Boston Grand Prix Exhibit Judging Debacle

Quote:
Boston 2026

Steve,
APS is the national federation that chooses the location for the decennial international exhibition, oversees and approves the contract with FIP, and regularly receives, reviews, and approves or modifies reports that the exhibition committee presents. Ever since Pacific 97 ended in bankruptcy, with the legacy fund accumulated since 1976 gone, much of it embezzled, largely because APS trusted an untrustworthy group, APS has been diligent in oversight.
I write the above with this caveat: I was on the APS Board from 1991 to 2007, so my inside knowledge of those events is based on those years' US and Canadian internationals (Pacific 97, which was contracted immediately after Ameripex 86, before I was elected to the Board; and Washington 2006, which was headed at APS insistence by the only man we fully trusted, former Assistant Postmaster General Gordon Morison, subsequently an APS vice president).
New York 2016 was headed by former APS President Wade Saadi, who reported regularly to the APS Board. I was not privy to his group's reports except the ones delivered orally to open Board meetings, and I'm aware that his rough treatment of FIP leaders and flouting of traditionally expected privileges greatly worsened relations between APS and FIP, but Wade did deliver what he had pledged to APS.
Washington 2006 and New York 2016 restored the legacy fund to seed future internationals as well as to provide grants for worthy philatelic programs. In due course we will learn whether Boston 2026 will do the same for the 2036 exhibition expected to be back in San Francisco.
That's a windy way of saying that when APS acts responsibly, the APS leadership oversees and constrains the conduct of committees that organize, finance, and host international exhibitions held in the United States. (Not only FIP exhibitions, though that is our current problem. World Stamp Expo 89 and World Columbian Stamp Expo 1992 were not FIP exhibitions, but APS was enmeshed in both.)
To me this current scandal reeks as much of jury misconduct (corruption of the process by a group of APS and maybe Canadian insiders) as the Pacific 97 embezzlement that got swept under the rug. APS lacked the legal tools to rectify the Pacific 97 loss, but the Board resolved that all future contracts with organizing committees would include APS oversight authority. I guess it remains to be seen whether the Boston contract adhered to that.
But besides that, APS certifies, disciplines, decertifies, and selects US judges for FIP internationals in every country. If our judges rigged a result, APS has the authority and responsibility to take action (not to change the award outcome, which is final when the jury is dismissed, but to hold wrongdoers to account and to adopt strict rules and guidelines to prevent similar abuses in the future).

Postscript thought: Considering that the APS Champion of Champions competition was held at Boston 2026, and that the winner was the same exbibit that won the Grand Prix National, APS might have more contractual authority than I outlined above.