Patte,
I see the elephant in the room. So now I have to say that it makes sense. All this bull is due to what was and what might be? Ridiculous.

Is the system in need of change, I say yes. Because I don't belong to a regional club does not mean I have no say. As a member in good standing, I deserve a vote. That is my opinion.

With this overview in writing, what I see is assumptions and bitterness from presumed outcomes. Ridiculous!

I thought this discussion was started to sincerely help the membership; why are there always ulterior motives? Is it me or do you feel that this is targeting a particular dog? It's just not right to mislead people with an altruistic intention!

Thanks for the overview. Seeing it in text makes things so clear. It is frustrating and annoying. What is it with people? Sadly, when the fog clears it never seems to be about the dogs...  Thanks for letting me vent. Thanks for always having answers at your fingertips. When I grow up I want to be as organized as you.

Arvind
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: Nate & Patte Titus

Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:50:35
To:
Subject: [gsp-l] NSS Judges 2000 - 2009


What I find interesting is the impression that the current system is 
somehow corrupt, flawed, slanted thus it needs to be changed before 
the 2010 NSS.  Does this mean "all of the judges" selected prior to 
the 2010 Delegates meeting were somehow not qualified to judge and the 
dogs they selected were "not the best examples of the breed" for each 
of their respective wins?

Me thinks some that have voiced opinions need to stop and think for a 
second if they, a friend or a family member was chosen to judge at an 
NSS under this system...

...or if a dog they owned or bred was really not deserving of their 
win under the judges selected by this current system...

Following is a list of Judges selected either by the delegate method 
only or the one currently in place beginning with those who will be 
judging in 2010 up through 2012

2012 - BOB - Suzanne Dillin, Karen Ashe - Futurity - Lucretia Coonrod, 
Sweeps - Karen Nauer
2011 - BOB - Sue Clemons, Steve Keating - Futurity - Leita Estes, 
Sweeps - Valerie Nunes-Attkinson
2010 - BOB - Michelle Billings, Christy Featherston - Futurity - Robin 
Remondi - Sweeps - Tina Craig

Past NSS Judges
2009 - BOB - Michael Faulkner, Dana P. Cline - Futurity - Patty 
Crowley, Sweeps - Char Rutar

2008 - BOB - Elizabeth Muthard, Betsy Yates - Futurity - Nancy 
Campbell, Sweeps - Bruce Schultz

2007 - BOB - Ann Yuhasz, Rita Bell - Futurity - Keith Vooris, Sweeps - 
Janet Chandler

2006 - BOB - James Reynolds, Virginia Lyne - Futurity - Margaret Serak 
Wilson, Sweeps - Brenda Abraham

2005 - BOB - Ken Clemons, Charles Ruppert - Futurity - Sue Harrison, 
Sweeps - Sue Clemons

2004 - BOB - Jim Burns, Marilyn Spacht - Futurity - Barb Booher, 
Sweeps - Charlie Edwards

2003 - BOB - Jon Cole, Judith Goodin - Futurity - Sharon Dattilio, 
Sweeps - Don Schwartz, VMD

2002 - BOB - Carl Leipman, Jean Fournier - Futurity - Bob Keegan, 
Sweeps - Nancy Liebes

2001 - BOB - Asa Mays, DVM, Beth Speich - Futurity - Mary Finley, 
Sweeps - Robert McKowan

2000 - BOB - Lawrence Stanbridge, Dr. RIchard Hilderman - Futurity - 
Jodi Engel, PhD. - Sweeps - Harold Engel, DVM, PhD

In three circumstances the judging panels have been adjusted for 
health reasons.  In one circumstance it was done when it was 
determined the individual didn't have the minimum requirements and in 
2006 an impassioned plea was made during the Delegates meeting to 
place Mrs. Billings name back into consideration for 2010 because due 
to health reasons Mrs. Billings was unable to fulfill her assignment 
to judge in 2007.

In 2008 because of a delayed mailing date for the Shorthair Journal 
with the information like Sue I received a phone call about the 
"deadline extension" to receive NSS judges nominations and was asked 
to contact others that may not have internet access or belong to one 
of the "many" gsp list to let them know.  One might view that as an 
attempt to get the word out and inform rather than exclude.

Patte Titus
CheckSix Shorthairs




Unsubscribing: To unsubscribe from the list, send an email message in PLAIN TEXT to gsp-l-request@web.whc.net with message text of "unsubscribe gsp-l you@email.add" (replace the email address with yours, don't include the quotes and note it is a lower case L after the dash in gsp-l).

Let us submit through the GSPCA website.

 

Jennifer Mills ~ Berihill GSPs & BCs
www.berihill.com

 

 

 

 

---

From: "Shannondog@aol.com"
To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:18:28 PM
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] NSS Judges 2000 - 2009

Arvind

I would like to clear the point of my intentions as to trying to devise a new system.  I first thought of this several years ago when I learned that only 37 people had returned the ballots for the national judges.  37 people were responsible for picking the judge.  Now, I do know that if the membership wants to have a say, they need to take responsibility for filling out the form and returning it.  So after thinking about if for a while, I thought maybe it's because this all comes out around the holidays.  People are busy, there is actually a life other than dogs, and by the time they get through it, the deadline has passed.  The following May, I came up with the ballot box at the Nationals.  What better way to get a good response then have it at the Nationals when people are thinking about judges and who they would like.  We got a tremendous response.  The largest we have ever had.  However, this year I had to walk around handing out sheets to people and asking them to complete it, put it in the envelope, and stick it in the box. 

I have no agenda other then trying to find some way, to get a bigger response from the membership.

Patty

 

 

 

In a message dated 9/10/2009 6:50:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jarvyce@aol.com writes:

Patte,
I see the elephant in the room. So now I have to say that it makes sense. All this bull is due to what was and what might be? Ridiculous.

Is the system in need of change, I say yes. Because I don't belong to a regional club does not mean I have no say. As a member in good standing, I deserve a vote. That is my opinion.

With this overview in writing, what I see is assumptions and bitterness from presumed outcomes. Ridiculous!

I thought this discussion was started to sincerely help the membership; why are there always ulterior motives? Is it me or do you feel that this is targeting a particular dog? It's just not right to mislead people with an altruistic intention!

Thanks for the overview. Seeing it in text makes things so clear. It is frustrating and annoying. What is it with people? Sadly, when the fog clears it never seems to be about the dogs...  Thanks for letting me vent. Thanks for always having answers at your fingertips. When I grow up I want to be as organized as you.

Arvind
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: Nate & Patte Titus

Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:50:35
To:
Subject: [gsp-l] NSS Judges 2000 - 2009


What I find interesting is the impression that the current system is 
somehow corrupt, flawed, slanted thus it needs to be changed before 
the 2010 NSS.  Does this mean "all of the judges" selected prior to 
the 2010 Delegates meeting were somehow not qualified to judge and the 
dogs they selected were "not the best examples of the breed" for each 
of their respective wins?

Me thinks some that have voiced opinions need to stop and think for a 
second if they, a friend or a family member was chosen to judge at an 
NSS under this system...

...or if a dog they owned or bred was really not deserving of their 
win under the judges selected by this current system...

Following is a list of Judges selected either by the delegate method 
only or the one currently in place beginning with those who will be 
judging in 2010 up through 2012

2012 - BOB - Suzanne Dillin, Karen Ashe - Futurity - Lucretia Coonrod, 
Sweeps - Karen Nauer
2011 - BOB - Sue Clemons, Steve Keating - Futurity - Leita Estes, 
Sweeps - Valerie Nunes-Attkinson
2010 - BOB - Michelle Billings, Christy Featherston - Futurity - Robin 
Remondi - Sweeps - Tina Craig

Past NSS Judges
2009 - BOB - Michael Faulkner, Dana P. Cline - Futurity - Patty 
Crowley, Sweeps - Char Rutar

2008 - BOB - Elizabeth Muthard, Betsy Yates - Futurity - Nancy 
Campbell, Sweeps - Bruce Schultz

2007 - BOB - Ann Yuhasz, Rita Bell - Futurity - Keith Vooris, Sweeps - 
Janet Chandler

2006 - BOB - James Reynolds, Virginia Lyne - Futurity - Margaret Serak 
Wilson, Sweeps - Brenda Abraham

2005 - BOB - Ken Clemons, Charles Ruppert - Futurity - Sue Harrison, 
Sweeps - Sue Clemons

2004 - BOB - Jim Burns, Marilyn Spacht - Futurity - Barb Booher, 
Sweeps - Charlie Edwards

2003 - BOB - Jon Cole, Judith Goodin - Futurity - Sharon Dattilio, 
Sweeps - Don Schwartz, VMD

2002 - BOB - Carl Leipman, Jean Fournier - Futurity - Bob Keegan, 
Sweeps - Nancy Liebes

2001 - BOB - Asa Mays, DVM, Beth Speich - Futurity - Mary Finley, 
Sweeps - Robert McKowan

2000 - BOB - Lawrence Stanbridge, Dr. RIchard Hilderman - Futurity - 
Jodi Engel, PhD. - Sweeps - Harold Engel, DVM, PhD

In three circumstances the judging panels have been adjusted for 
health reasons.  In one circumstance it was done when it was 
determined the individual didn't have the minimum requirements and in 
2006 an impassioned plea was made during the Delegates meeting to 
place Mrs. Billings name back into consideration for 2010 because due 
to health reasons Mrs. Billings was unable to fulfill her assignment 
to judge in 2007.

In 2008 because of a delayed mailing date for the Shorthair Journal 
with the information like Sue I received a phone call about the 
"deadline extension" to receive NSS judges nominations and was asked 
to contact others that may not have internet access or belong to one 
of the "many" gsp list to let them know.  One might view that as an 
attempt to get the word out and inform rather than exclude.

Patte Titus
CheckSix Shorthairs




Unsubscribing: To unsubscribe from the list, send an email message in PLAIN TEXT to gsp-l-request@web.whc.net with message text of "unsubscribe gsp-l you@email.add" (replace the email address with yours, don't include the quotes and note it is a lower case L after the dash in gsp-l).

 

Arvind

I would like to clear the point of my intentions as to trying to devise a new system.  I first thought of this several years ago when I learned that only 37 people had returned the ballots for the national judges.  37 people were responsible for picking the judge.  Now, I do know that if the membership wants to have a say, they need to take responsibility for filling out the form and returning it.  So after thinking about if for a while, I thought maybe it's because this all comes out around the holidays.  People are busy, there is actually a life other than dogs, and by the time they get through it, the deadline has passed.  The following May, I came up with the ballot box at the Nationals.  What better way to get a good response then have it at the Nationals when people are thinking about judges and who they would like.  We got a tremendous response.  The largest we have ever had.  However, this year I had to walk around handing out sheets to people and asking them to complete it, put it in the envelope, and stick it in the box. 

I have no agenda other then trying to find some way, to get a bigger response from the membership.

Patty

 

 

 

How does one monitor who has been on the survey? e-mail addresses?? In order to avoid dupilicates.

 

sue





nt: Thu, Sep 10, 2009 9:22 pm
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] NSS Judges 2000 - 2009

Perhaps an option for voting is to use an online tool such as SurveyMonkey.  It's a free application where you can creatively design a survey, send online reminders to those who haven't completed it and download results, etc.  I'm simplifying it as it has many more options.  We use it where I work for a variety of surveys and people really like it and we tend to get a good response rate.

 

What we did at our local gsp club is give members an option for  a variety of matters - newsletter, club meeting notices, etc.- those with online access versus those who want snail mail.   Perhaps the parent club can do something like that and offer a paper survey option for those without email.  I'm confident you'd get more than 37 responses with an online quick point and click survey and still a solution for those without computer access. 

 

Just a thought and an option to explore if there is any interest.

 

 

 

Diane Prohaska

Norwalk, CT

 

 

 

In a message dated 9/10/2009 7:19:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Shannondog@aol.com writes:

Arvind

I would like to clear the point of my intentions as to trying to devise a new system.  I first thought of this several years ago when I learned that only 37 people had returned the ballots for the national judges.  37 people were responsible for picking the judge.  Now, I do know that if the membership wants to have a say, they need to take responsibility for filling out the form and returning it.  So after thinking about if for a while, I thought maybe it's because this all comes out around the holidays.  People are busy, there is actually a life other than dogs, and by the time they get through it, the deadline has passed.  The following May, I came up with the ballot box at the Nationals.  What better way to get a good response then have it at the Nationals when people are thinking about judges and who they would like.  We got a tremendous response.  The largest we have ever had.  However, this year I had to walk arou! nd handing out sheets to people and asking them to complete it, put it in the envelope, and stick it in the box. 

I have no agenda other then trying to find some way, to get a bigger response from the membership.

Patty