Jump to content

Instructor's caucus


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 428
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd like to hear an explanation of how and why the Caucus was formed in the first place. How does it work? Does every proposal have to go there first? How many seats? Who's eligible? How does one gain membership? If there's one for instructors, why not for members? Heck, why not have a Fans' Caucus too? (since members and fans are also affected by any rules changes.)

IMO, they should have as many "caucuses" as they can stomach!!!! The more input and perspective the better. Not sure, though, that ANY of them should have defacto "veto power" over the board. The instructors may not want a proposal that the customers do or that the members do or vice-versa. All pertinent opinions and discussions should be sought -- from staff, members, fans, sponsors, etc and then let the Board do the job of deciding. At least that's the way I see it ... :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can go with that. . .but at the same time it is kinda silly to say they know what they are doing is not working and are goping we just don't notice. Surely you can see that.

They certainly know that amplification is not clearly on the sheets anywhere. They also know that only a small percentage of the audience has either figured that out or even cares up to this point. They hope that continues so the critics can be pushed to the fringes of the activity and they won't have to make the hard decisions required to determine how these new elements are judged. Surely you can see that.

Edited by Tekneek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you think the "wordsmithing" was good gives them some sort of edge? The ideas presented are the important part, IMO, not the grammar...and Tim's proposals fell way short there.

Yes. I do think that. It isn't "wordsmithing", it is effective written communication. I would be likely to discard Hopkins' proposals merely because of the way they are written (without even getting to the content). Someone who puts so little effort into the composition of their proposal has likely not put the appropriate amount of thought into the content.

Edited by Tekneek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I do think that. It isn't "wordsmithing", it is effective written communication. I would be likely to discard Hopkins' proposals merely because of the way they are written (without even getting to the content). Someone who puts so little effort into the composition of their proposal has likely not put the appropriate amount of thought into the content.

Maybe he did put a lot of effort in it. Perhaps the man is learning disabled in language. Anyone in education will understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he did put a lot of effort in it. Perhaps the man is learning disabled in language. Anyone in education will understand that.

I suppose if he came to me and explained that he found it impossible to write better than that and was able to find nobody in YEA to help him put down a more coherent proposal, I would reconsider. Of course, if he told me all of that I would not likely believe that he was incapable of doing so. I know at least one person from their visual staff that went to my high school and has no trouble writing extremely well. I'm sure he would take the proposal concept over the phone and put it down in a coherent and proper manner. Truth is that George just doesn't give a #### about it (at least it seems that way to me).

Edited by Tekneek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He knows he's going to get what he wants 9 times out of 10 anyway, why waste a lot of time trying to make it look professional? The deal is done for George's proposals much as it was for Tim's.

Edited by kusankusho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose if he came to me and explained that he found it impossible to write better than that and was able to find nobody in YEA to help him put down a more coherent proposal, I would reconsider.

Finding someone to write it would be a good coping skill for someone in a leadership position, if he doesn't write well himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideas presented are the important part, IMO, not the grammar...

Well, it would be nice that the world worked that way. I know that companies (including mine) spend a lot of time polishing their proposals. They'd lose every bid if they considered grammar unimportant. But, then that point's been mentioned several times already.

It's like saying that it doesn't matter what clothes one wears, it's whether one is a good person or not. So, do people win elections while dressing like they're homeless? Does advertising of popular products feature sloppy grammar and poorly attired spokesmen? Would the public have respected Frank Sinatra as much if he looked like a punk rocker?

Let's make it more personal: When you go into post-contest critique, who's opinion is more likely to make more impact on you? A judge who can clearly and concisely explain his comments, or someone who rambles on with poor grammar and structure to his comments? Whose tape is more meaningful?

and Tim's proposals fell way short there.

Says you. Yours is hardly a deeply considered, objective pronouncement.

First of all, the best view you got was a look at the written presentation, if you even bothered. You didn't see the oral presentation, so you're in no position to judge. Second, it's intellectually lazy to say so, because the proposal was defeated (just like you wanted it, BTW), therefore no careful consideration is necessary. Third, you're hardly even trying to appear to be reasonable and serious, even while biased, ie giving opposing viewpoints respectful consideration before thumbing your nose at them.

Had Tim gone into the Caucus and bent over backwards to avoid even the appearance of seeming offensive to the members - IOW done everything that Tom Brace advocates - would any reasonable observer believe that the vote would've been reversed? Or even just close? At most, maybe 1-2 people would've flipped - insignificant.

Human nature explains very clearly that Tim's ideas were doomed before he even opened his mouth. I admire his effort and his chutzpah. And, I am all the more curious (and a little disappointed) that the Caucus did not take up the opportunity Tim presented them. But then, much like the late Republican Congress, it appears that they'd rather win a vote than a debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...