Thursday, December 10, 2015



CHAPTER SURVEY RESULTS

Here are the results of the chapter survey.  A big thanks goes to all who filled out the survey.  Below are simply numbers, not any interpretation of those numbers.  If you have any questions and/or comments about the results, please feel free to comment below or contact the local board members directly:

1. Numbers responded:
·         64 out of 100 responded (64%) to the survey.  On a side note, only 38 members voted in our last board election so we consider this number high.
·         90% are Rocky Mountain GBW members.
·         10% are guild members who live in the geographical boundaries but are not members of the Rocky Mountain Chapter.  


2. Who voted by State:
Answer Choices
Percentage
Quantity
Arizona
4.69%
3
Colorado
23.44%
15
Idaho
1.56%
1
Montana
3.13%
2
New Mexico
17.19%
11
Nevado
0.00%
0
Utah
32.81%
21
Wyoming
4.69%
3
Other
7.81%
5
Didn't Specify state
3.13%
2
Didn't answer any of the questions (but technically took the survey)
1.56%
1
Total

64






       3. Total Results of split question:
Answer Choices –
Responses –
Total
Yes to split
41.27%
26
No to split
44.44%
28
Undecided
14.29%
9
Total
63


 
















     4. Results by State:
The left hand columns are number of votes, the right hand columns are percentages of votes.  Of those 6 respondents (10%) who are not chapter members, 3 were undecided (from Montana and Arizona), 2 responded yes (New Mexico), and 1 responded no (from Arizona).
States
Yes to split
No to split
Undecided
Yes to split
No to split
Undecided
Arizona
0
2
1
0%
67.00%
33.00%
New Mexico
6
5
0
55%
45%
0%
Colorado
4
9
2
27%
60%
13%
Utah
14
5
2
67%
24%
9%
Nevada
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
Wyoming
0
3
0
0%
100%
0%
Idaho
0
1
0
0%
100%
0%
Montana
0
0
2
0%
0%
100%
Other
2
2
1
40%
40%
20%
Didn't specify state
0
1
1
0%
50%
50%
Total:
26
28
9
41.27%
44.44%
14.29%


Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana’s numbers are as such that no graph is needed.  Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah show varying results.  Here are the charts:

 

  


       5. Comment Section:
·         33 respondents skipped the comments, 30 commented. 
·         4 comments were undecided:  two did not like how the geography was split, two were more worried about numbers/people willing to volunteer.  One respondent stipulated that they would be in favor of the split, if the split was grouping different states together. 
·         14 comments voted yes:  most did not like the largess of the geography and commented about difficulty of travel, lack of activities across all boundaries, etc.  One was for a split, but did not like the geography of the split.
·         11 comments voted no:  three did not like the geography of the split, others’ comments were more about strength in numbers, not believing that a split will resolve issues, etc.
·         Those who commented are from the following states:
Montana:  1
Wyoming: 1
Other:        1
Colorado:  7
Utah:         12
New Mexico: 5
Arizona:    3
·         The states with the smaller numbers and more on the outskirts of the chapter mostly comment about disagreeing with the geography of the split (especially New Mexico).  Six respondents from Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, and Arizona are ‘no’ or ‘undecided’ potentially because they don’t like the geography of the split in question.  In comparison, only two of these comments mention the notion of ‘strength in numbers’. 
·         Colorado’s reasons for staying together or splitting are quite varied and only one of the seven mentions not liking the geography of the split.  Most tend to lean towards the ‘strength in numbers’ argument.
·         Most of Utah’s reasons is size—not being able to travel, liking things on a more local level, etc. 

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Secret Belgium Binding Workshop, Jan. 16-17, 2016 in Denver



Secret Belgium Binding
Two-day workshop with Erin Fletcher
January 16-17, 2016
1/16: 9a-4:30p, 11/17: 9a-3:30p
Denver Bookbinding Co, ,
1401 W. 47th Ave, Denver, CO 80211

The origin of the Secret Belgian binding is debatable. It could be a contemporary structure coming out of Canada, United States, Italy or the Netherlands. Or it could have originated in a Belgian monastery sometime between the 14th and 16th centuries. This workshop will explore the Secret Belgian structure and ways to modify it. On day one, students will put together two variations of this non-adhesive structure, which is simple and can be quickly constructed. It opens flat and is perfect for thinner text blocks. On day two, students will explore modified versions of the Secret Belgian binding explored by Anne Goy by playing with the amount of sewing, size of sewing holes and incorporating Tyvek.
This class is open to all levels of experience,
About our instructor
Erin is an alum of the bookbinding program at the North Bennet Street School. In 2012, she opened Herringbone Bindery, Her book arts blog can be found at herrringbonebindery.com

Registration fee
$165/GBW members
$195/general
$10 materials fee for textblocks, boards, etc. 

Questions and registration: contact Martha Rome, martha.g.rome.cambridge@gmail.com
Registration limited to GBW members until Dec. 11. Open to the public after that date.

Bring to class:
- 12” ruler
- medium glue brush
- x-acto knife or Olfa
- awl or dissecting needle
- small scissors
- bone folder
- 45/45/90 triangle
- pencil
optional:
- 18/3 colored thread
- decorative paper
- punching cradle
- sanding block
- scalpel w/#23 blade
- dividers

- small cutting mat