Two Regions now complete. Totally feels like weekend two of the NCAA
tournament (sorry to go all N.A. on the Int'l folks here...) starts
with a bunch, ends with a very, very few.
Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
grace period in there, though.
I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
member can find herself in this situation.
Colin
On Jun 14, 1:50 am, "rich.hopk...@gmail.com" <rich.hopk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement, transfer, or dual member.
> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
> grace period in there, though.
> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
> member can find herself in this situation.
[mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:56 AM
To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
There is a 60-day grace period where one remains fully in good graces for any purposes, like running for office or competing in a contest.
I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement, transfer, or dual member.
Colin wrote, On 6/14/2009 8:51 AM:
> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
> grace period in there, though.
> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
> member can find herself in this situation.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
05:53:00
Don't think I need to, World Headquarters is already on top of this, and even the district's conference web site acknowledges that by the letter of the rules, the contestant was ineligible.
I acknowledge how terrible the contestant and her supporters must feel, but on the other hand, it's clear that the AG, the DivG, and the DG (or their contest masters) didn't check the contestants eligibility before those contests were held.
You can't run an organization on exceptions, no matter how the situation tugs at the heartstrings.
Now, changing the rules to cover something like this in the future, that's fair game. Not sure it's right or wrong, but certainly something that can be usefully discussed. There may be even worse implications if you add a clause somewhere about "a contestant should never be harmed by the errors of a contest official"!
> That's what I thought, too - so why is this even an issue? Mike, you could
> look into it, right?
> Abel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
> There is a 60-day grace period where one remains fully in good graces > for any purposes, like running for office or competing in a contest.
> I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid > after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were > for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement, > transfer, or dual member.
> Colin wrote, On 6/14/2009 8:51 AM:
>> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
>> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
>> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
>> grace period in there, though.
>> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
>> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
>> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
>> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
>> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
>> member can find herself in this situation.
I was thinking the same thing, and scoured the petition web site for any actual dates. They said that TI disqualified her, and they fully know about the grace period. Was she a new member, I wonder? The petition site did say that she paid the dues immediately when requested. There must be more to this story.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Raffety" <MikeRaff...@earthlink.net>
To: <toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
> There is a 60-day grace period where one remains fully in good graces
> for any purposes, like running for office or competing in a contest.
> I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid
> after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were
> for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement,
> transfer, or dual member.
> Colin wrote, On 6/14/2009 8:51 AM:
>> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
>> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
>> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
>> grace period in there, though.
>> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
>> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
>> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
>> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
>> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
>> member can find herself in this situation.
Hmm. I guess the way I read what happened was that nobody was taking into
account the 60 days. They seemed to be saying that the dues got sent in just
a few days past the initial deadline, not the 60 day deadline. Isn't the 60
days over at the end of May?
[mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:13 AM
To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
Don't think I need to, World Headquarters is already on top of this, and even the district's conference web site acknowledges that by the letter of the rules, the contestant was ineligible.
I acknowledge how terrible the contestant and her supporters must feel, but on the other hand, it's clear that the AG, the DivG, and the DG (or their contest masters) didn't check the contestants eligibility before those contests were held.
You can't run an organization on exceptions, no matter how the situation tugs at the heartstrings.
Now, changing the rules to cover something like this in the future, that's fair game. Not sure it's right or wrong, but certainly something that can be usefully discussed. There may be even worse implications if you add a clause somewhere about "a contestant should never be harmed by the errors of a contest official"!
Abel wrote, On 6/14/2009 9:00 AM:
> That's what I thought, too - so why is this even an issue? Mike, you could
> look into it, right?
> Abel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
> There is a 60-day grace period where one remains fully in good graces > for any purposes, like running for office or competing in a contest.
> I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid > after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were > for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement, > transfer, or dual member.
> Colin wrote, On 6/14/2009 8:51 AM:
>> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
>> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
>> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
>> grace period in there, though.
>> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
>> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
>> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
>> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
>> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
>> member can find herself in this situation.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
> 05:53:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
05:53:00
She had been a member, then was not a member. She took time off, lost her
membership period. Then, she returned to the club on the night of the
contest (coincidence, as described by her club), and was encouraged to
compete. She paid dues that night, and the folks there and at every contest
above didn't realize she was ineligible.
The scoop is here:
http://www.freewebs.com/toastmastersspringconference-2009whistler/let...
<http://www.freewebs.com/toastmastersspringconference-2009whistler/let...>This
occurred in Region I two years ago as well, to a contestant who had
represented us in 2002 at the WCPS - Bobby Lee. He won D57, but his club
didn't pay dues. Chief Judges and Contest Chairs are responsible to certify
eligibility along the way, and apparently are not getting trained on how to
do so.
I know I babysat my payment, and my club's renewal this year to ensure it
wouldn't happen to me - but I've been around the block a few times, right?
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Abel <abelgodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm. I guess the way I read what happened was that nobody was taking into
> account the 60 days. They seemed to be saying that the dues got sent in
> just
> a few days past the initial deadline, not the 60 day deadline. Isn't the 60
> days over at the end of May?
> Abel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:13 AM
> To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
> Don't think I need to, World Headquarters is already on top of this, and
> even the district's conference web site acknowledges that by the letter
> of the rules, the contestant was ineligible.
> I acknowledge how terrible the contestant and her supporters must feel,
> but on the other hand, it's clear that the AG, the DivG, and the DG (or
> their contest masters) didn't check the contestants eligibility before
> those contests were held.
> You can't run an organization on exceptions, no matter how the situation
> tugs at the heartstrings.
> Now, changing the rules to cover something like this in the future,
> that's fair game. Not sure it's right or wrong, but certainly something
> that can be usefully discussed. There may be even worse implications if
> you add a clause somewhere about "a contestant should never be harmed by
> the errors of a contest official"!
> Abel wrote, On 6/14/2009 9:00 AM:
> > That's what I thought, too - so why is this even an issue? Mike, you
> could
> > look into it, right?
> > Abel
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
> > Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:56 AM
> > To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
> > There is a 60-day grace period where one remains fully in good graces
> > for any purposes, like running for office or competing in a contest.
> > I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid
> > after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were
> > for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement,
> > transfer, or dual member.
> > Colin wrote, On 6/14/2009 8:51 AM:
> >> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
> >> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
> >> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
> >> grace period in there, though.
> >> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
> >> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
> >> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
> >> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
> >> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
> >> member can find herself in this situation.
> She had been a member, then was not a member. She took time off, lost her
> membership period. Then, she returned to the club on the night of the
> contest (coincidence, as described by her club), and was encouraged to
> compete. She paid dues that night, and the folks there and at every contest
> above didn't realize she was ineligible.
> The scoop is here:
> http://www.freewebs.com/toastmastersspringconference-2009whistler/let...
> <http://www.freewebs.com/toastmastersspringconference-2009whistler/let...>This
> occurred in Region I two years ago as well, to a contestant who had
> represented us in 2002 at the WCPS - Bobby Lee. He won D57, but his club
> didn't pay dues. Chief Judges and Contest Chairs are responsible to certify
> eligibility along the way, and apparently are not getting trained on how to
> do so.
> I know I babysat my payment, and my club's renewal this year to ensure it
> wouldn't happen to me - but I've been around the block a few times, right?
> Rich.
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Abel <abelgodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hmm. I guess the way I read what happened was that nobody was taking into
>> account the 60 days. They seemed to be saying that the dues got sent in
>> just
>> a few days past the initial deadline, not the 60 day deadline. Isn't the
>> 60
>> days over at the end of May?
>> Abel
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
>> [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
>> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:13 AM
>> To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
>> Don't think I need to, World Headquarters is already on top of this, and
>> even the district's conference web site acknowledges that by the letter
>> of the rules, the contestant was ineligible.
>> I acknowledge how terrible the contestant and her supporters must feel,
>> but on the other hand, it's clear that the AG, the DivG, and the DG (or
>> their contest masters) didn't check the contestants eligibility before
>> those contests were held.
>> You can't run an organization on exceptions, no matter how the situation
>> tugs at the heartstrings.
>> Now, changing the rules to cover something like this in the future,
>> that's fair game. Not sure it's right or wrong, but certainly something
>> that can be usefully discussed. There may be even worse implications if
>> you add a clause somewhere about "a contestant should never be harmed by
>> the errors of a contest official"!
>> Abel wrote, On 6/14/2009 9:00 AM:
>> > That's what I thought, too - so why is this even an issue? Mike, you
>> could
>> > look into it, right?
>> > Abel
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
>> > [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
>> > Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:56 AM
>> > To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
>> > Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
>> > There is a 60-day grace period where one remains fully in good graces
>> > for any purposes, like running for office or competing in a contest.
>> > I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid
>> > after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were
>> > for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement,
>> > transfer, or dual member.
>> > Colin wrote, On 6/14/2009 8:51 AM:
>> >> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
>> >> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
>> >> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
>> >> grace period in there, though.
>> >> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
>> >> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
>> >> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
>> >> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
>> >> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
>> >> member can find herself in this situation.
>> >> Colin
>> >> On Jun 14, 1:50 am, "rich.hopk...@gmail.com" <rich.hopk...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> D21 calls shenanigans in contest
>> > results:
>> http://www.freewebs.com/toastmastersspringconference-2009whistler/ >> >>> Click
>> > onhttp://
>> groups.google.com/group/toastmastersprime/web/2009-district-in...
>> >>> - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
>> >>> work.
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date:
>> 06/14/09
>> > 05:53:00
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
>> 05:53:00
NOW it makes sense. I can see now that she was ineligible from the start,
since her dues payment had not been made/processed prior to the club
contest. She was not a 'member in good standing' going into the contest.
Thanks for that clarification, Rich.
It's terrible that she got that far without the problem being resolved, but
I do think a full understanding of the rules should be a contestant's
responsibility.
Abel
_____
From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
[mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rich Hopkins
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:29 AM
To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
She had been a member, then was not a member. She took time off, lost her
membership period. Then, she returned to the club on the night of the
contest (coincidence, as described by her club), and was encouraged to
compete. She paid dues that night, and the folks there and at every contest
above didn't realize she was ineligible.
<http://www.freewebs.com/toastmastersspringconference-2009whistler/let... mti.htm> This occurred in Region I two years ago as well, to a contestant
who had represented us in 2002 at the WCPS - Bobby Lee. He won D57, but his
club didn't pay dues. Chief Judges and Contest Chairs are responsible to
certify eligibility along the way, and apparently are not getting trained on
how to do so.
I know I babysat my payment, and my club's renewal this year to ensure it
wouldn't happen to me - but I've been around the block a few times, right?
Rich.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Abel <abelgodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. I guess the way I read what happened was that nobody was taking into
account the 60 days. They seemed to be saying that the dues got sent in just
a few days past the initial deadline, not the 60 day deadline. Isn't the 60
days over at the end of May?
[mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:13 AM
To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
Don't think I need to, World Headquarters is already on top of this, and
even the district's conference web site acknowledges that by the letter
of the rules, the contestant was ineligible.
I acknowledge how terrible the contestant and her supporters must feel,
but on the other hand, it's clear that the AG, the DivG, and the DG (or
their contest masters) didn't check the contestants eligibility before
those contests were held.
You can't run an organization on exceptions, no matter how the situation
tugs at the heartstrings.
Now, changing the rules to cover something like this in the future,
that's fair game. Not sure it's right or wrong, but certainly something
that can be usefully discussed. There may be even worse implications if
you add a clause somewhere about "a contestant should never be harmed by
the errors of a contest official"!
Abel wrote, On 6/14/2009 9:00 AM:
> That's what I thought, too - so why is this even an issue? Mike, you could
> look into it, right?
> Abel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
> There is a 60-day grace period where one remains fully in good graces
> for any purposes, like running for office or competing in a contest.
> I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid
> after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were
> for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement,
> transfer, or dual member.
> Colin wrote, On 6/14/2009 8:51 AM:
>> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
>> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
>> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
>> grace period in there, though.
>> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
>> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
>> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
>> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
>> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
>> member can find herself in this situation.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
> 05:53:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
05:53:00
"When you choose to believe you matter, you can matter exponentially."
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
05:53:00
Well, I wouldn't call that the fault of the club officer, as the petition implies. Surely, that officer was not expected to run right to a computer and enter the dues in before the contest.
It's unfortunate for her (and the second place winners) that this wasn't caught earlier in the process, but I would maintain that it's the responsibility of a contestant to read the contest rules before entering a contest...even if it is the same night. In addition, the Chief Judge should have read the rules long before that.
Of course, I recently attended a Division Contest where the Chief Judge not only didn't have a copy of the rules at the contest, she had never even seen a copy, must less read them. She went by what she'd seen happen in other contests.
The contestants often suffer when they trust other people to have read the rules for them.
----- Original Message ----- From: Rich Hopkins To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:28 AM Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
She had been a member, then was not a member. She took time off, lost her membership period. Then, she returned to the club on the night of the contest (coincidence, as described by her club), and was encouraged to compete. She paid dues that night, and the folks there and at every contest above didn't realize she was ineligible.
This occurred in Region I two years ago as well, to a contestant who had represented us in 2002 at the WCPS - Bobby Lee. He won D57, but his club didn't pay dues. Chief Judges and Contest Chairs are responsible to certify eligibility along the way, and apparently are not getting trained on how to do so.
I know I babysat my payment, and my club's renewal this year to ensure it wouldn't happen to me - but I've been around the block a few times, right?
Rich.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Abel <abelgodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. I guess the way I read what happened was that nobody was taking into account the 60 days. They seemed to be saying that the dues got sent in just a few days past the initial deadline, not the 60 day deadline. Isn't the 60 days over at the end of May?
Abel
-----Original Message----- From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:13 AM To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
Don't think I need to, World Headquarters is already on top of this, and even the district's conference web site acknowledges that by the letter of the rules, the contestant was ineligible.
I acknowledge how terrible the contestant and her supporters must feel, but on the other hand, it's clear that the AG, the DivG, and the DG (or their contest masters) didn't check the contestants eligibility before those contests were held.
You can't run an organization on exceptions, no matter how the situation tugs at the heartstrings.
Now, changing the rules to cover something like this in the future, that's fair game. Not sure it's right or wrong, but certainly something that can be usefully discussed. There may be even worse implications if you add a clause somewhere about "a contestant should never be harmed by the errors of a contest official"!
From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
[mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Barbara Kryvko
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:45 AM
To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
Well, I wouldn't call that the fault of the club officer, as the petition
implies. Surely, that officer was not expected to run right to a computer
and enter the dues in before the contest.
It's unfortunate for her (and the second place winners) that this wasn't
caught earlier in the process, but I would maintain that it's the
responsibility of a contestant to read the contest rules before entering a
contest...even if it is the same night. In addition, the Chief Judge should
have read the rules long before that.
Of course, I recently attended a Division Contest where the Chief Judge not
only didn't have a copy of the rules at the contest, she had never even seen
a copy, must less read them. She went by what she'd seen happen in other
contests.
The contestants often suffer when they trust other people to have read the
rules for them.
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
She had been a member, then was not a member. She took time off, lost her
membership period. Then, she returned to the club on the night of the
contest (coincidence, as described by her club), and was encouraged to
compete. She paid dues that night, and the folks there and at every contest
above didn't realize she was ineligible.
<http://www.freewebs.com/toastmastersspringconference-2009whistler/let... mti.htm> This occurred in Region I two years ago as well, to a contestant
who had represented us in 2002 at the WCPS - Bobby Lee. He won D57, but his
club didn't pay dues. Chief Judges and Contest Chairs are responsible to
certify eligibility along the way, and apparently are not getting trained on
how to do so.
I know I babysat my payment, and my club's renewal this year to ensure it
wouldn't happen to me - but I've been around the block a few times, right?
Rich.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Abel <abelgodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. I guess the way I read what happened was that nobody was taking into
account the 60 days. They seemed to be saying that the dues got sent in just
a few days past the initial deadline, not the 60 day deadline. Isn't the 60
days over at the end of May?
Abel
-----Original Message-----
From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
[mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:13 AM
To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
Don't think I need to, World Headquarters is already on top of this, and
even the district's conference web site acknowledges that by the letter
of the rules, the contestant was ineligible.
I acknowledge how terrible the contestant and her supporters must feel,
but on the other hand, it's clear that the AG, the DivG, and the DG (or
their contest masters) didn't check the contestants eligibility before
those contests were held.
You can't run an organization on exceptions, no matter how the situation
tugs at the heartstrings.
Now, changing the rules to cover something like this in the future,
that's fair game. Not sure it's right or wrong, but certainly something
that can be usefully discussed. There may be even worse implications if
you add a clause somewhere about "a contestant should never be harmed by
the errors of a contest official"!
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
05:53:00
From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
[mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rich Hopkins
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:42 AM
To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Rich Hopkins <rich.hopk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
She had been a member, then was not a member. She took time off, lost her
membership period. Then, she returned to the club on the night of the
contest (coincidence, as described by her club), and was encouraged to
compete. She paid dues that night, and the folks there and at every contest
above didn't realize she was ineligible.
<http://www.freewebs.com/toastmastersspringconference-2009whistler/let... mti.htm> This occurred in Region I two years ago as well, to a contestant
who had represented us in 2002 at the WCPS - Bobby Lee. He won D57, but his
club didn't pay dues. Chief Judges and Contest Chairs are responsible to
certify eligibility along the way, and apparently are not getting trained on
how to do so.
I know I babysat my payment, and my club's renewal this year to ensure it
wouldn't happen to me - but I've been around the block a few times, right?
Rich.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Abel <abelgodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm. I guess the way I read what happened was that nobody was taking into
account the 60 days. They seemed to be saying that the dues got sent in just
a few days past the initial deadline, not the 60 day deadline. Isn't the 60
days over at the end of May?
[mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:13 AM
To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
Don't think I need to, World Headquarters is already on top of this, and
even the district's conference web site acknowledges that by the letter
of the rules, the contestant was ineligible.
I acknowledge how terrible the contestant and her supporters must feel,
but on the other hand, it's clear that the AG, the DivG, and the DG (or
their contest masters) didn't check the contestants eligibility before
those contests were held.
You can't run an organization on exceptions, no matter how the situation
tugs at the heartstrings.
Now, changing the rules to cover something like this in the future,
that's fair game. Not sure it's right or wrong, but certainly something
that can be usefully discussed. There may be even worse implications if
you add a clause somewhere about "a contestant should never be harmed by
the errors of a contest official"!
Abel wrote, On 6/14/2009 9:00 AM:
> That's what I thought, too - so why is this even an issue? Mike, you could
> look into it, right?
> Abel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Raffety
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: toastmastersprime@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: View this page "2009 District Int'l Winners"
> There is a 60-day grace period where one remains fully in good graces
> for any purposes, like running for office or competing in a contest.
> I don't know the details here, but presume that the dues that were paid
> after the club contest (the $27 at the root of this entire issue) were
> for the previous October, OR the contestant was a reinstatement,
> transfer, or dual member.
> Colin wrote, On 6/14/2009 8:51 AM:
>> Ouch, that's an awful situation, but sadly, not one without precedent.
>> Didn't that happen last year in a DNAR district? I'd imagine it's not
>> something that happens infrequently. I thought there was some sort of
>> grace period in there, though.
>> I do agree that the rules need to be changed to eligibility being
>> contingent on the member submitting the dues to the club on time,
>> rather than the onus being on someone else, though I realize that
>> brings with it potential problems of its own if the club does not
>> submit the dues on time. But it strikes me as deeply unfair that a
>> member can find herself in this situation.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
> 05:53:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
05:53:00
"When you choose to believe you matter, you can matter exponentially."
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/14/09
05:53:00
|
