Lessons Learned

Well after at least a couple of years in oblivion, the District 30 website is coming back to life!  Information for the upcoming Fall Conference is up-to-date with the most recent version of the schedule and list of educational sessions.  The menus are now simplified and most items are active as opposed to being “under construction”, which plagued the website since the last major revision in 2005.  None of the pages have “current” information that were last updated years ago, i.e. the district contest and year-end award winner lists were last updated in 2004 for many years on the website.   Basically the only thing I want to see changed are the pictures on top of the website – the first (which I appear) and third pictures are from the 2005 Summer TLI which was more than four years ago!

The reason why the website was stagnant for years was that District 30 depended on two members to be webmasters for a long time, one of whom has been in that position the last 9 years!  So when the district leadership finally came to their senses this year and get someone new, they had difficulty getting the old webmasters to let go of their work and let the new webmaster take charge.  It appears now that the new webmaster is now in control and hopefully she will keep the website up-to-date.

Page 23 of the most recent Contest Rulebook has Rule 6B under Timing in the Humorous Speech Contest:

Time will begin with the first word uttered by the contestant.
However, should the contestant engage in definite verbal or
nonverbal communication with the audience (including the
playing of music or other sound effects, a staged act by
another person, etc.) prior to reaching the speaking position
and uttering the first word of the speech, the timer shall activate
the timing device at that point. If this results in the contestant
going overtime, the contestant will be disqualified.

The green signal will be displayed at five minutes and remain
displayed for one minute. The amber signal will be displayed
at six minutes and remain displayed for one minute. The red
signal will be displayed at seven minutes and remain displayed
until the speech is concluded. No audible device,
such as a buzzer, shall be used for the overtime period.

Please note the top paragraph regarding non-verbal communication, this could also apply to a sign or a PowerPoint slide with something written – the rules can be interpreted to mean that the timing can start even if such material was displayed during the minute of silence and/or prior to the speaker being introduced.

The winner of tonight’s Northwest Division Humorous Speech Contest had his speech title sign up during the minute of silence as the two Sergeant-at-Arms put the sign up on the easel the contestant brought.  As the Chief Timer, based on contest rule 6B, I started timing as the Sergeant-At-Arms left the speaking area and BEFORE the speaker was introduced.  Luckily for the winner, his time came out to be just over six minutes, including the extra time prior to being introduced.  Right after the contest, I told the winner about the rule and suggested that he flip the speech title sign board over to its blank side prior to being introduced at the District 30 Humorous Speech Contest on November 14th.

This was not the first time I dealt with this situation.  When I was Chief Judge for the 2004 Northwest Division Humorous Speech Contest, there was a contestant that set up her PowerPoint presentation to her speech title slide during the minute of silence and prior to her introduction.  A Past International Director was present at the contest and while he was not a timer, had a stopwatch and started timing the speech the moment the speech title was shown.  The contest timers did not start timing until the contestant came up and started talking.  She did meet the time based on that start and came in second place.  The Past International Director informed me that she should have been disqualified because with the additional time prior to her introduction when the starting slide was shown, she would have gone over the maximum allowed speech time.  He pointed out that specific rule, which was the same at that time as it is now, and I agree that she should have been timed earlier.

I learned that lesson at next year’s Northwest Division Humorous Speech Contest when I was the Sergeant-At-Arms and put a contestant’s easel and sign boards on the side prior to the start of the contest.  I told the contestant about this rule and made sure his first sign is covered, he only uncovered it after he started his speech.

I’m sure there are contest officials could interpret this rule differently and may consider a sign board or a PowerPoint slide with any information not part of the “non-verbal communication” listed in the rulebook.  But there are many that disagree.  If you are a Contest Chair, Chief Judge or one of the contest timers, in such a situation go with what can be the “worst-case” scenario and have the timers time a contestant’s speech immediately after that person’s sign board or PowerPoint slide with any information is displayed, regardless of whether the contestant was introduced or not.

Saw a recent entry in the ToastmastersPrime Google group that is very interesting about myths in contests perpetuated by those who were supposed to be respected, whether by a current district officer or a long-time Toastmaster.  When LinkedIn’s The Official Toastmasters International Members Group had an entry last month about general Toastmaster myths, I did reply with a contest myth:

One myth I was told about a year after I joined Toastmasters was that the District contest winners CANNOT compete in their respective contests the following year.  The truth is that they can, unless they won both the District International Speech Contest and the World Champion of Public Speaking in which they can’t compete in that contest again.

There was also a recent discussion in the LinkedIn board about taking steps to hide who the contest judges are.  Some people take that very seriously, one past District 30 LGET tried to make Chief Judges at a couple of Division Contests instruct their judges to NOT raise their ballots – personally I thought she was “sweating the small stuff” and was trying to make a mark with her role as she turned out to be very ineffective in any of the Top 3 roles during her time.

Many of these myths and directives are NOT mentioned in the contest rulebook.  I’d be more concerned about whether the rules are being followed or not than dealing with the other stuff.  Of course Contest Chairs and other functionaries should apply common sense and fairness for the contestants when dealing with things not mentioned in the rulebook – especially if it affects contest judging such as displaying contestants’ Toastmaster designation in the program  (which BTW was part of another LinkedIn discussion).

Tim Bolger, who has been our video cameraman for some of the District 30 events the last 3 years, has put some recent videos online at Motionbox.  Events include the last District 30 and District 54 Spring Conferences (the D54 one has a visit from then-International President Jana Barnhill), the last D30 Summer TLI and the recent Northwest 1 Area Contest (under “Speech Contests”).  He even has videos from 5 years ago in his Fox Valley club about a group presentation on job hunting.

Tim is not necessarily reliable (see the beginning of this video, in which he promised that the videos will be online before last June’s Summer TLI but were only up yesterday), but most of his videos are decent quality for an amateur and he is very dedicated to his work.

After a month’s absence from blogging, I’m ready to get back and put in some entries.  We’ve just ended the Area Contests (BTW, no I didn’t win my Area Evaluation Contest), the Division Contests are under way and dues renewals just concluded.  The District 30 Fall Conference is less than a month away.  And hopefully I’ll finally get some PR work done for the Arlington Heights club with our planned Open House on December 9th, though it hasn’t hurt that we’ve signed up over 10 new members the last couple of months!

I’m hoping to put in posts more often, not just the “op-ed” type pieces that have been typical here.  As many of my Facebook entries have to do with Toastmasters, perhaps I should copy some of them here as there are many members that don’t use Facebook or don’t want me to be their “friend”.  I usually post in Facebook what I did in the club meetings, links to other blog entries, podcasts and news, plus some quick observations.  So stay tuned…

Having done plenty of evaluations over the last ten years, you would think I am a master when it comes to doing that.  Well it turns out that I need to make some improvements.  And I hope to get my act together by the Northwest 4 Area Evaluation Contest on October 8th in which I’ll represent the Arlington Heights club.

As the Arlington Heights club did not have an Evaluation contest due to no one there stepping up to compete, I volunteer to represent them in the Area Contest as I’d like to give the contest another try – the only other time I competed in that contest was in 2003 and I couldn’t even get past the club contest!  After I volunteered late last month, I had a couple of evaluation opportunities at the North Suburban club this month, including tonight’s club contest (members in more than one club can compete in more than one club contest but only in one Area Contest).  I realized both times that I have one primary problem when giving evaluations – I tend to say some of the same things over again as I worried about not having much to say.  Usually when I write some notes for an evaluation, I’ll put down up to three good points about the speech and up to three areas of improvement.  So during my time giving the evaluation, I ended up repeating some of my comments about what is great about the speech and perhaps repeat an area of improvement.  As a result, the two evaluations took more than three minutes, the first ended up approaching four minutes, which would result in a disqualification if it was a contest.

So my challenges now on giving evaluations would be to state my points about the speech without repeating them and no summarizing the speech apart from the start and end of my evaluations.  Chances are that should be enough to give a two-minute evaluation as I normally don’t speak fast so I should no longer worry about speaking too little.  I have two more opportunities to give evaluations prior to the Area Contest, one next week at Arlington Heights and one the following week at North Suburban, so I can not only be better prepared for the Area Contest but be a better evaluator in general.

Well Proposal A did pass with the required 2/3 majority.  As we move on to make the new International structure work, I noticed during my Saturday visit to the Convention a few things that perhaps Toastmasters International should look at for future conventions for their plans to be a success:

• Location – Probably the most important issue TI needs to look at.  This year’s location at Foxwoods is not near a major city or an airport, in fact attendees had to choose between flying to and from Hartford, Providence, Boston, New York or Newark.  The convention site is not within walking distance and has no public transportation to allow attendees to visit other places to go sightseeing, to eat or to stay over in another hotel (for those who were unable to reserve a room at the site or want to find a cheaper alternative).  I hope TI doesn’t bring the convention back to Foxwoods or other remote locations where the attendees are basically stuck at and make sure future conventions are at places where public transportation as well as alternative accommodations and places to go are easily accessible.
• Venue and fees – TI wants to place their conventions at a five-star hotel to show others what a world-class organization it is.  But is that what the average member wants?  Having the convention in a five-star venue cost lots of money that is passed on to the attendees resulting in exorbitant fees that many can’t afford.  Only 13 from District 30 attended this year’s convention, far less than the average.  And I’m sure most in D30 who would’ve loved to attend this year’s convention couldn’t because they either couldn’t afford it or was not worth the convention, lodging and transportation fees to go.  Many districts however are finding ways to cut costs at their conferences and are willing to hold them at places that are beneath the quality of a hotel, such as a college, in return for more attendance due to the lower price to attend.  Perhaps TI should look at what the member values at an International Convention and ask them how much they are willing to afford to go to one and what venue standards they are willing to accept.
• Voting at the Annual Business Meeting – In the aftermath of the vote on Proposal A, many are calling for electronic voting to at least be an option for Club Presidents to directly vote on such proposals and candidates for International Office, especially as most can’t attend a convention for reasons above or may not trust their District Governor with their vote.  Many organizations such as IEEE and just about every public company allows the member/shareholder that option.  For LinkedIn users, there is a great discussion on electronic voting in The Official Toastmasters International Members Group.  Hopefully there will be a solution soon that would both enable the Club Presidents to directly have a say on the issues and candidates while continue the tradition of allowing the candidates for face-to-face presentation and discussion that showcases their Toastmaster skills.

If Toastmasters International thinks the hard work is done by the passage of Proposal A, they should think again.  It’s only the beginning and they have a long way to go to make the proposal a success, especially as they’re giving the International Convention much more importance than ever.

Last Friday I received a call from a close Toastmasters friend who was asking me about proxies for the XL Toastmasters Club, which I was formerly a member of.  I mentioned that it appears District 30 is desperate to have all the clubs turn in their proxies.  The answer is obvious, we have a candidate, Dietmar Wagenknecht, running for 3rd Vice President of Toastmasters International, with elections to be held next Friday at the Annual Business Meeting in Foxwoods.  It is understandable that D30 wants 100% participation as the race could be tight and every vote counts.  Last year, Michael Notaro was elected 3rd Vice President by FOUR votes over John Lau.

However, I also mentioned to my friend that I don’t think Dietmar is going to win, in fact it would not surprise me if he lost big in the 3rd VP race.  Why would I say that about someone from District 30?  Someone who I think highly of?  Someone who made great contributions to District 30 and to Toastmasters?  The person who named me District 30 Toastmaster of the Year?

It has nothing to do with Dietmar.  It has nothing to do with Ralph Wallace, the other nominated candidate for 3rd VP.  It has to do with John Lau and the way the nomination process was handled by Toastmasters International.

John Lau wanted to run again for 3rd Vice President for the 2009-2010 year.  This past winter, Toastmasters International sent out the International Officer Candidate Survey for the Board of
Directors, past Board members for the last two years, Past International Presidents, current District
Governors, and Immediate Past District Governors.  The respondents list preferences for each of the four International offices, with the 3rd VP position being the lowest and the most contested.  John Lau reportedly received more than 70% of the votes for 3rd VP, the next candidate received less than half of that vote.  Dietmar Wagenknecht came in 4th place with less than a third of John Lau’s votes.  Ralph Wallace, based on a blog that has since shut down, came in 6th, though Past International Director Jenny Pagano claimed that he was not campaigning for the office when the survey took place.  And John Lau was not nominated, neither the 2nd vote-getter Margaret Wan nor 3rd vote-getter Kathy Miles.  It was Dietmar the 4th place candidate and Ralph the 6th place candidate.

Nobody outside of the Toastmasters International Nominating Committee knows why they made these selections.  And virtually everyone outside of District 30 and 23 (Ralph Wallace’s district) finds this hard to comprehend.  How come someone who nearly won the 3rd VP race last year and received overwhelming support from past and current Board and District officers not get nominated this year?  With the Nominating Committee prohibited from unveiling the decisions behind the nominations, we can only speculate.  Jenny Pagano thinks race and gender played a part in the process.  She also wrote a letter recently that mentioned some past indiscretions supposedly made by the committee.

Understandably there is an uproar over the selections.  What is the point of these surveys if Toastmasters International seems to ignore them?  Are they listening to the will of the members or are they only care about their own interests?

Well John Lau is running from the floor for 3rd VP.  And among those who were surveyed and give John 70% of the vote are current District Governors who will be carrying most of the votes for their districts.  While John won’t be part of the candidate program distributed at the International Convention, he will have his own candidate table and take part of candidate interviews.  And since most of the current District Governors were at last year’s convention in Calgary, especially as they were part of Top 3 training that TI started that year for International Conventions, they already are familiar with John Lau’s candidacy when he came close to winning that year.

One other thing to consider and it may be the pivotal factor in the 3rd VP race is Proposal A, especially with the International Leadership Committee.  The ILC is basically expanding the nomination process of the Top 4 International Officers to International Directors.  Many, including myself, fear that the supposed bungling of the 3rd VP nomination process this year could be compounded if similar situations take place with International Director races, perhaps several in one year.  With many prominent Toastmasters opposed to Proposal A, those who will be delegates next Friday can send a huge “eff you” (thank you Bill Simmons of ESPN.com) message to Toastmasters International by voting for John Lau and disregarding the nominated candidates because TI disregarded their views and wishes, in addition to voting down Proposal A which can cause further disenfranchisement.

As a District 30 member and a good friend to Dietmar Wagenknecht and his wife Heidi, it would be great to see him get elected 3rd Vice President of Toastmasters International.  But if I was one of the more than 70% who was surveyed that preferred John Lau for 3rd VP, I’d be steamed as well and take it out on the ballot box.  It would be impossible for me to keep an open mind if my opinion and with those of the huge majority are ignored.

After paying attention to the issues surrounding Proposal A the last five months and commenting them on LinkedIn and my Facebook page, I’m sure you want my opinion of this.  I’ve been reading both the pros and cons of the issue, hearing from those who have criticize the proposal as well as those from Toastmasters International, in particular a couple of board members who have chimed in on LinkedIn.  In addition to reading what Toastmasters International has put out in support of Proposal A, as well as the LinkedIn discussion, I also urge you to read a couple of letters by past International Directors Jenny Pagano and Jim Smith expressing concerns about this proposal.

I admit that part of what got me interested in this discussion is that the tactics Toastmasters International and its board used in promoting Proposal A reminded me of a set of tactics a past District 30 Governor and Lt. Governor of Education and Training have imposed on other District 30 officers in which there was no transparency, no input from the rank-and-file, and a possibility of a large schism between the leaders and the members.  I was going to write an entry about this as a reason to oppose Proposal A, but now I think I’m better off directly addressing the issues I have with this:

1. Best and worst case scenarios – While TI has mentioned what is great about implementing the proposed changes and claimed they used their own figures to justify them, there is always a possibility that things may not go well as planned.  As a software engineer, whenever I have to add new code or fix bugs, I have to look at not just the ideal or expected way to input and interface with the code but also look at how the code handles an error or an improper input so the program would not crash or cause problems.  TI has done very little in addressing what could go wrong with what they are proposing and whether the potential problems can keep the proposed system better than the current system.
2. Consolidating all District Top 3 training – In the past at least those who belong to a Region could attend a different Regional Conference if they are unable to attend their own Regional Conference for their training.  Now that it is all in one week in August, what would happen if a Top 3 officer is unable to attend?  I remember in 2006, the District 30 LGET couldn’t attend the International Convention in DC due to work demands, so it could happen very easily.
3. Costs – TI has not unveiled the costs of keeping the current Regional and International conventions vs. the new plan of consolidating speech contests and training to International – especially with paying all or some of the costs the speech contestants and the Top 3 District officers.  What if transportation costs, especially gasoline, skyrocket?  What if we have another 9/11 in which airline service can be suspended during the conventions?  Can the convention site adequately house all the 70+ contestants and the 200+ Top 3 officers along with thousands of other attendees, and are there neighboring hotels that can be used?
4. Interational Leadership Committee (ILC) candidate survey – This year, many considered the candidate survey to be a complete joke – one 3rd VP candidate, John Lau, received more than 70% of the survey vote and was not nominated for that position, while the 4th and 6th vote getter were.  Will the ILC take the candidate surveys seriously, or the scenario that apparently took place this year could happen again?
5. ILC candidate search – What if the ILC cannot find candidates?  Is it possible they can resort to “bullying” tactics if they were desperate to find someone?  That could be embarrassing to TI as the ILC was formed to find candidates to fill the officer roles, especially International Director.
6. ILC recommendations – Can the ILC set up recommendations or have any authority to make it easier for candidates to run?  What appears not to be addressed by TI is why there are so few candidates for each of the International Director spots and try to remove barriers that may prevent a potential candidate from running for office.
7. Region Advisor Marketing (RA) – If the RA conflicts with districts or the Board, what steps can be taken to resolve them?  TI can’t just assume that the RA can easily work with each of the Districts in a Region as each District and its leadership can be different.  Even neighboring districts can be radically different.
8. RA selection – Can the Districts in a Region have input on who should be selected as their RA?  It does not say in their FAQ.  Plus for the RAs to work well with their Districts, they should visit them at their conferences and other events prior to their selection, which can cost them plenty of money with no assurance that they will be selected.

I am not convinced that Proposal A can address the problems regarding costs of running their events, recruiting candidates for International office and serving the needs of the Districts as well as the members.  The way the Board of Directors unveiled this proposal is abysmal – they never publicize any sessions or any way for members to give input on how to fix what’s wrong, then when they unveiled this proposal they should have given more details as to why they came up with their decision.  They should have unveiled comparison of costs between the current system and the proposed changes as well as how the ILC is better at recruiting candidates than the current process, in an ideal situation and especially in some worst-case scenarios.  They also should have explained alternatives that they considered and why they were not used.  TI has done a poor job in addressing the complaints regarding Proposal A and have not given adequate examples of why this proposal can address these concerns.

With that I recommend a NO vote.

Sorry I haven’t updated the blog in a while.  Here’s an update about my Toastmaster stuff since July 1:

• Haven’t done much with publicity since taking over as VP PR.  Started to add files in the Arlington Heights club website and contacting nearby VP PRs to break the ice and see what they need.  Probably is going to be hard to get together until September due to summer vacation for several folks, including myself.   I’ll try to get a few things going the next couple of weeks.
• Will be at the Toastmasters International Convention at Foxwoods on Saturday morning to watch the World Champion of Public Speaking.  As I indicated in an entry last year, my 20th high school reunion will take place that evening on Long Island and will be in the area most of that week.  For those outside of Chicago that are reading this blog and will be at Foxwoods, I look forward to meeting you.
• Will try to get at least a couple of entries within the next couple of weeks, in particular regarding the upcoming changes and elections coming up for vote at Foxwoods.
• I recently joined Facebook due to my high school class reunion and have been checking their Toastmasters International Members group occasionally and mentioned some of my experiences and views on my page.  Already have several members outside of Chicago connected as friends.  Feel free to send me a friend request here if you have a Facebook account.

One Toastmaster blog that I’ve been checking often is one created by Lynn Thomas, the new District 30 Public Relations Officer.  It has some press release examples and she’s planning bigger and better ways to promote Toastmasters here in Chicago.

This is going to be an interesting year in Toastmasters, both at the International and local levels.  Looking forward to seeing what will happen.