Focus on Competition
Technical Director — Bob Underwood
Last year, about the time this column was being written, a decision was made to cancel Scale at the Lubbock Nats. The rationale for that decision was threefold:
- The numbers registered would create a highly reduced competition level.
- Obtaining individuals to act as judges, using the same methods as in the past, would not be possible.
- As a result of the first two reasons, an element of cost crept into the equation.
This column is not meant to revisit that occurrence; rather, it is important to note what has occurred since as we move through a "Nats-in-transition" period.
During 1994 three significant things happened relative to the Nats:
- Don Lowe called a meeting of the Nats category managers and a few other individuals in Muncie, which kicked off thinking about changes in the operation of the Nats.
- A suggestion was made to return the management of the event to someone away from Headquarters; Ron Morgan was contacted and agreed to take on that type of position, which he had held for more than two decades in the brighter Nats periods.
- Steve Kaluf came on board as Competitions Director and quickly worked with Ron and Headquarters staff. I stepped aside early in the process and have been providing encouragement and support to Ron and Steve.
Much soul-searching was done during the initial meeting. Ideas flowed freely and were allowed to germinate. Due to the volume of correspondence about the Scale cancellation and the ideas from the meeting, I wrote a Tech Director column expressing the view that the Nats was no longer a "National Championships" and explaining why. Dozens of people (about 50) responded by letter and phone; virtually everyone agreed that the trophy had lost its meaning and that changes were needed.
I took the ideas advanced and formulated a document designed to address them. From the start it was recognized that the scenario would be controversial and would require refinement both immediately and over the long term. It also seemed important to formally state, so it could not be lost, exactly what function we expected the Nats to perform. To that end, the document was written as standing rules to the Bylaws.
Advantages of treating the issue as standing rules included:
- It required Executive Council involvement, since they determine policy.
- The document would always be on view because all members receive the Membership Manual that contains the Bylaws and Standing Rules.
- The standing rules can be changed, if necessary, up to four times a year by a majority vote of the Executive Council at any regular meeting.
Once the Nats document was prepared it was presented to the Nats Committee and the Executive Council. Suggestions from both groups were incorporated, the document was refined, voted on, and approved by the Executive Council, and it was published in this column a few months ago.
Those who studied the document discovered that one portion conflicted with the current rule book: the area of event cancellation. For rule-book purposes this has been treated through an urgent rule proposal. The fate of that proposal is not yet known. Note that the urgent proposal affects only sanctioned events that require preregistration and includes time frames that allow notification of cancellation well in advance of the event.
While several individuals noted the disparity between the rule book and the standing rules on cancellation, only one person responded regarding the selection of national champions. There is a disparity there as well. The "Selection of Champions" section on page 9 of the rule book has not been used at the Nats for many years. About eight years ago a suggestion was made to delete that section because of lack of use; it was retained at the suggestion of Don Lindley, then Contest Board Coordinator, who felt other groups might use it as a guideline.
I do not know whether anyone still uses those guidelines. In any case, the guidelines in the new standing rules are considerably easier to administer and better reflect the present competition scene.
How do we handle the rule book / standing rules disparity about champion selection? Four possible directions come to mind:
- Propose a rule-book change to replace the existing text.
- Determine which document takes precedence: the standing rules or the competition rule book.
- Continue to ignore the champion selection process in the rule book.
- Declare the new process in the standing rules null and void.
There will continue to be significant debate about the Nats in general and the manner in which we arrived at this point. Please accept that I have no vested interest in whichever direction we take—I simply felt we needed to declare what we want the Nats to be and to move.
On May 20 a meeting was held in Muncie that included Nats managers, Headquarters staff, and special interest groups. I was unable to attend due to a prior commitment, but I contacted a number of attendees afterward. They agreed that much was accomplished and that a high level of cooperation occurred relative to the fate of the Nats as we look toward 1996. I will leave detailed reporting to others; the important fact is that a strong, meaningful dialogue has been established. Will the standing rules remain as originally constituted? Certainly not unchanged—but we did get something moving.
Now's the time for you to add your ideas. Contact your Vice President, your special interest group, or your contest board representatives. On to a bigger, better National Championships!
Competitors should also know that action has been achieved on another front. At the October Executive Council meeting we will hold a concurrent Contest Board Chairpersons meeting in Muncie. The two groups will come together to vote on changes to the Contest Board Procedures document. This is long overdue. Considerations for these changes have been solicited from all 100+ Contest Board members and the Executive Council.
Significant problems exist within the Contest Board Procedures document—not only lapses in how certain procedures happen, but also unclear interpretation of several present rules or guidelines. One example is the procedures for changing the document: right now the document states only the voting percentage required and who votes. Nothing is stated about who may initiate changes, how often changes may be proposed, how they are to be handled, and so on. If you have opinions about how the Rule Proposal Procedures document should look, contact your contest board members or Vice President.
Enough for now. Back to important things—like whether St. Louis is going to become a suburb of New Orleans if it continues to rain!
Bob Underwood
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
