2014 is an election year for the BJCP. In order to provide BJCP members and voters a better understanding into the platforms and policies of representative candidates, The BJCP Bulletin recently conducted interviews with the candidates. Because BJCP Officers are elected from the BJCP Representatives, the platforms and policies of the candidates will likely impact all program members, not only those who reside in the candidate's geographic region.

The BJCP Bulletin adapted a set of questions from a similar certifying organization (KCBS) for the purposes of the interviews. Each candidate was provided the same standard set of questions and exactly two weeks to provide responses, via email, to the question set. Each candidate was instructed that there was no limitation to their response length, however, all responses had to be received at the end of the two week period. Each candidate was also asked for a picture to accompany their responses.

Below are the responses received by Mid-Atlantic region representative candidate, Josh Weikert. No alterations were made to either the question set or to the responses as they were received.

1) Please describe the skills you posess (which you believe are stronger than the other candidates) which would make you an asset as a representative and board member in dealing with the challenges facing the BJCP, and give an example of how those skills would serve the BJCP Board of Directors and its membership.

I study and teach politics for a living. I feel that it gives me a nuanced understanding of the role of a representative. There are times when I should be acting as a delegate – conveying the wishes and positions of those that I represent. At other times, though, I should be acting as a trustee – using my own judgment to pursue outcomes that benefit my constituents, whether they instructed me to or not. It also means that I know the value of communication, up and down the ladder, and that as a board member it’s my responsibility to see that everyone has the information they need to be an effective member of the BJCP.

In addition, I am, in the words of my wife, “compulsively German.” If that doesn’t provide a vivid picture of my passion for effective organization and planning, I don’t know what would. It is an article of faith for me that with the right plan one can accomplish almost anything, and I pride myself on my ability to foresee challenges and plan to deal with them effectively.

2) As a judge, exam grader, steward, or member of a committee, please identify the major BJCP issues concerning one of the areas in which you are involved. Describe the major issue, your strategies to correct or improve the issue, and what you see as the biggest challenge to the success of your plan.

I became a judge because I believe that it is essential to the improvement of the skills of homebrewers to have access to objective, anonymous, and experienced evaluation of their beer. I became an exam grader because I felt an obligation to help the BJCP expand its pool of qualified judges. Both of these are under fire – fairly or unfairly – by many within the homebrewing community.

Many view judging as subjective at best and arbitrary at worst. While I agree that there is some art in judging beer, identifying high-quality beer is far from arbitrary. The fact that competitions so frequently single out the same brewers is evidence of that. I believe this is primarily a communication/PR problem, and should be addressed as such so that brewers have confidence in the evaluations they receive. We should be actively educating brewers so that they understand what to expect from the evaluation process, the limitations of judging, explanations for variability in scores and perceptions, and even an acknowledgment that – sometimes – you just get stuck with a pair of judges who are off their collective game. I think this would go a long way towards bolstering confidence in judging results, and lead to happier entrants!

Exam grading, on the other hand, presents a much more difficult challenge. I think it is a valid criticism that many feel there is only the barest roadmap to improving one’s exam score to advance in rank. The exam process should be revamped to make for a more rational progression through the ranks. Rather than repeated sitting for the same exam and hoping for that elusive Master score, I believe a stepped exam structure would be much more encouraging. Keep the existing online/tasting exam for those entering the program and seeking a Recognized/Certified score. For National and Master, though, we should have a dedicated National exam and a dedicated Master exam. As an analog, look at the progressive exams for the Cicerone program, where one first takes the Certified Beer Server exam, then the Certified Cicerone exam, and then finally the Master Cicerone exam – each adding an element of mastery and skill to the evaluation. While this will add to the exam-creation workload it will, I believe, result in more successful promotion and happier judges (and more of them judging, since they’ll be looking for the judging points needed to advance!). It may actually accelerate exam scoring, since the exams will be less about finding the scoring “sweet spot” among five results (and justifying it) and can focus on pass/fail and appropriate feedback to the examinee. I’m not calling for an easier exam – I’m calling for a more-explicit one, which actually means we can make it harder since the scoring rationale can be more explicit, thereby making it easier to justify a non-passing score.

3) Identify your major short term goal and major long term goal, if elected to the BJCP Board, and your plan to implement change or improvement in order to carry out each of these goals.

My major short-term goal if elected to the board is to immediately begin learning what judges in the region want and communicating that to the BJCP. This isn’t just an empty platitude: with quick and easy internet survey technology available, there’s no reason why a well-designed survey or two can’t be completed to allow for a more data-driven development and support process. The revived newsletter is a great step in improving outbound communication from the BJCP, but I would also love to see more (and more-organized) inbound communication.

My major long-term goal was introduced above: I want to see a revamped exam structure that satisfies three goals:

• Establish a clear roadmap to exam success that encourages judges to seek promotion-level exam scores
• Streamline the exam-scoring process to reduce turnaround times
• Weed out judges that are unprepared for judging in a competition environment, since they make all beer judges look bad

The existing exams are, perhaps, trying to satisfy too many audiences. Creating multiple exams (Rec/Cert, Nat’l, Master) and redesigning questions that make it clear how one demonstrates advanced knowledge will reduce judge frustration by making preparation more explicit (not easier, just more transparent). Scoring the existing exams is also a challenge – it calls for a multitude of subjective assessments, or (not much better) adherence to an elaborate and time-consuming rubric that requires scorers to count the number of descriptors used, for example. This slows down exam turnaround times and makes exam scoring a painful process. Last, my experience as a scorer suggests that the exam is a bit too easy to pass in addition to being difficult to master. We should not be in the habit of passing through – even at the 60 level – judges that we would not like to have scoring beer that we’ve paid to enter. If the best an examinee can produce in the exam setting – when he/she KNOWS they’re being evaluated – is a minimally-acceptable scoresheet, what do we suppose they’ll be producing at the end of an eight-hour judging day? The interest of minting new judges has to be secondary to the interest of ensuring that they’re producing a quality product.

4) If elected, please explain your level of committment, time and energy for committee projects, judging, exam grading, organizing competitions, as well as representing the BJCP to the public and being responsive to our members.

I’m already an active BJCP member in every facet of the program – judging, exams, and education – and I expect that will continue if I’m elected. I am an ardent believer that the BJCP continues to be in the best possible position to improve homebrewed beer quality (and, by extension, ALL beer quality) around the world, and if elected to the board my commitment would only be strengthened.

Commitment doesn’t mean much without time to do anything with it, though, and I’m happy to say that I have time. I’ll be stepping down as president of my homebrew club this fall, and since I’m no longer co-chairing the Local Organizing Committee for NHC I have room for more beer-related activities!

5) Please describe your previous participation in BJCP activities and years of experience.

I have been a BJCP-certified judge for five years, taking my exam in February 2009. I became a Master judge in 2012 after only three years thanks to points earned judging at the many competitions in the Philadelphia area and organizing an annual competition for my club (~300 entries/year) as well as twice organizing the NHC 1st Round in Philadelphia. I also had the privilege of presenting on the topic “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Pilsners” for the 2013 BJCP Reception at the National Homebrewers Conference in Philadelphia. I am an avid recruiter of BJCP judges, encouraging every brewer I meet to become certified, and my club’s membership is almost 50% BJCP-certified.

6) Please explain why you want to be a member of the BJCP Board.

I expect every beer judge shares at least one common sentiment: standards matter. We joined the BJCP because we wanted to encourage brewers and drinkers to know and appreciate quality beer, and to develop the skills necessary to do so. In running for a seat on the board I’m hoping to be able to help improve the health of the organization and its functionality as an association of judges. Without that sense of community and ownership we run the risk of achieving less than we might and wasting the talent and enthusiasm of our membership. If that means a few more hours at the keyboard and a lot more thinking about beer, then it’s a very small price to pay!

---

Mr. Weikert's candidate statement may be found at /docs/2014josh.pdf

---

The BJCP Bulletin wishes all candidates the best of luck in the 2014 elections.

###