Fwd: AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #249

[Karen Randall <krandall@world.std.com>]

I have forawrded the latest of James' "contest digests" to the MC so taht
you all see everything that is going on.  I suggest that we confine any
discussion WE have with the proposal to this list, then have one person
negotiate any changes that we feel necessary with James.

Believe me, we do _not_ want to instigate another AGA bashing session
within his group.  It has already happened, and I'd rather not revisit it.
I spent way too much time on stomping out flames the last time.

Karen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

>Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 04:12:05 -0800
>From: owner-aga-contest-digest@thekrib.com (AGA CONTEST - Digest)
>To: aga-contest-digest@thekrib.com
>Subject: AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #249
>Reply-To: aga-contest@thekrib.com
>Sender: owner-aga-contest-digest@thekrib.com
>
>
>AGA CONTEST - Digest     Friday, February 25 2000     Volume 01 : Number 249
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
>    More input from the AGA MC
>    RE: More input from the AGA MC
>    Re: More Input from the AGA MC
>
>To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to majordomo@thekrib.com
>with the words "unsubscribe aga-contest-digest" in the body.
>
>Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:16:33 -0600
>From: "James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>
>Subject: More input from the AGA MC
>
>I received e-mails from Jack O'Leary and David Lass, both of whom are on the
>AGA MC. In his message, which was also sent to the AGA MC, after stating his
>support for the Proposal, Jack writes:
>
>"2.    I suggest that we waive the entry fee for AGA members.  We really
>need to start demonstrating to
>our membership that they receive benefits other than TAG (I have
>received several comments/complaints
>regarding this lately).  It seems to me that this is worthwhile, even if
>we spend $500 to $1,000 to promote
>and run the contest.  After all, we should be spending our treasury to
>benefit our members."
>
>David's message was that he supported Jack's feelings 100%.
>
>While I appreciate the support, and realize that whether or not AGA members
>are charged an entrance fee is ultimately up to the AGA MC (this will end up
>costing them a lot more money), I am concerned about what this could mean
>for the possibility of holding this event again in future years.
>
>Here is an edited version of my response to Jack - I also sent it to the
>other MC members:
>
>- ---------
>
>Thank you for your comments concerning the Proposal I submitted to the AGA
>MC for the AGA International Showcase & Contest of Aquascaping. If I may, I
>would like to address the few concerns that you raised -
>
>> snip - point #2, quoted above <
>
>Members of _all_ organizations grumble about receiving value for their
>membership fees. The _value_ that members receive from the AGA should flow
>from the fulfillment of the organization's goals, not from the occasional
>"freebie" thrown out to them. This event can benefit AGA members by truly
>meeting the stated goals of the organization:
>
>(1) to disseminate information about aquatic plants.
>(2) to study and improve upon techniques for culturing aquatic and bog
>plants in aquariums and ponds.
>(3) to increase interest in aquatic gardening.
>(4) to promote fellowship among its members.
>
>By displaying planted aquascapes along with other types of aquascapes, this
>event should show how much more beautiful a planted tank truly is and widen
>the interest in aquatic plants. The aquascaping information which we shall
>request from each entrant and display on the web site will help hobbyists
>learn better technique. The whole event should raise interest in aquatic
>gardening and the event will promote fellowship among ALL hobbyists, members
>and non-members alike.
>
>We had many, many, discussions surrounding the issue of entry fees and
>whether AGA members should receive preferential treatment via either a lower
>entrance fee or the waiving of entrance fees altogether. There are pros and
>cons for each argument, and I think that we discussed them all. I realize
>that the final decision on this remains with the members of the management
>committee, but as the chief author of this Proposal, I would like my views
>known to the entire MC.
>
>A _lot_ of work went into the planning of this Proposal. It is _not_ the
>work of a single individual but rather the collaborative effort of many
>individuals, some members of the AGA, but most who currently are not members
>of the organization. Perhaps through involvement in such a venture, they may
>join in the future. I don't think however, that the "perk" of free entry
>into an event of this kind is likely to sway anyone who is considering
>joining that they should do so. Or, for that matter, that a "perk" of this
>type is likely to cause current members to remain or renew their membership.
>
>This event was planned to further the "hobby", not as a perk for the AGA
>membership. It flows directly from the stated goals of the AGA,
>specifically:
>
>(3) to increase interest in aquatic gardening and
>(4)to promote fellowship among its members.
>
>The organization is the perfect sponsoring vehicle, primarily due to it's
>International membership and the fact that is independent of any commercial
>endeavor within the hobby.
>
>This event has the potential to become an annual or bi-annual event and to
>grow much larger than the initial round, limited as it is to a maximum of
>300 entries (due to our fears of being swamped and overloaded with work). I
>would like to see it set up and run in a manner which enhances the work of
>the AGA and not as something which acts as an on-going drain to AGA
>financial resources.
>
>While the Budget is as detailed and finely tuned as we could make it, it is
>at this point only an approximation of what we _think_ it should be. We are
>going to have to go through at least one permutation of the event in order
>to see how accurate our predictions were. I think that both Karen and Erik
>can attest to the fact that I worried intensely about producing a Budget
>that was realistic while at the same time as accurate as possible. There are
>no hidden costs which should come out of the woodwork to bite us once we are
>underway, and if you read the notes which accompany the Budget carefully you
>will see that it may cost considerably less to run than envisioned, should
>the prize donors offer to give us Gift Certificates and/or Credit Vouchers
>rather than actual equipment which we would have to pay to ship throughout
>the world.
>
>Were the AGA MC to approve this Proposal with the provision that AGA members
>get to enter gratis, unless there is a limit placed on the ratio of AGA
>members / non-member submissions, we are likely to get a fully members-only
>event, something that was NOT envisioned by me from the start. There are
>MANY potential entrants who are NOT members of the AGA, or who may have
>never even heard of the AGA. The entry fee has been kept to a very modest
>amount, specifically so as to not act as a deterrent or impediment to
>potential entrants.
>
>Going without entrance fees for AGA members would also mean hitting the AGA
>treasury for a sizeable amount of money. Unless the AGA is prepared to
>provide the financial backing for this in future years as well, at either
>the same or an increased financial level, I would hope that the MC think
>long and hard before requiring that it be structured in a manner which is
>guaranteed to cause it to be a money losing venture right from the start. It
>would be very difficult to host an event that is free one year but then
>requires an entrance fee in future years.
>
>As it is currently structured, the event should pay it's own way with a
>subscription of approximately 50%. Should we receive the full 300 entries,
>it should realize a modest profit, which would flow to the AGA treasury.
>This money would be the AGA's to do with as it sees fit, but I would like to
>think that if this first round is a success, that the next time we do this,
>it could count on AGA support as well and the surplus from the first year
>could be applied to the costs of the second year. Eventually, this could
>become a non-issue as far as being a "cost" item for the AGA, as well as a
>very valuable beacon to the entire hobby for the AGA and it's work.
>
>> 3.    Can I still enter if I have Karen photograph my tanks?
>
>As long as it is YOUR aquascape which is featured in the photographs, we do
>not care WHO took the pictures.
>
>Again, I would like to thank you for the time it took to review the Proposal
>and hope that you will continue your support of the project.
>
>Yours truly,
>
>James Purchase
>Toronto
>
>- ----------------
>
>I _hope_ that this message gets taken by the MC in the manner in which it
>was intended. Karen repeatedly suggested that a Proposal which was likely to
>cost a lot of money and act as a drain on the organizations limited
>financial resources would not likely receive approval. The Proposal which
>was submitted was structured to require only temporary financial support and
>would repay that support, hopefully almost doubling the investment. I don't
>intend this to be a money making venture for the AGA but feel that if it is
>going to be undertaken as an expensive "one time deal", we have worked since
>last summer for nothing. This thing CAN become an annual event.
>
>I hope that both Erik and Karen, while wearing their "hats" as members of
>this group understand this point and communicate that to the AGA MC while
>wearing their AGA "hats".
>
>James
>
>  ------------------
>  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
>  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
>  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
>  in the same message.
>  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:03:42 -0500
>From: "Ken Guin" <kenguin@homemail.com>
>Subject: RE: More input from the AGA MC
>
>James:
>
>Jack and David make very valid points, which, of course, would be just what
>you would anticipate from loyal AGA MC members. However, as you pointed out
>in your response to them, we considered this as a possibility, but
>eventually rejected it as being too expensive.
>
>By the way, I don't think the event would ever become "a fully members-only
>event" if their entry fees were waved.  Since we would accept only the first
>300 entries and then stop, I would hope that the order of arrival would be
>completely random and AGA members would not be given a chance to enter once
>applications were no longer accepted.
>
>Other than that, I agree with your response.
>
>Ken Guin
>Arlington, VA
>AGA Member (who could save a whole $5 under the proposed rule change)
>
>
>  ------------------
>  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
>  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
>  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
>  in the same message.
>  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:24:18 -0600
>From: "James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>
>Subject: Re: More Input from the AGA MC
>
>Thanks for the feed-back Ken. Don't get me wrong, I'm as "loyal" an AGA
>member as the next person. My main point was highlighted by the final part
>of your "sig" line - you stand to save a whole $5.00 under the proposed rule
>changes. Big deal! <g>
>
>But what is a small deal to entrants (anyone who can't afford the $5.00 is
>not likely to be a potential entrant anyway, considering the cost to set up
>and maintain an aquarium) could be a very big deal to the AGA and how it
>could best serve it's membership. If 150 AGA entries are submitted, that
>represents $750.00 which the AGA wouldn't have to use for other purposes. As
>an AGA member, I am VERY concerned about how the organization spends it's
>(our) money, even though as a regular member I've never been asked my
>opinion on the matter. (Come to think of it, I've never seen a financial
>statement in TAG which would allow the membership at large to comment upon.)
>
>The number two item in the list of AGA goals is to study and improve upon
>techniques for culturing aquatic and bog plants in aquariums and ponds. In
>my opinion, this is best done through the sponsoring of independent research
>in areas of interest to aquatic gardeners. That $750.00 could go towards
>furthing our REAL knowledge of aquatic plant husbandry rather than the
>bantering back and forth of annecdotal evidence as is done daily on the APD
>(I'm not confusing the APD with the AGA). The AGA does have a Research
>Committee, led by Diana Walstad and it does fund independent research
>proposals.
>
>I am aware of one individual (I don't know if he is an AGA member or not, or
>if he is receiving AGA funding) who is currently conducting some VERY
>interesting research into aquarium substrates. I have recently had the
>opportunity to help his work by providing him (at my expense) with samples
>of a number of substrates, both commercial and non-commercial, for testing.
>Several other people have helped him out in the same manner. I've seen some
>raw data from his research and it is QUITE interesting and should provide a
>lot of "real" information for discussion and further research. My point is
>that studies such as the one this chap is conducting will be more valuable
>to aquatic gardeners than people's personal annecdotes about this material
>vs. that material, which, in the absence of real data, is all that we can go
>by.
>
>I realize that this is not a forum to discuss issues such as this, but as
>there really IS no real-time forum provided by the AGA to allow members to
>voice their individual opinions, for now it will have to do (I'm also aware
>that at least 2 AGA MC members are likely to read this).
>
>I think that our actually offering to DO this as an AGA sponsored event
>should be enough of a "perk" for AGA members. None of the AGA dues is going
>to pay for the uncounted hours I or any of you have put into this project to
>date (nor should it) and if any AGA member who has heard about this effort
>and decided not to get involved and help out feels slighted because they are
>expected to pay a $5.00 entry fee, I have only two words for them, and I
>can't use them here. <g>
>
>As I said in my initial post, the issue really IS up to the AGA MC - if they
>don't want members charged, they won't be, but I do hope that they consider
>the consequences very carefully before reaching a final decision.
>
>Enough. Back to waiting.
>
>James Purchase
>Toronto
>AGA Member-at-large-with-a-big-mouth <g>
>
>  ------------------
>  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
>  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
>  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
>  in the same message.
>  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of AGA CONTEST - Digest V1 #249
>***********************************

  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-mcm" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-mcm-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-mcm
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-mcm", and password "incorporate".