GGC2005 - Pre-Vote Announcement!!!

Tom, I also hope you decide to come !

CRAP! If Tom were to go on a GGC, even *I* would consider it... depending....

Why is taking over as chair the only option? Is that the only way people
take suggestions around here? My reasoning is plain and simple. If you
don't want people to think there is back door dealings, then be upfront
about the rules. Don't post a set of rules, say you won't change them, then
change then without telling anybody to allow others to sneak in the back
door.

No wait, I'm sorry, nobody is allowed to have an opinion unless they want to
be committee chair.





"Tom & Linda" wrote in message
et...

"Mike Cordelli" wrote in message
...
I guarantee you if I was committee chariman I wouldn't change the rules
mid
stream without telling anybody.


But then I didn't see you vounteer.

In fact, it seems nobody did, and Lloyd was ultimately asked and then said
yes.

Lloyd and I have teased each other over the years, but I will give him
full
credit for what he's doing.

He inherited a concept that was spiriling into problems. It had gotten to
the point where few TA were even interested. Most likely because the
committees in the past were made up of people who were very astute to TA
pricing and practices. They probably made it difficult for a TA to make
any
money on the group.

Add to that the bickering that has gone on over the years for "various"
reasons.

Lloyd is taking a different stab at it. He's letting the people vote.
He's
not forcing anyone to pick a TA that they're not comfortable with. Nor is
he forcing anyone to go.

I give Lloyd an "Atta Boy" for trying.

Hell... I may even think about going this time.

--Tom



Please indicate when you as the committee posted the change in the rules
after the February post when you said you were not changing them? If
I'm
wrong and it was posted, I will be the first to apologize for my
remarks.
You posted at least a hundred times you were accepting bids and the
rest,
funny how the change in the rules never made it.

Maybe, just maybe, if you did things up front and on the up and up,
there
wouldn't be so much fingerpointing and bitching and the rest.

By the way, HTML has no place in newsgroups.

I love the way the committee is now circling the wagons to protect their
own.




"Judy O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Mike, next year you can be committee chairman. I nominate you as of
now.
Then you can listen to all the bitching and whining and finger-pointing.
I
don't care what anybody thinks, we on the committee know what went on.
If
any of you, and I mean any, had volunteered for this committee, you
would
be
able to see we did not do anything underhanded, we didn't hide anything
from
anyone. We chose to change the RFB to allow more people to bid and
sadly
not many did.

I know, in your own mind you see it differently.


Judy----Waiting to see how Mike Cordelli does next year as committee
chairman

Mike Cordelli wrote:

You guys are totally cracking me up.

Lets take a step back to, Oh, I don't know, February 2.

The following was posted he

-----start
The current requirements for bidding are :

1. Be a participating member in RTC
2. Be a full-time travel agent
3. Be owner, principal or can get permission to commit the agency to a
contract.

I do not think those will change as the committee seems to be in
agreement
on those items.
-----end

See that last line? The part about "I do not think these will change as
the
committee seems to be in agreement on those items? Now the committee
comes
back to the group and says it's the fault of the people they didn't ask
for
the "new" terms after they (the committee) stated they would not change?

Give it a rest, you used the rules to control the number of people who
would
be eligible. Then you changed the rules to get people who wouldn't have
been eligible under the old rules be allowed to bid, but kept it a
secret
to
control the bidding process.

All you guys had to do was post the new rules when you changed them,
after
saying they wouldn't change. You kept it a secret so people who
couldn't
bid under the rules would be able to bid. Plain and simple.

It's been quite entertaining to watch all the back and forth, just come
out
and say you were controlling who would and wouldn't be allowed to bid by
having over restrictive rules up front, thus limiting the number of
people
who thought they would qualify, then changing it without telling anybody
because "We Tulsans are proud of Tulsa and are protective of each
other!"

It's no huge deal, just admit you changed the rules to allow a bid that
wouldn't have been allowed in, you just forgot to tell anybody. The
rules
were of course silly to start with, but that's another issue.




"SC posner" wrote in message
m...

If anyone was really interested they could have asked for a copy of the
"new" RFB. I would have gladly sent them a copy.

If I remember correctly, very few copies were asked for. All that asked
received a copy. Not all the TA's that asked for the RFB submitted
bids.
But we were fortunate that 4 TA's saw the RFB and took the time to bid.

Chip

Charles wrote:
In article , Judy O'Connor
wrote:

So I take it you are accepting the chairmanship?

Judy ---In Mike's own mind he's right

What Mike has posted on this seems on the mark to me. I think he is
right and probably many others think Mike is right.

I have to say it looks less than entirely upfront to me. It seems like they
posted one set of rules, and when someone they liked who didn't fit the rules
applied, she got in, but others in the same situation who followed the rules
did not apply, knowing that was the rule, essentially got shafted.

In other words it smells a little like cheating, and that saddens me. I'd
rather this be upfront.

Now my opinion doesn't matter as I have not been on a GGC, although I was
considering this one, and I am not on the committee, although I would be on a
committee if I was sure I could do the trip.

But I think I'm a voice that is more or less known for a certain amount of
sanity, and it does feel wrong to me.
--
Julie
**********
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

The problem is not the change in rules. That is fine, and necessary. They were
too restrictive.

The problem is that they were changed for some people, and people who did
not ask, because they were following the posted rules, were excluded.

Julie

Tom & Linda wrote:


In fact, it seems nobody did, and Lloyd was ultimately asked and then said
yes.

Lloyd and I have teased each other over the years, but I will give him full
credit for what he's doing.

He inherited a concept that was spiriling into problems. It had gotten to
the point where few TA were even interested. Most likely because the
committees in the past were made up of people who were very astute to TA
pricing and practices. They probably made it difficult for a TA to make any
money on the group.

Add to that the bickering that has gone on over the years for "various"
reasons.

Lloyd is taking a different stab at it. He's letting the people vote. He's
not forcing anyone to pick a TA that they're not comfortable with. Nor is
he forcing anyone to go.

I give Lloyd an "Atta Boy" for trying.

Hell... I may even think about going this time.

--Tom



Please indicate when you as the committee posted the change in the rules
after the February post when you said you were not changing them? If I'm
wrong and it was posted, I will be the first to apologize for my remarks.
You posted at least a hundred times you were accepting bids and the rest,
funny how the change in the rules never made it.

Maybe, just maybe, if you did things up front and on the up and up, there
wouldn't be so much fingerpointing and bitching and the rest.

By the way, HTML has no place in newsgroups.

I love the way the committee is now circling the wagons to protect their
own.




"Judy O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Mike, next year you can be committee chairman. I nominate you as of now.
Then you can listen to all the bitching and whining and finger-pointing.
I
don't care what anybody thinks, we on the committee know what went on. If
any of you, and I mean any, had volunteered for this committee, you would
be
able to see we did not do anything underhanded, we didn't hide anything
from
anyone. We chose to change the RFB to allow more people to bid and sadly
not many did.

I know, in your own mind you see it differently.


Judy----Waiting to see how Mike Cordelli does next year as committee
chairman

Mike Cordelli wrote:

You guys are totally cracking me up.

Lets take a step back to, Oh, I don't know, February 2.

The following was posted he

-----start
The current requirements for bidding are :

1. Be a participating member in RTC
2. Be a full-time travel agent
3. Be owner, principal or can get permission to commit the agency to a
contract.

I do not think those will change as the committee seems to be in agreement
on those items.
-----end

See that last line? The part about "I do not think these will change as
the
committee seems to be in agreement on those items? Now the committee
comes
back to the group and says it's the fault of the people they didn't ask
for
the "new" terms after they (the committee) stated they would not change?

Give it a rest, you used the rules to control the number of people who
would
be eligible. Then you changed the rules to get people who wouldn't have
been eligible under the old rules be allowed to bid, but kept it a secret
to
control the bidding process.

All you guys had to do was post the new rules when you changed them, after
saying they wouldn't change. You kept it a secret so people who couldn't
bid under the rules would be able to bid. Plain and simple.

It's been quite entertaining to watch all the back and forth, just come
out
and say you were controlling who would and wouldn't be allowed to bid by
having over restrictive rules up front, thus limiting the number of people
who thought they would qualify, then changing it without telling anybody
because "We Tulsans are proud of Tulsa and are protective of each other!"

It's no huge deal, just admit you changed the rules to allow a bid that
wouldn't have been allowed in, you just forgot to tell anybody. The rules
were of course silly to start with, but that's another issue.




"SC posner" wrote in message
m...

If anyone was really interested they could have asked for a copy of the
"new" RFB. I would have gladly sent them a copy.

If I remember correctly, very few copies were asked for. All that asked
received a copy. Not all the TA's that asked for the RFB submitted bids.
But we were fortunate that 4 TA's saw the RFB and took the time to bid.

Chip










--
Julie
**********
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

In article , Mike
Cordelli wrote:

Why is taking over as chair the only option? Is that the only way people
take suggestions around here? My reasoning is plain and simple. If you
don't want people to think there is back door dealings, then be upfront
about the rules. Don't post a set of rules, say you won't change them, then
change then without telling anybody to allow others to sneak in the back
door.

No wait, I'm sorry, nobody is allowed to have an opinion unless they want to
be committee chair.

As far as I'm concerned you are welcome to have any opinion you like
and to express that opinion.

That said, and I'll type slow here for those that are having problems
following along G, IF we didn't post the changes to the rfb it was a
simple mistake. I said that yesterday.

But here is the bottom line, the voting will commence soon and those
that wish to participate in the GGC2005 as it is now structured will be
welcome to join in. It is that simple, we will be posting the voting
rules as soon as we hash out the verbage.

If you don't think that this is something you want to participate in,
then feel free to do that also.

If next year those that feel strongly about how this committee did
things are free to do one of two things to change things to their
liking

1. Participate in the committee (this is really the only one that can
result in changes)

2. hmmm..... there isn't anything else you can do to effect changes,
cause you can bet your butt if you tried to get concensus her in rtc,
there would NEVER be a decision made. I guess there is an advantage in
that, if you don't make decisions, you can't ever be wrong....

I remember last years GGC and the complaints that were posted about the
lack of choices and other things. This year you have LOTS of choices.
I would think you would like that. But I am just at the very beginning
of believing that some people would complain or question if they were
hung with a new rope.....

Lloyd

Actually, all this is just water under the bridge. It is much less to do
with the bids as they are, we're past it.

But I think it is important that the committee understand that they goofed;
they set up a situation where some agents were favored and other agents,
who had no idea that they rules had changed were unfairly excluded.

It might have changed things, it might not have. It does not matter at this
point.

If I were on the committee, I'd issue a mea culpa, and then move on.

Part of the problem, I think, is no one is willing to admit they may have
made a mistake of judgement.

Julie

Mike Cordelli wrote:
Why is taking over as chair the only option? Is that the only way people
take suggestions around here? My reasoning is plain and simple. If you
don't want people to think there is back door dealings, then be upfront
about the rules. Don't post a set of rules, say you won't change them, then
change then without telling anybody to allow others to sneak in the back
door.

No wait, I'm sorry, nobody is allowed to have an opinion unless they want to
be committee chair.





"Tom & Linda" wrote in message
et...

"Mike Cordelli" wrote in message
...
I guarantee you if I was committee chariman I wouldn't change the rules
mid
stream without telling anybody.


But then I didn't see you vounteer.

In fact, it seems nobody did, and Lloyd was ultimately asked and then said
yes.

Lloyd and I have teased each other over the years, but I will give him
full
credit for what he's doing.

He inherited a concept that was spiriling into problems. It had gotten to
the point where few TA were even interested. Most likely because the
committees in the past were made up of people who were very astute to TA
pricing and practices. They probably made it difficult for a TA to make
any
money on the group.

Add to that the bickering that has gone on over the years for "various"
reasons.

Lloyd is taking a different stab at it. He's letting the people vote.
He's
not forcing anyone to pick a TA that they're not comfortable with. Nor is
he forcing anyone to go.

I give Lloyd an "Atta Boy" for trying.

Hell... I may even think about going this time.

--Tom



Please indicate when you as the committee posted the change in the rules
after the February post when you said you were not changing them? If
I'm
wrong and it was posted, I will be the first to apologize for my
remarks.
You posted at least a hundred times you were accepting bids and the
rest,
funny how the change in the rules never made it.

Maybe, just maybe, if you did things up front and on the up and up,
there
wouldn't be so much fingerpointing and bitching and the rest.

By the way, HTML has no place in newsgroups.

I love the way the committee is now circling the wagons to protect their
own.




"Judy O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Mike, next year you can be committee chairman. I nominate you as of
now.
Then you can listen to all the bitching and whining and finger-pointing.
I
don't care what anybody thinks, we on the committee know what went on.
If
any of you, and I mean any, had volunteered for this committee, you
would
be
able to see we did not do anything underhanded, we didn't hide anything
from
anyone. We chose to change the RFB to allow more people to bid and
sadly
not many did.

I know, in your own mind you see it differently.


Judy----Waiting to see how Mike Cordelli does next year as committee
chairman

Mike Cordelli wrote:

You guys are totally cracking me up.

Lets take a step back to, Oh, I don't know, February 2.

The following was posted he

-----start
The current requirements for bidding are :

1. Be a participating member in RTC
2. Be a full-time travel agent
3. Be owner, principal or can get permission to commit the agency to a
contract.

I do not think those will change as the committee seems to be in
agreement
on those items.
-----end

See that last line? The part about "I do not think these will change as
the
committee seems to be in agreement on those items? Now the committee
comes
back to the group and says it's the fault of the people they didn't ask
for
the "new" terms after they (the committee) stated they would not change?

Give it a rest, you used the rules to control the number of people who
would
be eligible. Then you changed the rules to get people who wouldn't have
been eligible under the old rules be allowed to bid, but kept it a
secret
to
control the bidding process.

All you guys had to do was post the new rules when you changed them,
after
saying they wouldn't change. You kept it a secret so people who
couldn't
bid under the rules would be able to bid. Plain and simple.

It's been quite entertaining to watch all the back and forth, just come
out
and say you were controlling who would and wouldn't be allowed to bid by
having over restrictive rules up front, thus limiting the number of
people
who thought they would qualify, then changing it without telling anybody
because "We Tulsans are proud of Tulsa and are protective of each
other!"

It's no huge deal, just admit you changed the rules to allow a bid that
wouldn't have been allowed in, you just forgot to tell anybody. The
rules
were of course silly to start with, but that's another issue.




"SC posner" wrote in message
m...

If anyone was really interested they could have asked for a copy of the
"new" RFB. I would have gladly sent them a copy.

If I remember correctly, very few copies were asked for. All that asked
received a copy. Not all the TA's that asked for the RFB submitted
bids.
But we were fortunate that 4 TA's saw the RFB and took the time to bid.

Chip












--
Julie
**********
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

In article , Juliana L Holm
wrote:

Actually, all this is just water under the bridge. It is much less to do
with the bids as they are, we're past it.

But I think it is important that the committee understand that they goofed;
they set up a situation where some agents were favored and other agents,
who had no idea that they rules had changed were unfairly excluded.

It might have changed things, it might not have. It does not matter at this
point.

If I were on the committee, I'd issue a mea culpa, and then move on.

Part of the problem, I think, is no one is willing to admit they may have
made a mistake of judgement.

Julie

You missed it, and it appears so did everyone else. I can't figure out
how anyone could have, it isn't like this wasn't a hot topic! G

Lloyd

In article , Juliana L Holm
wrote:

Charles wrote:
In article , Judy O'Connor
wrote:

So I take it you are accepting the chairmanship?

Judy ---In Mike's own mind he's right

What Mike has posted on this seems on the mark to me. I think he is
right and probably many others think Mike is right.

I have to say it looks less than entirely upfront to me. It seems like they
posted one set of rules, and when someone they liked who didn't fit the rules
applied, she got in, but others in the same situation who followed the rules
did not apply, knowing that was the rule, essentially got shafted.

In other words it smells a little like cheating, and that saddens me. I'd
rather this be upfront.

Now my opinion doesn't matter as I have not been on a GGC, although I was
considering this one, and I am not on the committee, although I would be on a
committee if I was sure I could do the trip.

But I think I'm a voice that is more or less known for a certain amount of
sanity, and it does feel wrong to me.

I guess the fact that a simple error was made in not posting rfb change
isn't an option to consider.

But let's be damn clear on this. Until the day of close of bid it was
not at all certain who would bid or even if more than one would bid.
And that was with more unrestricted rules.

Any changes that were made were done to get SOMEONE to bid on this GGC.
Frankly with all the crap going on right here, right now, I wouldn't
blame any TA that bid from telling all of us where to stick this. If I
were a TA myself, I would be thinking strongly about that right now.

Lloyd

In article , Juliana L Holm
wrote:

The problem is not the change in rules. That is fine, and necessary. They
were
too restrictive.

The problem is that they were changed for some people, and people who did
not ask, because they were following the posted rules, were excluded.

Julie

Actually the problem wasn't that they were changed for 'some people',
it was that they needed to be changed to get anyone to bid.

After all the flailing around after the last GGC, there was damn little
interest among the TA's that come here to want to bid, for exactly
because of all the crap that is going on now.

Lloyd

Lloyd Parsons wrote:

I guess the fact that a simple error was made in not posting rfb change
isn't an option to consider.

It is, but if it had been so one would have expected the committee to
respond with sorry, we goofed, which this line may actually amount to,
rather than extreme defensiveness, which is what happened.

But let's be damn clear on this. Until the day of close of bid it was
not at all certain who would bid or even if more than one would bid.
And that was with more unrestricted rules.

Any changes that were made were done to get SOMEONE to bid on this GGC.
Frankly with all the crap going on right here, right now, I wouldn't
blame any TA that bid from telling all of us where to stick this. If I
were a TA myself, I would be thinking strongly about that right now.

Yes, and I have a friend who sometimes lurks, who is my TA and might have
bid, but the rules said she could not. So she followed the rules and is
shut out, but others broke the rules and you accepted them. Do you not
see why this is problematic?

--
Julie
**********
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm