Discussion in 'Ballroom Dance' started by wooh, Jan 13, 2009.
I don't think you are being offensive at all, star_gazer.
Its theoretically possible that CAI could be studying to take the exams now... but that would only allow a A-, B-, C-, D-, & E- designation. And going for all five at once would be a rather herculean undertaking, IMO... Nominally the society requires 2 years on the job teaching experience between taking the associate and licentiate exams (ie changing the - to a +) and I highly doubt they'd waive that requirement in general, let alone in this type of case.
My understanding is that you needed the years between licentiate and fellow exams, but it is theoretically possible to bypass the associate and go straight to licentiate.
IE, she could skip E-, take and pass 'E' but would then need two years to get to 'E+'
Not that I've actually read the rules recently.
Chris, I have yet to see any form of credentials yet. So I reserve the right so say if she is "eligible" or not. This is not to say that I think she is qualified. I think she probably couldn't tell the difference between a feather finish or a feather ending.
As DF prides itself on not making unvalidated claims, I don't think it we should be saying if she is eligible or not yet.... Even if we think she is far from qualified.
How can you see them if she lacks them? I think the default is ineligible unless proven eligible.
Also, if she had any credentials for judging ballroom, don't you think it would appear on her DwtS bio on abc.com? That bio states:
I really think that a ballroom judging certification would outrank her editing skills and therefore rate a mention. (They do mention that Len Goodman has judging credentials in addition to his competitive credentials, although they don't explicitly list his certifications.)
Even if she has managed to prep for and pass one of the certification exams, she hasn't ever judged a real live dancesport competition yet. For me that's another red flag right there, having to face something like picking 24 couples from three or four heats across five dances cannot be easy and I personally don't think should be left to a first-time judge at a National Championship!! And she can't just judge in a Final as a real and actual judge because once again that's not allowed by the rules: the rules say that the panel of adjudicators must be the same across all heats and rounds for a particular event. So it's not like they could have one group of judges do the early rounds, and then throw in a new judge for a final.
Interesting - I had never known that - my gut instinct would be to suspect it's commonly violated even to the point of having a different number of judges in the various rounds, but in actuality I haven't found an example at a sanctioned competition yet. But even so, it's yet another reason why this plan would be not be permissible.
(Actually, I do remember, at MAC 2003 they changed the panel out between dances of a pre-final round, I remember it as our marks plummeted immediately after)
And I completely agree with your earlier part that even if eligibility were satisfied, nationals would be no place to first face the procedural challenge of judging multiple couples, and recording them by numbers visible less than half of the time.
One of the reasons I'm trying to keep focused on the rulebook issues is because they are not personal - they don't depend on how we feel about the person, simply the facts of what is required to serve in this position.
Laura is mostly right:
220.127.116.11 If possible, the adjudicator panel should be consistent across all heats and rounds and must be consistent for all championship heats and rounds.
"Should" and "Must" is not what sometimes "Is".
This is a new thing, so when you've seen it in the past it's been fine under the existing rules at that time.
I think at the very least she could emcee the entire event; it doesn't appear there's an official emcee yet.
I cannot rationalize why the IDSF/USA Dance would want her to adjudicate Nationals other it being a publicity stunt, which would be ridiculous.
This whole thread was really interesting to read and educational at that. And somehow Mary Murphy came into mind (maybe cause now she's a judge on a reality show), but Mary's background we know. Carrie Ann's we are still guessing on. I've read some interviews of Carrie Ann's where she stated she knew nothing about Ballroom, and of course Mary does. But I like the idea of Carrie Ann hosting. She's got the personality and the energy for it. I think she'd be good at that. This will all be interesting to see how it plays out.
Well, she currently appears on neither NDCA's nor USISTD's online directory...
Ah, so maybe she's the expert in 'any other syllabus' as on the rules for many pro/am comps
This I do know...... shes getting more " ink " than the new Presd. !
I actually think one of the most interesting issues that this raises is PROCEDURE.
-How are decisions made?
-Do all of our USA Dance representatives get a chance to debate them and vote on them?
-Is there or should there be a mechanism for members to provide feedback to their representatives about upcoming decisions?
I think maybe I need to educate myself more on how the organization works. There have been several new initiatives/decisions in the past year or two. How do they go from proposal to policy?
I think that it is important for us as members to feel that there are logical procedures in place for making decisions and that we do get to have representation, input, etc.
It's not really about CAI for me. Having her at the event could be fun. It is about feeling that in exchange for your dues, you have an opportunity to voice your opinion. (Of course, we also pay dues to the NDCA...but let's not even go there.)
Well the procedures for changing the rulebook - which is what this would require - are spelled out.
I get that, but I am also interested in how this decision was made. (Was it an individual or a collective decision? Was there a meeting or just a flurry of e-mails?) In other words, even if we stipulate that on the surface this does not seem to be in keeping with the rulebook, I still think there is a second question of how and by whom the decision was made.
It doesn't seem to me that it's possible for a decision in conflict with the rulebook to be legitimately made... you can't make a decision without the authority to decide, which is absent in this case.
I don't think I'm suggesting that it was legitimately made.
I think I'm suggesting that it was made.
And I would like to know who is accountable.
This may be one of those conversations that only makes sense in my own head, so feel free to ignore me.
To give an example from my industry: a guy was hired at a college I know. Position was not advertised. AA/EOE rules were not followed. No question this is not Standard Operating Procedure and violates this institution's hiring "Rulebook." The question still remains "How did this odd thing happen? Who made the offer? Was anyone else in on the decision?"
Separate names with a comma.