Re: [AISdiscuss] JT Handbook Revisions

[carolyn9999@comcast.net]

Betty has made a very valid point.  Why have a Retired Master Judge who continues judging but has no requirements for updating or reviewing the new iris, procedures, rules, etc.  I don't believe I have ever seen that anywhere--you are either in it or out of it.  If they judge and discontinue training then they become uninformed.  As with any organization the new judges are eager, interested in learning and fresh in the handbook while the others are not.  Also they are willing to see gardens and look at the new iris while the retired master judges are cutting back?

When I wrote earlier I failed to list the Emeritus Judge
and we need that designation.

Betty, so sorry to hear about Ned.  Let's hope for good news.

Carolyn Hawkins

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Florabetty@aol.com 

> Greetings, everyone, from Betty Roberts in Colorado Springs! 
> 
> I haven't meant to be a lurker re. the recent discussions, but some of you 
> know that the Big C has made another appearance -- this time in the adrenal 
> gland -- and my husband has been involved in a clinical study in Denver which 
> entails three days weekly with some variations. After next week, we'll find out 
> if 
> Ned has made any progress. If he has, he'll continue in the study; if not, 
> he'll have to go to an alternate treatment plan. 
> 
> I'd like to see the following designations for iris judges: 
> 
> 1. Student Judge 
> 2. Apprentice Judge 
> 3. Accredited Judge 
> 4. Master Judge 
> 5. Retired Judge 
> 6. Emeritus Judge 
> 
> I realize that all judges are accredited, but if we used this term for Item 3 
> above, it would simply be a designation for the first fully accredited step. 
> Please note that no term is duplicated, and this should help decrease the 
> confusion of duplicate terminology. Also, the term "Active" has been deleted. 
> 
> What I don't fully understand is the rationale behind a Retired Master Judge. 
> As per the Handbook, these judges are not required to attend training schools 
> or to complete an Activity Report unless they want to do so." 
> Earlier, it states, "These judges may be used as a show judge if needed by a 
> show committee." Are we sending the message that it takes less expertise to 
> judge in a show than it takes to judge for garden awards? I don't understand why 
> we wouldn't want all of our judges to continue their training for as long as 
> they are judging. If someone can explain the rationale in this rule, I'd 
> appreciate it. I agree with Jim Morris that one is either active or retired 
> (fully). 
> 
> I agree with Clarence that two judging classes would be ideal. Some judges 
> have definite preferences, interests, and capabilities. Some enjoy voting the 
> ballot and have no interest in show bench judging, and vice versa. It would not 
> be an impossible task to go this route, but it would require a lot of work and 
> a complete restructuring of the judging system. 
> 
> The lesser known irises have come and gone, and I look forward to the iris 
> season ahead! 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary 
> aissecjill@earthlink.net. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
aissecjill@earthlink.net.