Re: [AISdiscuss] Re: JT Handbook Revisions

[Robt R Pries <rpries@sbcglobal.net>]

 I have always believed that simple answers to complex
questions are always bad. The problem is finding
solutions that have enough complexity to solve a
problem but not so much as to be overwhelming in their
administration. Having been a salesman I am well
familiar with keep it simple stupid. But when selling
a drug to a doctor I had to have been somewhat more
complex then the simplest sell or they would wind up
killing someone. The trick is to find a proper
balance. Not an easy thing. There is merit to all the
arguments presented. 
Let us look at those that want stricter standards.
Will more judges training actually produce better
judges?  I think it will at the beginning of a judges
career, but once a judge has been active for sometime
I dont believe increasing yearly requirements are
going to improve their performance. Yet we want to
maintain a level of requirements that  gives respect
to the position. We currently face a decline in
membership. Shows, trainings, and other activities
carried on by judges play an important role in keeping
and gaining members. Anything that reduces the number
of judges impacts our overall membership. In areas
where members are few the effect is even greater. 
It seems to me that a compromise is having two types
of judges. I would add that in my view both would have
the full privileges of a judge, but I would allow them
the possibility of excelling in two separate arenas.
Show and Garden. It would allow a judge to concentrate
his requirements in an arena that is most available to
him or her, and obtain special recognition. If they
had the energy they could achieve this excellence in
both. But it could solve the most important problem of
finding judges to conduct trainings and judge shows
which addresses our most dire problem of membership.

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