NCBA rule proposal #2

Discuss hot topics about the world of marching percussion

Moderators: Gallagher, geefunk1026

Post Reply
brian_aguilar
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:30 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

NCBA rule proposal #2

Post by brian_aguilar » Sun May 16, 2010 4:39 pm

Feedback welcomed.


Proposal Title: Judges Membership
Proposed By: Brian Aguilar
Date: 5/15/10
Fiscal Impact: $45 per judge that is not a member of NCBA
Impact: expand judging pool

Proposal:
I propose that being a judge not require being a member of the NCBA.

Reasoning:
No other association requires their judges to pay membership dues to the association. This proposal will expand the judging pool. This will be particularly helpful as we get to events such as the Winter Championship show where the judge pool gets very thin. Since the vast majority of NCBA judges must be members for other reasons we wouldn't lose very many members, but would regain a few of the high quality judges that we have lost, or been unable to attract, since they had no other reason for being a member.

vinnieangelo
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:06 am
Location: Nor. Cal
Contact:

Re: NCBA rule proposal #2

Post by vinnieangelo » Tue May 18, 2010 3:33 pm

For the record (and to back Brian), I currently judge in 5 other circuits (WBA, CCGC, Modesto, Fresno, Bakersfield) and have been contacted to do other various circuits through the years (So. Cal, Utah, etc). NO OTHER CIRCUIT asks the judges to pay a fee. These other circuits also have a higher rate of pay and amenities (so the “financial impact” is not hurting them).

Something to think about.

Vinnie

BDinkel
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:41 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Re: NCBA rule proposal #2

Post by BDinkel » Wed May 19, 2010 11:00 am

It was mentioned before that SCSBOA requires all judges to be members, but does that include the out of town guest judges they bring in for championships?

Post Reply