[Harp-L] Re:SPAH award nominations--who's nominated, and how is the winner chosen?

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for your message, Elizabeth.  My responses follow. Taking your point that SPAH 50 is consuming lots of time and attention, I'll keep my responses brief and to the point, although this post is long because I've quoted you extensively in my responses.  Here's the short version for anyone who's pressed for time:

The issue I've raised is a simple one: why not publish the names of SPAH award nominees?  In other words, what's the reason for this policy?  There has been no answer to this question; responses instead have been on the order of 1) we'll consider it later, and 2) stop asking, Hunter.   

There are at least two ways to resolve this issue openly, neither of which demands more than a few minutes of effort by anyone: you can publish the list of nominees, or you can explain in a few sentences AT MOST why it's not a good idea to do so.  I'd be delighted to hear a plausible explanation for this policy--one that addresses the pluses and minuses.  Policies that don't have a simple, defensible reason for being shouldn't exist.  Period.  And NO ONE has yet laid out a simple, defensible reason for the policy. Why not?

I really had no idea that this would be a difficult issue for anyone to explain.  Either a policy change or an explanation for the policy will work for me.  "Shut up and go away" just raises more questions.  

My detailed responses follow.  Thanks, Richard Hunter

Elizabeth:
<While I enjoy your posts for the most part, challenging the SPAH President 
<and those who are working their butts off at this very moment putting on what is 
<likely to be THE biggest SPAH EVER--since it's the 50th Anniversary 
<Celebration and is now less than two weeks away, comes across 
<as highly unfair. Those of us who've attended SPAH's for years and paid any 
<attention at all know that the last weeks prior to a Convention are basically 
<controlled chaos for those running it--with every volunteer (and they ARE 
<volunteers who rarely receive sufficient kudos for their work)--going without 
<sleep in order to provide the very best time for the rest of us Members. I've 
<seen these people dead on their feet during a Convention because of all the work 
<they had to do before--let alone during. Very few realize how much work and 
<total exhaustion this entails.

RH: I asked SPAH why they are not publishing information that the organization already possesses, whose publication would probably take less than 10 minutes if the organization were so inclined.  I asked for the good reason why that information was not published.  Is the good reason that it takes too much time to do so?  I don't see why.

 
Elizabeth:
<What you ask about has been available to the membership for umpteen years: 
<the data is on your nomination forms which come in your SPAH package. When 
<you receive them each year is when you can (and have a perfect right to) 
<question the process, not on an open forum such as harp-l immediately prior 
<to the 50th Anniversary, given that the bulk of SPAH's membership does NOT 
<belong to or post on harp-l. You've been asking pointed questions here about how 
<SPAH is run for a couple of years now so I'm curious as to your timing and 
<why you'd NOW question the nomination process of AWARDS--which are a voluntary 
<recognition of someone's worth to SPAH members--given generously and usually out 
<of an emotional reaction by his/her peers--and not anything remotely similar to 
b<a 'Nigerian election'. 
 
RH:  The names of nominees have NEVER been available to the membership, or to anyone else.
Regarding the timing of my question, it's in response to SPAH's last-minute request for nominations, which made the issue current.
 
Elizabeth:
<The recipients aren't 'running or campaigning' against others. They have no 
<idea they've been nominated...that's precisely the point! When they're chosen to 
<receive the Award by the membership (and I suspect only a relatively small group 
<of people bother writing in to nominate particular people given that so much of 
<the membership is international) - it's a huge and most pleasant surprise. 
<Frankly, with only a couple of exceptions, for the most part I don't think I 
<want those I nominate to know I did so.
 
RH: First, recipients aren't "chosen to receive the award by the membership"--they're NOMINATED by the membership.  They're chosen by the SPAH leadership team, which is fine, but it's not the same thing.  

Second, if an award is worth having, it's worth publicizing, and it's worth campaigning for. If you can, please name ONE major award--the Grammies, the Pulitzer, the Emmies, the Tonys--for which the announcement of nominations ALL BY ITSELF is not a major event.  (Okay, the Nobel prize and the MacArthur Foundation Awards.  However, they don't publicly solicit nominations, as SPAH does, and as the other organizations mentioned above do.) Not only are the candidates announced in advance, with plenty of hoopla, the typical awards ceremony includes performances by nominees in every category.  How many people do you think would show up to watch the Grammies if nobody knew who was nominated?  This is a key point: the value of these awards TO HARMONICA PLAYERS AND TO SPAH is dramatically diminished by the absence of information about nominees.
 
Elizabeth: 
<These awards are also about US, the SPAH members--those who pay their dues 
<every year and are the only ones who have a right to nominate our peers for 
<their selfless and wonderful contributions to the harmonica world, and who 
<live according to the aims of SPAH: specifically for the Preservation and 
<Advancement of the Harmonica. Surprisingly, there aren't all that many people 
<who meet the criteria, or who focus on the education of future generations, or 
<who spend hours of their own time generously donating their expertise to teach 
<others without recompense, or who have done something harmonica related which is 
<particularly elevating or of note in a particular year. Those 
<nominated are people highly respected by every one of those they come into 
<contact with and who are universally admired and liked. There seems to be a 
<theme, which pleases me. Good people DO 'finish first', after all.
 
RH: If the idea is to help good people finish first, why not publicize the people who get nominated, who we can presume have contributed something of value?  Again: what is the value of secrecy in this regard?  Who is being protected, and what are they being protected from?  
 
<When we recognize them it's because of who they are and how they shine. 
<When our reasons for nominating them are sent in the SPAH board HAS to weed 
<through these nominations precisely because the nomination has to fit rather 
<rigid and specific requirements for each particular award. In one case it's for 
<excellence during the preceding year. The reason given by the person doing the 
<nomination has to be legitimate and not merely a pat on the back to a friend, 
<and the nominator MUST be a current SPAH member. All of this requires a 
<checking process. 
 
RH: The nomination "has to fit rather rigid and specific requirements"?  That's news.  Where are those requirements published on the SPAH site?  The only rigid requirement mentioned in Winslow's calls for nominations was that the nominee not have been a previous recipient, and the nominator must be a current SPAH member.  

Elizabeth: 
<In fact, this year someone I know actually sent out a request to friends to 
<be nominated for an award. I found the request unseemly and in fact 
<had already selected someone else for that particular award--and written my 
<essay. I've never run into this before and felt quite uncomfortable.
 
RH: I sent out a request to be nominated to a number of people who had reason to be interested, and published it on my website, so if you're referring to me we can drop the pretense.  In my opinion, there's nothing unseemly about it.  I've had plenty of experience as an author in the publishing industry, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that publishers lobby for awards on behalf of their authors.  For that matter, artists lobby for Grammies and Oscars.  It's not unseemly--it's a recognition that those awards matter.  Note also that no communication from SPAH on this topic has EVER said that anyone is forbidden to solicit a nomination from others. So what's the problem?

Elizabeth: 
<Ergo, I'm one SPAH Member who NEVER wants the process to turn into an 
<'electoral campaign'. That's never been what the Awards process was 
<about. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the SPAH Board querying my own 
<nominations and striking out someone they feel did not quite meet the 
<requirements, or finding my reasons for the nomination not reaching the bar set 
<for that Award, whether I thought so or not. That IS their role and 
<someone has to be in charge of it. There's nothing nefarious or 'secretive' 
<about this whatsoever. 
 
RH: Of course someone has to choose.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that NO ONE associated with SPAH has produced a simple, straightforward answer to a simple, straightforward question: why are the names of nominees not published?  
 
Elizabeth
<Because of this I'm extremely pleased to note that my own personal choice 
<for the Bernie Bray award: Phil Caltabellotta was the recipient last year. Since 
<Phil took time to encourage me to play --and even at his level would play along 
<with me, was huge in my own progress. Both he and Val (another of my previous 
<nominees) are harmonica royalty in my book who've personally done so much not 
<only for me but for dozens of other players, and they deserve any and all 
<kudos sent their way. 

RH: That's beside the point.  I nominated Brendan Power for Player of the Year in 2011, and was delighted when he won, which is also beside the point.  The point is that there is apparently no good reason for keeping nominees secret, or none that SPAH wishes to described publicly. 

Elizabeth: 
<In prior years my choices have rarely been the recipients. I've only 
<been a SPAH member for 9 years, and don't yet know the history and background of 
<all of those who are/were deserving. As I spend more years within SPAH I 
<hope to learn more about those people who have earned the Awards--and 
<'earned' is the appropriate term. But as I do study the backgrounds of the 
<winners, there hasn't been a recipient yet who was ill-chosen, at least in my 
<most humble opinion. The list of recipients is a 'who's-who' in our harmonica 
<world.
 
RH: When Stagg McMann won Player of the Year Award in 1996, he'd been dead for 8 years, and it had been over 40 years since the release of his landmark record "The Legendary Stagg McMann Trio."  We can argue that he was overdue for recognition, but that could certainly have been addressed via a different award--"Lifetime Achievement" comes to mind.  This is an example of the kind of thing that a more open nomination process might avoid, i.e. a process in which nominees were known in advance, so people could raise the question of why a man long dead is being proposed for Player of the (current) Year.  That aside, this is another diversion.  I'm not contesting the worthiness of award recipients.  I'm arguing that nominations should be published.  Period. 
 
Elizabeth:
<Would you prefer the awards be cancelled due to all this friction?  
<I've no idea why there seems to be all this sturm und drang to fix what simply 
<ain't broken about SPAH. The membership has been enjoying the Conventions for 
<years. Nominations are made and Awards are given --always a lovely surprise 
<after the Banquet dinner--an honoured tradition. 
 
RH: In reviewing my past posts on this topic, I don't see where I've proposed ending the awards, so this is beside the point.  It appears that the argument above comes down to "this is the way it's always been done," which is not convincing in the least.  I work with a lot of organizations in my career, and the ones that succeed are constantly looking for ways to improve.  The ones that refuse to change die slow, painful deaths, and the surest sign that an organization is heading for decline is when they tell you "That's the way we've always done it around here."  

I've noted in previous posts that SPAH's attendance has been stable or declining at roughly 400 attendees per year for well over a decade.  I certainly hope that the 50th produces bigger numbers than that, but the fact remains: SPAH is not exhibiting the signs that I see in dynamic, growing organizations.  One of the leading indicators for dynamic growth is leadership that answers questions directly and immediately, as opposed to telling people not to ask questions. 
 
Elizabeth: 
<To bring this particular issue up such a short time before this most 
<important Convention does seem odd and your timing questionable. Just 
<say'n.

RH: I repeat that this issue could be easily resolved, and there are at least two ways to do it, neither of which demands more than a few minutes of effort by anyone: you can publish the list of nominees, or you can explain in a few sentences AT MOST why it's not a good idea to do so.

The Sturm und Drang here is SPAH's, not mine.  I've asked a simple question twice.  Nobody's provided an answer; the first and continuing response of SPAH was to defer the question. If SPAH intends to be relevant for the next 50 years, it would be a good idea to reconsider that policy first and foremost.  

I'm disappointed that what I thought was a simple question about policy is instead turning into a conversation about my motives. That's WAY beside the point.

Thanks, RH 


author, "Jazz Harp" 
latest mp3s and harmonica blog at http://hunterharp.com
Myspace http://myspace.com/richardhunterharp
Vids at http://www.youtube.com/user/lightninrick
more mp3s at http://taxi.com/rhunter
Twitter: lightninrick