[J@GMFlint]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

For anyone who bothered to listen there was information about this presented at an earlier time. There was an open discussion on this concept at the South East Michigan Feedback forum I attended on May 14th, 2008. It seems that some of the teams who chose to skip this meeting are the ones who are voicing surpirse.

These meetings were typically feedback forums on the regional events. Not all teams have the resources to send people to these, besides the option to provide feedback via E-mail was provided for and did not require attendance.

If someone had called a state-wide meeting in May to discuss this (OH Wait, someone did!), who would have come?

To the South East Michigan Feedback forum?? What indicates a state-wide meeting here?

Also, did anyone mention that this meeting would include discussion on concepts for a future district tournamment structure in MI? I'm sure THAT would have raised more interest. It's possible I missed something, but the magnitutude of such a proposition would merit at least some follow-up, perhaps you were right in your suggestion that I am among those who didn't "bother to pay attention..." but how can you speak so of others?

How about once it got started? Why not say X-committee has now been formed and we are planning to meet on Y-day to have more detailed discussion on a district tournament structure? Why... because you said "the Board" didn't want you to talk about it among the teams in the early stages... SO, which way is it?

Anyone who complains about not being included needs to remember that there is a big difference between having an opnion and being involved.

WHAT are you trying to say to those who did/do not feel they even had the OPTION to be involved in this?

The group who worked on this plan attempted gather data and opnion from many teams and many sources.

Since this appears to be opening up... how about a list of these teams and sources? Maybe folks will begin to feel better about this once they know who their unelected representatives were/are... or is there a fear that they will not? Why does this just not FEEL like its on the up & up??

Data means a lot, and will probably hold some water. Remember though, especially when dealing with a diverse group of people, Perception IS Reality, and based on some of your recent comments I'm now really leaning to the side that perceives this as a matter of the "elite" few making decisions for everyone else from a "WE know what's best for YOU" perspective.

Why not, you seem to think you know who's paying attention, how meeting travel decisions are based and who's capable of interpreting South East Michigan to mean MICHIGAN, etc...

No one from FIRST had a solution, so some very dedicated people here devised one.

Your efforts are applauded, but that does not mean you are justified in defending your groups actions by suggesting that other teams were not involved because they CHOSE to be inactive on this discussion and at the same time acknowledge that the few were issued a gag-order. Sorry, but I really don't agree with you on this point and personally think the roll-out of the structure was simply lousy.

Someone once told me, if you go off and do something all on your own when there are people willing to help, you forefit the rights to gripe later for not having their help, or to complain if/when those people raise flags against you.

Comments in Red.