GGC2005 - Pre-Vote Announcement!!!

Sue, as you know, each committee changes the RFB to their liking. We
decided the TA would not have to be an active poster in RTC to bid.

But shouldn't the people of RTC, who are potential GGC cruisers, been notified
of that change?
Again... it doesn't effect me in any way, but I still think that something
isn't right here...

Pam

In article , Lunyma
wrote:

Sue, as you know, each committee changes the RFB to their liking. We
decided the TA would not have to be an active poster in RTC to bid.

But shouldn't the people of RTC, who are potential GGC cruisers, been
notified
of that change?
Again... it doesn't effect me in any way, but I still think that something
isn't right here...

Pam

I will say it once more. The committee decided to do it the way we did
it. It won't change, well not until the next committee comes into
being. We did what we felt was right to get the best bids we could get
in the face of knowing that there was a lot of very negative things
being said.

So, anyone that doesn't like the way this one was done can step up to
the bar next time. But something tells me they won't, what they will
do is keep on complaining and pointing out how it could have been done
better or differently. But they will NEVER stick their collectives
asses on the line because then it will be obvious that maybe the
complainers really haven't a clue.

Lloyd

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


"Lloyd Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article , Lunyma
wrote:

Sue, as you know, each committee changes the RFB to their liking. We
decided the TA would not have to be an active poster in RTC to bid.

But shouldn't the people of RTC, who are potential GGC cruisers, been
notified
of that change?
Again... it doesn't effect me in any way, but I still think that
something
isn't right here...

Pam

I will say it once more. The committee decided to do it the way we did
it. It won't change, well not until the next committee comes into
being. We did what we felt was right to get the best bids we could get
in the face of knowing that there was a lot of very negative things
being said.

So, anyone that doesn't like the way this one was done can step up to
the bar next time. But something tells me they won't, what they will
do is keep on complaining and pointing out how it could have been done
better or differently. But they will NEVER stick their collectives
asses on the line because then it will be obvious that maybe the
complainers really haven't a clue.

Lloyd

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

My only question is, and I am NOT complaining, but was it announced to RTC that
there WAS a *NEW* RFB??? If there WAS an announcement, I apologize for even
questioning it, but if there was not, then I think that a lot of TAs who might
have otherwise requested an RFB (via word of mouth, or whatever), were never
given the chance to do so. You may have even gotten BETTER bids, and certainly
more than 4, had more TAs out there had been informed of the *opportunity* to
host this group...

The good part of the group thing is that those that go have a good time
with a minimal amount of bitching on the cruise......


Where were you..... oh... nevermind....

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

In article , Lunyma
wrote:

The good part of the group thing is that those that go have a good time
with a minimal amount of bitching on the cruise......


Where were you..... oh... nevermind....

Nope, not nevermind. I was on the last GGC, and yes there was some
complaining, but the vast majority had a good time and didn't let the
small stuff get us down.....

Thanks for almost asking! G

Lloyd

In article , 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.

Actually I had thought we did post changes. If we didn't, it was an
accident and not intended to make anything all that secretive.

What we wanted was some bids, what it appeared we weren't going to get
was 'some bids', with the exception of Peter Berlin. While I don't
have a problem with Peter and think he has delivered on his promises, I
do know that others don't feel that way, so we wanted to get some
selection.

Could we have done it differrently? Sure, with that ol' 20/20
hindsight we all have, I can see some things I might want to consider
changing next time around, if I was going to do this again.

But I'm going to be watching next time around to see who jumps up to
volunteer to chair or be on the committee. Something tells me I can
guess which names won't be there.

But as it sits, we have excellent choices, with competitive pricing (as
you will all see soon ), from excellent TA's who put a lot of work into
bidding. I am not at all ashamed or sorry for how we got to the end
product and will say that we got better variety this time than I've
ever seen on a GGC bidding before.

Lloyd

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
om...


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

I guarantee you if I was committee chariman I wouldn't change the rules mid
stream without telling anybody.

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