Subject: Digest for the period 2/10/2005 - 2/11/2005 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:04:10 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Beer vocabulary? (Francisco Jones) 2. Re: Digest for the period 2/8/2005 - 2/9/2005 (John C.Tull) 3. State of the BJCP (long) (Ed Westemeier) 4. Competition announcement and call for judges (John Larsen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Francisco Jones Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:59:20 -0600 Subject: Beer vocabulary? I need a clarification. I keep reading that one of the tasks for the new Continuing Ed. Program folks is "developing a beer vocabulary for judging". I thought such a thing was already well established, and well documented by the Meilgaard Flavor Wheel, and numerous other publications such as Papazian's books, _Evaluating Beer_ by Brewers Publications, and the BJCP study Guide itself. Can someone shed some light on what the CEP really plans to do with this? P.S. Yes I _am_ concerned about the sudden disappearance of the entire treasury, the lack of documentation thereof, etc., etc., etc. Can't wait to hear the whole report. ~'~ VVvV vVv fj ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John C.Tull Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:56:05 -0800 Subject: Re: Digest for the period 2/8/2005 - 2/9/2005 On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:00 PM, JudgeNet - the beer judge digest wrote: > Seriously, I think that the BJCP disclosure regarding this > embarrassing financial situation is exemplary. I had a rethink over my > own club's finances and we are equally exposed to such an occurrence. > BJCP is not a corporate, but a group of passionate individuals. The > positive impact that they have had on international beer appreciation > earns them a bit of space to sort this problem out, in my books. > > Ant Hayes > Johannesburg That your club has $65K to lose is what amazes me! I too have been thinking about the financial situation with our club. We have always been lackadaisical to say the least. I am motivated to work on a better system of accounting for our finances. With regard to Premium American Lager, we could push for a vote from the BJCP community. My guess is that most on this side of the pond would be happy to let another country take the flak for a while on such a lackluster style. I think "Premium South African Lager" has a really nice ring to it. ;-) Best, John Reno, NV USA ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Westemeier Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:41:55 -0500 Subject: State of the BJCP (long) I'm going to respond to some of the concerns of the BJCP membership here, since JudgeNet subscribers tend to be among the more active members. I want to clearly point out that these comments are from me personally, and not in my capacity as BJCP Communication Director (webmaster in more common language). To show that I have a bit of inside knowledge, let me point out that I've been active in the BJCP since taking the exam in 1992. I have never been an elected officer, but I know most of them, past and present, and I have maintained the website for about the last six or seven years. In this message, I will quote some people who have knowledge of the events, but I will not name them, to protect their privacy. Obviously, = there are some things I won't say, because there are serious legal ramifications to a completely uncensored statement, but I hope this will help people to understand what's going on. ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION First, if you don't know the situation, you should read the BJCP President's letter to the membership, which is on our website at www.bjcp.org/annual2004.html. In that letter, Ron Bach describes, in very straightforward and reasonable terms, what the problem is. Combined with the following comprehensive Treasurer's report from Al Boyce, you can see the dilemma the organization is faced with. OK, let's assume you have read the official report on the website. You = know that the current Treasurer has not received any funds from the previous Treasurer, so the BJCP has basically had to start over from scratch, financially speaking. You want to know how such a thing could = happen, why there was so much money sitting in the treasury, and what is going to be done about it. Fair questions. RELEVANT HISTORY One of our senior members, who is also in a position to be aware of much of what has happened, made the following comments: [The officials of the BJCP are guilty] "in relying on trust and individual integrity to protect the BJCP from this debacle. We approached the organization of the BJCP as a club because that was our = experience with the hobby. Unfortunately we trusted individuals too much and are now suffering for it. We should have seen this [years ago]." "Keep in mind that we didn't begin with $65K. We had an initial donation from Jim Koch of $10K plus the annual revenues. The plan was to let the treasury build so that things like National/Master pins would be paid for out of the interest and the program would never need = to collect dues from the membership in order to sustain itself. The exams and competition fees were expected to zero out the annual operating expenses. I don't think, in '96 or '97, that any of us expected the program to continue to process 300 exams a year or to build up such a high asset level. As a result we did not write checks and balances into the by-laws or policies." Another of our longtime and dedicated members made the following comments: [One individual] "was president and controlled the agenda and was also = treasurer and controlled the money.  Why this situation was tolerated = for so long by the remainder of the board is difficult to explain. =20 Perhaps his bluster and threats of litigation any time something not to = his liking was raised played a part.  Perhaps common courtesy, uncertainty in the importance in carrying out fiduciary responsibilities, or a desire to be friends prevented the confrontation." Further remarks from one who knows: "There were differences of opinion on the board as to how to spend money to further the membership.  There was at least some consensus to = strictly limit spending (grants were capped, getting money for IT software was very difficult, proposals for things like subsidized sensory evalutation kits were rejected, etc.).  The criticism that a = non-profit organization holding that much cash and not doing much for its members is well-founded.  At the very least, exam and/or competition fees should have been lowered when sufficient cash was amassed, unless there was a plan for using that money to benefit the members.  But there wasn't one." So, in essence, you had a situation where one person was not only controlling what the board could discuss, but was also keeping sole control of all the funds (without even providing periodic reports!) and = was refusing to spend almost any of those funds, no matter how worthy the projects that were suggested. A ridiculous situation, to be sure, now that it's seen in perspective, but it crept up on them gradually. TODAY'S STATUS OK, it's obvious that everyone is aware of where the board members (past and present) failed to do enough to keep this from happening. But = let's be fair. When you're elected to the board, nobody tells you that = part of your job is to be a policeman over the actions of your fellow board members. Nobody even suspects that such a role will ever become necessary. You just assume that there is a collegial aspect to the board, and that everyone else is as dedicated and conscientious as you = are. That's naive, in hindsight, but I challenge anyone to prove it wrong. Consider the egregious actions of corporate boards in recent years, as a comparison. But also consider what the current board members DID do. They saw the problems clearly, they gradually changed both the bylaws and the board's operating procedures to force accountability (resulting from an = individual having too much control) and eliminate the stagnation (resulting from an individual remaining in an office without a clear end date to his term). The actions the board had to take to force this = issue were numerous, unpleasant, and time-consuming, but also quite effective. What drove them to such extremes? Largely, it was their desire to put the funds in the treasury to use, instead of seeing the money simply accumulate. Many of the regional reps had come up with creative ideas to benefit the organization and its members, but there was always a veto when it came time to spend money. Fortunately, all that is now history, the house has been cleaned, and we're moving forward. In fact, I believe the health of the BJCP, at this point in time, is better than it has ever been in its history. If you read all the financial controls that have been put in place in just the past six months (outlined in the report on the website), you'll see that the CURRENT board, which did all that, has left no stone unturned to not only turn the corner, but to preclude anything like this from ever happening again. Further, there has been a considerable number of new initiatives raised = during recent months by the CURRENT board, taking into account not only = realistic budget numbers, but also a sincere desire to serve the membership. Look at the new Recognized and Certified pins, the new shirts, the establishment of a Continuing Education Program, etc. Personally, I think the CURRENT board has not only put this unpleasantness behind them, but has put the BJCP on a better, firmer footing than it has ever had before. It's not the same board that allowed a bad situation to develop (although there was some overlap), and I hate to see people get blamed who are really trying to do the right thing. If you have serious complaints, problems, or just suggestions, I would = ask you to please consider simply communicating them directly to your regional representative on the board. If that's not enough, why not run = for the board yourself? There are never enough candidates. Part of the = problem in the old regime was the lack of fresh blood and new ideas. We = shouldn't let that happen again. Again, these are my personal impressions gleaned from talking with people in a position to know much of what has happened. I may have a few things wrong, but corrections will undoubtedly come out with the passage of time. If my house had been hit by a burglar, what would I be thinking? "Why didn't I have better locks on the doors? Why did I leave my valuables out in plain sight? Why didn't I have more insurance? How can = I get that bum to restore what he took?" All reasonable thoughts, but what would I actually be doing? I'd be installing new locks, putting the valuables in a safe, and buying more = insurance. No point dwelling on the past -- you have to move forward in = the best way you know how. Ed Westemeier ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Larsen Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:14:54 -0500 Subject: Competition announcement and call for judges The North Florida Brewers League is proud to announce the Big Bend Brew Off 2005. This is our 9th year and we're expecting a great time. The judging will be held on Saturday, March 12, 2005. We'll start at 9:30 a.m. Please contact me at jlarsen`at`nettally.com and I'll provide you with all pertinent info including directions to the judging site (a local restaurant). We'll also have a Friday night warm-up get together for the judges to get acquainted and talk about important things like...., well, like beer. Last year we had just over 200 entries and we anticipate about the same this year. Come join us because we'll be judgin' some great (and some not-so-great) beers. Of course, you are encouraged to enter as well. Please see our web site at www.nfbl.org for all competition info and entry forms, etc. If you have non-judging questions about the event, please contact Joel Tedder and Wendy Gregory (our co-organizers) at jandw1112`at`aol.com. See you there! John Larsen BJCP National Big Bend Brew Off 2005 Judge Director ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * **********************************************************************