't be able to attend any meetings. I tried to tell her what we were doing. She repeated that she couldn't come to the meeting.
The Saturday meeting is when I learned that my Judging Criteria, which I had sent to Dennis at least 3 months before, had not been posted on the Competition web site. Therefore it was decided in the meeting to use the past year's criteria which had been posted all year, and would be fairest to the carvers. (There was still one carver who denied ever having seen criteria of any sort. Guess who that was.) The problem was there were no points assigned to the various criteria. Thus, the ballot form was designed, the points assigned & the Publicity person sent it off to somewhere for reproduction. The ballots were handed to me Sunday at the 10am meeting.
The question of who would count the ballots was settled by Dennis, who said he would do it. And he did, totaling each score 3 times. After all, he had the adding machine. I helped. There were no wives involved in counting ballots.
There was never any attempt to hold secret meetings. Everyone who was in attendance was told to drag anybody they could find in to help, like numbering the carvers for instance. There were supposedly 54 carvers, but I had 56 names. As it turned out one carver had somehow been given two numbers and one carver wasn't there. However, the whole job took 3 people nearly 4 hours of walking back and forth across the grounds. I was one of them. The other two were volunteer wives. Helping out. Donating time. It would have taken much longer without them. I was grateful for the help. It's too bad that Cindy looked at it as akin to spying out "inside information".
So my message is this- pitch in and help. We can all get there a little faster and easier if we do.
This message has been edited by CCSG on Oct 21, 2005 3:16 PM
Mike,
I stand by everything I said about Sandringham, I have not lied about a thing. You are trying to twist my words into something they weren't, shame on you.
AS REQUESTED BY CINDY, I HAVE DELETED THIS PARAGRAPH. susan
I think your attack on me as well as your rude attack on Debbie over the minutes is not benefitting the guild. The only people I have seen doing anything over the last couple of years is the two of us. I would like to see your list of achievements concerning the guild. I find your remarks very offensive.
I personally would like to see a president of the CCSG that attends meetings, works well with others, works to promote a positive image and has the time to spend making progress. The only person that comes to mind that could handle this position would be Debbie Breitenfeldt.
Regards,
Cindy
P.S. This online meeting is not going to make any progress with the kind of attitude that Mike is displaying. I did not read one post that he made besides this attack on me. I think it would be in the best interest of the guild if it was deleted.
This message has been edited by CCSG on Oct 21, 2005 3:33 PM
high time we got togather for a mudrassling contest huh, I did not see any attacks cindy so chill out sweetie,I recall a secret meeting down in point arena ,where pat was left out? he ended up quitting the guild, but it lumbers forward anyway even if some of cogs fall off,now, are you cool cats are talking about a guild meeting in sandringham? and was it any more then a pre-judgeing get togather and bull session nothing "offical"? {kinda rymes with offal tee hee} or was it a for the record, meeting? your loyal servant steve backus
Please remove the offending paragraph at the end of my post in the Forum. It serves only to inflame and divert attention from the focus of the message.
Thank you, Mike McVay
Cindy and other officers and board members of the Guild:
Concerning my post defending myself with regards to Sandringham:
It might have been better to leave off that last paragraph with Bob's comment. It served only to give Cindy an out from focusing on my response to the accusations she made against me about Sandringham.
I used that paragraph to illustrate my impression of the King's disinclination. If it gave offense, then I apologize. I did not mean to offend. I did not mean to sully anyone's reputation. If no other person remembers Bob's comment, then I must strike it from my memory as if it were never made.
If we were in an open meeting, that's attended by the general membership, then decorum should prevail. But in a closed forum we are obliged to speak with candor.
Cindy accused me of running secret meetings at Sandringham, to which she said she was not invited. She accused me of giving insider information to other carver's wives, and she implied that other carver's wives tallied the judges points. None of which was true, and I responded to it. It would seem that even though she would deny others the right to impugnation, she certainly doesn't deny it to herself.
Further, I received a voice mail from Bob King last night asking me to call him at my earliest convenience. He sounded very angry. I can only assume it was a result of reading the forum. Aside from the fact that he's not on the board and not entitled to read the forum, I'd suggest if he has anything to say to me, he should respond on the Forum.
Let's keep this all open and above board shall we.
