April — June 2001

—1—

Vol. 34 • No. 2 April — June 2001 Issue #170

� NAVA Wins in Flag Survey� Fernandez wins NAVA-35 Flag Contest� Utne Reader’s ‘It’s A Grand New Flag’

and Flag Design Contest� NAVA’s State/Provincial Flag Survey� Salute to the International Congresses� Franco-Ontarian Flag Recognized� Letter about Betsy Ross� Flagmaker for Ft. Sumpter� Manitoba Flag Proposals� Flag Road Sign� Three Professors and the Flag Pole� Driver Award Guidelines� Chumley � Call for Papers

April — June 2001INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

NAVA WINS IN FLAG SURVEY

FERNANDEZ WINS NAVA-35 FLAG CONTESTby Peter Orenski

New York City architect and (moreimportantly) NAVA Member DinoFernandez edged out vigorouscompetition to win the NAVA-35 flag-design contest. Here’s what Dino hadto say about his entry:

“The flag proposed is composed ofa white V with a red triangle whichstands for NAVA, superimposed ona flag reminiscent of the flag forHampton Roads. The parts of the flagfor Hampton Roads and theirsignificance are as follows. The bluepanel evokes the predominantlymaritime and naval character of theHampton Roads region, which is thenation’s primary naval base on theEastern Seaboard, the East Coast’ssecond largest seaport, and thecountry’s primary center ofshipbuilding and ship repair. Thegreen panel stands for the region’sland-based agriculture, industry,and arts. The white wavy line

represents the sand and surf thathelp make the region one of thenation’s most visited touristdestinations - from ColonialWilliamsburg, Jamestown, andYorktown to Norfolk’s ChryslerMuseum and the famous resort areaat Virginia Beach. In all, the flagevokes the motto for the regionwhich is “Hampton Roads – whereVirginia meets the sea” , with a V forNAVA’s convention celebration there,and with its colors — red, white andblue.”

Nine volunteer judges labored longand hard over three weeks and fiverounds of voting to select thewinning design from among the 36entries submitted, many excellent.The whole experience — all designs,explanations by authors, judges’evaluations and comments — are

Continued on page 12

When NAVA sponsored its webbased survey last spring, we had noidea of the impact it would have onflag designing and flag conscious-ness in general. Conceived by ourrenouned Raven editor Ted Kaye andflawlessly executed by our Award-winning webmaster Dick Gideon, thesurvey asked visitors to the site torate the US State and Canadian Pro-vincial flags (plus territorial flags) fordesign qualities.

Some 400 people responded, ofwhom about a quarter were NAVAMembers, from about 20 countries.After the results were compiled, wereleased them via press releases andthen the media frenzy began!

Reactions were mixed, with someangry because they perceived NAVAwas casting aspersion on their cher-ished emblem of statehood, whileothers applauded us for our honestapproach. Even Jesse Ventura, themaverick governor of Minnesota, gotin the act, stating we didn’t knowwhat we’re talking about.

The best results, however, were theseveral flag contests, official andunofficial, that happened as a resultof the survey. In Manitoba, the twobiggest newspapers in Winnipeg haddueling flag contests, which the FreePress graciously permitted us to re-print in this issue for you to enjoy.Other less planned ‘contests’ hap-

pened also, for example, theWitchita, Kansas Eagle received anumber of proposals unsolicited.

Nor was NAVA the only entity thatis dealing with the topic; quite un-known to us and unrelated to thesurvey, Utne Reader, a nationalmagazine, published an article onthe sad state of subnational flag de-sign in North America, along withseveral proposals by graphic designfirms and the announcement of acontest for better designs withUS$500 being offered in prizes. Theyhave graciously allowed us to reprinttheir material here and have joinedNAVA! Welcome aboard!

All in all, flags are in the news!

NAVA News 34/2

—2—

FYI, Utne Reader is a national magazine that is geared to an intellectiual point of view. It is available on anynewsstand and this issue has just come out. Note also that this article was written without any contact or consul-tation with NAVA or it’s State and Provincial flag survey.

IT’S A GRAND NEW FLAG!WE ASKED FIVE DESIGN TEAMS TO REDO THEIR STATE OR PROVINCIAL FLAGS-

AND WE HOPE IT INSPIRES YOU TO DO THE SAME

Utne Reader, July/August 2001 issue

After decades of flapping in thebreeze virtually unnoticed, stateflags in recent years have becomenational news. All eyes were on Mis-sissippi this spring as citizensvoted on a proposed new flag thatreplaced the Confederate battlebanner in the upper left-hand cor-ner with a swirl of stars. It wasoverwhelmingly rejected. Georgia,on the other hand, recentlyadopted a new blue flag that rel-egates the Confederate banner (oc-cupying two- thirds of the old flag)to a tiny patch beneath the stateseal. The redesign of these flags,successful or not, sparked intensedebates about the Confederacyand its fight to keep African Ameri-cans in slavery. But racism andbrutal history are not confined toflags of the South. Take Minne-sota, whose flag AlfredZnamierowski describes this wayin “The World Encyclopedia ofFlags” (Lorenz Books, 1999): “Thecentral scene displays a NativeAmerican giving way to a white set-tler.”

These debates also remind us howpotent flags are as symbols. That’swhy we find it odd that most of our50 states fly such bland flags. Inmany cases it’s simply the state seal— usually an obscure and overlydecorous scene — set on a blue orwhite background. From a distance,it’s difficult to tell apart the flags ofConnecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Loui-siana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,Nebraska, New Hampshire, NewYork, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,

Vermont, Utah, and Virginia. Mean-while, Oregon, Montana, Wisconsin,and Kansas distinguish themselvesonly by their name — a less-than-

imaginative solution. And the flagsof many Canadian provinces are justas dull in their own way.

In an era when visual icons, fromthe Nike swoosh to anarchists’ blackbanners, have such cultural power,it seems baffling that so many statespass up the chance for a symbol thatcould win people’s attention and stirtheir souls. Texas and Quebec, forinstance, have bold and attractiveflags seen frequently on travel bro-chures, T-shirts, and other artifactsthat promote both places’ proudsense of identity. The memorableflags of Maryland, Arizona, New

Mexico, Tennessee, Colorado, SouthCarolina, the provinces ofSaskatchewan and New Brunswick,the new Canadian territory of

Nunavut, and the United Statescommonwealth of Puerto Ricoleave us with a strong visual rep-resentation of those places.

Now is the perfect time, withfolks in Georgia and Mississippileading the way, for all of us toexplore ideas for more strikingand soul-stirring flags. To startthe discussion and get everyone’screative juices flowing, we com-missioned design firms in Ontario,Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Wash-ington state, and Georgia to pro-pose new flags for their homes.(While applauding Georgians fordownsizing the Confederate imag-ery on their flag — which hasadorned it only since 1956 — wethink they deserve somethingmore distinctive than the usual

state seal on a blue background.)We hope these designs spark ideas

about a new flag for the place youcall home.Flag Design Contest:

Look over what these five designteams have come up with, then tryyour hand at reworking the flag ofyour state or province. Send us theresults, and we may feature it in anupcoming issue. We’re offering[USD]$500 in prizes.

FLAGSUtne Reader

1624 Harmon PlaceMinneapolis, MN 55403

oreditor@utne.com

April — June 2001

—3—

NAVA News 34/2

—4—

NEW MEXICO TOPS STATE/PROVINCIAL FLAGS SURVEYGEORGIA LOSES BY WIDE MARGIN

10 June 2001Story by Ted Kaye

The flag experts of North Americahave completed their survey of stateand provincial flags, identifying thebest and worst flags on the conti-nent. NAVA, the North AmericanVexillological Association, conducteda poll on its website, asking its mem-bers and the public their opinionsof flag designs in the U.S. andCanada. Vexillology is the study offlags.

Responses came in from 100 NAVAmembers and over 300 members ofthe public in 20 countries. Partici-pants rated 72 flags on their designqualities (rather than on political,historical, or geographic consider-ations) on a scale of 0 to 10, where10 was the best score. They wereasked to rely on their personal senseof good flag design in rating the flags,which appeared on the web page.They cast well over 29,000 individualvotes.

NAVA members favored strong,simple, distinctive flags, choosingNew Mexico, Texas, and Quebec infirst, second and third place, all withscores above 8. They scorned the“seal-on-a-bedsheet” design com-mon to more than half of U.S. stateflags, forcefully relegating those flagsto the bottom of the heap with scoresaveraging less than 4.

One flag drew far more attentionthan all others did. NAVA membersand the public both gave the newGeorgia flag the lowest score—2.4points—by the largest margin of anyflag. Some even asked to give it nega-tive points. They disparagedGeorgia’s flag as “a scalawag”, “deso-lating”, “simply awful”, “hideous”,and “by far the ugliest”. Its complexdesign violates all the principles ofgood flag design, incorporating aseal, lettering, and a series of min-iature historic flags (in incorrect or-

der). One person derided it as “FiveFlags Under Georgia”.

Canadian flags fared significantlybetter than U.S. flags, with an aver-age score of 6 points versus 5.Canada’s provincial flags generallyavoid seals and tend towards moresimple designs.

The state-seal-on-a-blue-back-ground design of so many U.S. stateflags dates back to the 19th centuryadoption of regimental flags to rep-resent the states. They are relativelyindistinguishable from each other atany distance, except perhapsOregon’s flag, which is the only oneto have a different design on theback.

Texas briefly led the results afterNAVA president Dave Martucci men-tioned the survey in a radio inter-view on Texas Flag Day. But thethree-day flurry of responses (likelyfrom Texans) was eventually dilutedby other responses and Texas sankback into second place. Others be-trayed their partisanship in theircomments, such as “Long live thegreen flag” from a Washingtonian.

The public’s overall responses par-alleled those of NAVA members quiteclosely, with the public tending toscore flags a half-point lower, on av-erage. As might be expected, thepublic’s scores dispersed a bit morebroadly, with a slightly higher stan-dard deviation. Their insightful com-ments showed a strong intuitivegrasp of flag design and confirmedNAVA’s expert opinions on designprinciples. One doesn’t need to be aflag expert to know a good flag de-sign.

NAVA has invited each respondentto become a member.

In a surprise result, the combinedNAVA-public rankings handed thetop flags a three-way tie, with lessthan 1/100th of a point separatingtheir scores (that margin is so smallthat one person changing his votecould alter the first-place score).

The highest-scoring flags all em-body the five basic principles listedin NAVA’s upcoming publication onflag design, Good Flag, Bad Flag:1. Keep It Simple (The flag should

be so simple that a child can drawit from memory…)

2. Use Meaningful Symbolism (Theflag’s images, colors, or patternsshould relate to what it symbol-izes…)

3. Use 2–3 Basic Colors (Limit thenumber of colors on the flag tothree, which contrast well andcome from the standard colorset…)

4. No Lettering or Seals (Never usewriting of any kind or anorganization’s seal…)

5. Be Distinctive or Be Related(Avoid duplicating other flags, butuse similarities to show connec-tions…)Good Flag, Bad Flag is

downloadable free from the NAVAwebsite: www.nava.org. It can helpany organization, tribe, company,family, neighborhood, city, county,state, or even country design a greatflag.

The survey, quite possibly the firstof its kind conducted entirely over theInternet, lasted three-and-a-halfmonths, and has contributed new in-sights into the public perception offlags and their design. Ted Kaye, edi-tor of NAVA’s scholarly journal andauthor of Good Flag, Bad Flag, con-ducted the survey; Dick Gideon,NAVA’s webmaster, designed the sur-vey page.

April — June 2001

—5—

REPRESENTATIVE SURVEYCOMMENTS

A flag should be the simplest pos-sible design consistent with bearinga unique, easily distinguishedidentity…those with complex detail intheir composition defeat the purposeof a flag.

The main purpose of a flag is iden-tification. Yet half of the US’s stateshave flags that to the untrained eye,or from a distance, look identical.

Simple flags, clear colors, not toobusy. Shields on fields are bad.

… a flag which needs to indicateits significance by spelling out thestate signified…is defeating the verypurpose of a flag, that is, to signal“visually” without need of writtensigns.

A ‘good’ design for a flag, in myopinion, is one that can be identifiedat a glance (even in a stiff breeze!)and which is easy for, e.g., schoolstudents to sketch... everyone oughtto be able to draw those flags thathave significance for them.

All British colonial flags (e.g.Ontario) should go.

The blue-coloured flags remind meof the former Soviet republics’ flags.(comment from Sweden)

Recognition, simplicity, color, anduniqueness make, in my opinion, apleasing design.

… the new Georgia state flag cer-tainly is a shame to any flag designer.What a mess!

The whole purpose of flags, Ithought, was to distinguish one fromanother.

NAVA SURVEY SCORES[10 = high]

1 New Mexico ................ 8.612 Texas .......................... 8.133 Quebec ....................... 8.044 Maryland .................... 7.975 Alaska ........................ 7.966 Arizona ....................... 7.927 Puerto Rico ................. 7.668 District of Columbia .... 7.489 Marshall Islands ........ 7.1910 South Carolina ........... 7.1611 Hawaii ........................ 7.1512 Nova Scotia ................ 7.0613 California ................... 7.0014 Tennessee .................. 6.9815 Ohio ............................ 6.8716 Colorado ..................... 6.8317 Nunavut...................... 6.7218 New Brunswick .......... 6.6819 F. S. Micronesia .......... 6.4520 Labrador .................... 6.4521 Prince Edward Island. 6.3022 Mississippi ................. 6.3023 Wyoming .................... 6.2824 British Columbia ........ 6.2825 Newfoundland............ 6.2426 Saskatchewan ........... 6.2227 American Samoa ........ 6.1628 Rhode Island .............. 6.1229 Alabama ..................... 6.0630 Northwest Territories.. 5.8931 Yukon ......................... 5.8632 Indiana ....................... 5.7733 North Carolina ............ 5.3434 Florida ........................ 5.1735 Alberta........................ 5.0036 Louisiana ................... 4.98

37 Virgin Islands ............. 4.9438 Massachusetts ........... 4.7839 Oklahoma ................... 4.7840 Guam.......................... 4.7741 N. Mariana Islands .... 4.7342 Iowa ........................... 4.7243 Ontario ....................... 4.6444 Manitoba .................... 4.6045 Arkansas .................... 4.5946 New Jersey ................ 4.5747 Washington ................ 4.5348 Missouri ...................... 4.5049 Illinois ......................... 4.3850 Connecticut ................. 4.3251 West Virginia .............. 4.1652 Delaware .................... 4.0853 New York .................... 3.9354 Virginia ....................... 3.9355 Nevada ....................... 3.8856 North Dakota .............. 3.6957 Pennsylvania.............. 3.6958 Utah ........................... 3.4759 Michigan ..................... 3.4660 Maine ......................... 3.3961 Vermont ...................... 3.3762 Oregon ........................ 3.3063 New Hampshire ......... 3.1864 Idaho .......................... 3.1765 Wisconsin ................... 3.1666 Kentucky .................... 3.1667 Minnesota ................... 3.1368 South Dakota ............. 3.1269 Kansas ....................... 3.0170 Montana ..................... 3.0071 Nebraska .................... 2.9872 Georgia ....................... 2.36

Top 5 Flags1. New Mexico2. Texas3. Quebec4. Maryland5. Alaska

COUNTRIESREPRESENTED

ArgentinaAustriaBelgiumCanada

Czech RepublicDenmarkFinlandFrance

GermanyHungary

IsraelItaly

LatviaNew Zealand

NorwayPortugalSpain

SwedenUnited Kingdom

United States

Here is just a small sampling of thenews media outlets that reported thesurvey results: AP, The Oregonian,US News and World Report, MontrealGazette, Washington Post, The Globeand Mail, Herald, Winnipeg FreePress, Winnipeg Sun, Pioneer Planet,Yahoo News, JSOnline, Denver Post,The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Lin-coln Nebraska Journal-Star , Chris-tian Science Monitor, St. Paul PioneerPress, captimes.com, Florida Times-Union, BBC, Minnesota Public Radio,Concord Monitor.Special thanks go to Survey Creator,Ted Kaye; Survey’s Web Format De-signer, Richard R. Gideon; and thePrimary Media Contact, RickBroadhead.

NAVA Salutes the International Congresses of Vexillologya 38 year tradition of International Vexillological Fellowship and Scholarship

Flag of the International Federationof Vexillological Associations (FIAV)

1st ICV - 1965Muiderburg, The Netherlands

2nd ICV - 1967Zurich, Switzerland

3rd IVC - 1969Boston, Massachusetts, USA

4th ICV - 1971Turin, Italy

5th ICV - 1973London, England, UK

6th ICV - 1975Ijssel Meer, The Netherlands

7th ICV - 1977Washington, DC, USA

8th ICV - 1979Vienna, Austria

9th ICV - 1981Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

10th ICV - 1983Oxford, England, UK

11th ICV - 1985Madrid, Spain

12th ICV - 1987San Francisco, California, USA

13th ICV - 1989Melbourne, Australia

14th ICV - 1991Barcelona, Spain

15th ICV - 1993Zurich, Switzerland

16th ICV - 1995Warsaw, Poland

17th ICV - 1997Cape Town, South Africa

18th ICV - 1999Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

19th ICV - 2001York, England, UK

NAVA News 34/2

—8—

Franco-Ontarian flag officially recognized by Queen’s Parkby Luc Baronian

Ontario may have the second-to-worst provincial flag according toNAVA’s recent survey, but the beau-tiful Franco-Ontarian flag was justrecognized by vote on June 21 2001in Queen’s Park (Ontario’s provin-cial parliament) as representing theprovince’s francophone community.Members of all political parties votedfor the motion presentedby Liberal Member of Par-liament Jean-MarcLalonde (opposition). Theflag will be raised on theParliament building onJune 24 2001, Saint-Jean-Baptist Day, patronsaint of French-Canadi-ans. Ontario will thus be-come the second provinceto fly its francophoneminority’s flag, after NewBrunswick, which fliesthe Acadian flag on its Legislative As-sembly.

The event was well received by thecommunity, although some influen-tial members expressed the wishthat the Conservative government domore than symbolic actions for thepromotion of French in Ontario. In-deed, recently, two events made theFranco-Ontarians angry againsttheir government. The one that mo-bilized most people was thegovernment’s decision to appeal acourt judgment that declared uncon-stitutional the decision to close downthe province’s only French-languagehospital (in Ottawa). The second wasthe lack of political will by the gov-ernment to declare officially bilingualthe new city of Ottawa (created bythe merger of Ottawa with its imme-diate suburbs), Canada’s capital andan important cultural center for theFranco-Ontarians. (In the end, thecity did declare itself bilingual, butwithout sanction by Queen’s Park).Not to mention frustration caused bythe refusal of large departmentstores in Ottawa to put up bilingualsigns, although the same stores didso in Montreal to accommodate theanglophone minority there. Franco-Ontarians still remember when thegovernment tried to take their lan-

guage out of their schools during theFirst World War.

This official recognition of the flagcomes three weeks before the Gamesof the Francophonie, which will beheld in the federal capital region ofOttawa-Hull. The Franco-Ontarianflag is a vertical 1:2 green and white

(representing the Ontarian Summerand Winter), with a white fleur de lisin the center of the hoist square withobvious symbolism and a green styl-ized trillium (the official provincialflower is the white trillium) in thecenter of the fly square. The flag wasfirst flown at the French-languageUniversitè de Sudbury (today calledUniversitè Laurentienne). It was de-signed by a group of students fromthat university on the initiative oftheir history professor, GaètanGervais, and in the honor of CamilleLemieux, an editorialist, who hadpledged for the adoption of a distinc-tive Franco-Ontarian flag in the1950s, shortly after Quebec’s flagwas adopted.

Until 1948, French-Canadians inQuebec, New England, Ontario andWestern Canada made use of theCarillon flag, ancestor of Quebec’scurrent Fleurdelysè. (A common fauxpas is to confuse French-Canadiansand the Acadians of Atlantic Canadaand Maine, who’s culture and his-tory is significantly separate).Quebec’s move was in line with theshift in identity that was operatingfrom French-Canadians toQuèbècois. As a result, the conceptof a large French-Canadian nation

dissolved and local francophoneflags were adopted in North America.In 1977, the French-Canadian As-sociation of Ontario (ACFO) adoptedthe flag created in 1975 and it hassince flown in every French-speak-ing villages and towns in front ofschools, Desjardins financial coops,community centers and private

homes, often next tothe Canadian andOntarian flags.

Americans are of-ten puzzled by theimportance given toFrench speakers inCanada; a pastNAVA presidenteven once told mehe didn’t under -stand why provin-cial French-Cana-dian associations

bothered to adopt flags, while Ital-ian-Canadians or other groupsdidn’t. One has to understand thatin many parts of the country as wellas parts of the Northern US, French-Canadians were the first explorersif not the first settler (hence themany French place names in theMidwest like Des Moines, Joliet,Racine, Detroit, etc.). The Frenchpresence in Ontario dates back 350years. French-Canadians never ex-perienced the French revolution be-cause they were under British ruleby then, hence the insignificance ofmodern French symbols to them. Infact, the word French-Canadian it-self is fairly recent; the originalmeaning of “Canadian” being aFrench descendant born in Canada.

Although Ontario’s native French-speaking population represents onlyabout 5% of the province’s totalpopulation (compare New Brunswickwhere Acadians represent close tothe third), there are strongfrancophone concentrations in theEastern and Northern parts of theprovince. More important, the half-million strong Franco-Ontarian com-munity represents just over half ofCanada’s francophone populationoutside Quebec and is twice as largeas New Brunswick’s.

April — June 2001

—9—

To the Editor,

I believe I can explain how the

facts surrounding the basis of

the Betsy Ross legend got con-

fused. As we know, William

Canby, Betsy Ross’ grandson,

asserted that his grandmother

told him the famous story when

he was about 11 years old. Ac-

cording to the story, General

Washington and a committee of

Congress consisting of Robert

Morris and George Ross (uncle

to Mrs. Ross’ husband, John) vis-

ited Mrs. Ross in 1776 to make

the first Stars and Stripes flag.

No such committee existed for

the purpose of selecting a flag for

the United States. However, Ed-

ward W. Richardson’s Standards

and Colors of the American Revo-

lution (U of PA Press, ISBN 0-

8122-7839-9; 1982) states the

following on pages 111 and 112:

In July 1775 the Penn-

sylvania Provincial

Assembly’s Committee of

Safety, of which Franklin

was president, and George

Ross and Robert Morris

members, ordered a fleet

of river gunboats of the

galley type. … The Provin-

cial Committee of Safety

was responsible for navy

matters. … The first

record noted by Preble of

Pennsylvania State Navy

Colors is in the minutes of

the Navy Board, as fol-

lows: “Present: William

Bradford, Joseph Marsh,

Joseph Blewer, Paul Cox.

An order on William Webb

to Elizabeth Ross for four-

teen pounds, twelve shil-

lings, and two pence, for

making ship’s colours, etc.

put into William Richards

store. £14.12.2.” The date

was May 29, 1777.

This statement clearly shows

that two of the key players in the

Betsy Ross legend — George Ross

and Robert Morris — were mem-

bers of a committee that oversaw

naval matters and that the pro-

curing of flags for the Pennsylva-

nia Navy was under the

committee’s jurisdiction (via the

Navy Board). The person who

doesn’t fit is George Washington.

Instead, Benjamin Franklin, an-

other famous Founding Father,

does. It is highly probable that

either an elderly Mrs. Ross or a

very young William Canby got the

germ of the story right, but got

confused on the exact details.

Earl P. Williams, Jr.

Washington, DC

NAVA Member isFlagmaker for

Fort SumterOn Flag Day, June 14, 2001, Fort

Sumter National Monument Super-intendent John Tucker unfurled oneof two reproduction 1861, 20 ft. x36 ft. 100% Natural Cotton Bunting,33 star Garrison Flags on LibertySquare, Charleston, South Carolina.One of the Garrison flags will be ondisplay at the new Fort Sumter &Fort Moultrie welcome center. Thesecond Garrison Flag will be flownover Fort Sumter on special flagdays.

Additional measurements: thecanton 17 ft. !/2 in. x 19 ft. 2 in. natu-ral blue cotton bunting, with 33natural white canvas 11 in. stars ina Diamond pattern. Field of 13 redand white natural cotton buntingstripes 18!/2 in. wide. 7 in. wide natu-ral white canvas header (on flag tobe flown) doubled around a boltrope.

The flags were made by Tom Mar-tin, Flagmaker, Piedmont Flag Com-pany.

NAVA News 34/2

—10—

April — June 2001

—11—

NAVA NewsPublished quarterly by the North

American Vexillological Association(NAVA), PMB 225, 1977 N Olden AveExt, Trenton NJ 08618-2193 USA.ISSN 1053-3338. Material appear-ing in NAVA News does not neces-sarily reflect the policy or opinion ofNAVA, the executive board or of theeditor.

Please send articles, letters to theeditor and inquiries concerning ad-vertising rates and permission toreprint articles to:

David Martucci, Editor240 Calderwood Rd

Washington ME 04574-3440 USA(207) 845-2857pres@nava.org

Articles may be submitted in hardcopy or in any Macintosh or PC for-mat (excepting Lotus Word Pro) on3.5” diskettes or Zip disks. A hardcopy showing all formatting prefer-ences should accompany the disk.Articles and/or disks accompaniedby a SASE will be returned.

Please send copies or originals ofany flag-related newspaper andmagazine clippings and all non-NAVA News related correspondence,including change of address orchanges in email status to theAssociation’s permanent address:

NAVAPMB 225

1977 N Olden Ave ExtTrenton NJ 08618-2193 USA

treas@nava.org

Visit NAVA on the web athttp://www.nava.org/

©2001 NAVA - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Chumley the Vexi-Gorilla™... Is the creation of Michael Faul, Editor of

Flagmaster, the distinguished journal of The FlagInstitute in the United Kingdom. To a field not

often blessed by humor’s grace, Mr Faul brings adelightfully light touch, deep vexillological roots,and sparkling whimsy.

Readers fly theircreative colours

Fun-with-flag contest narrowed to34 finalists awaiting your vote

Many of us are still vexed aboutthe North American Vexillogical As-sociation voting our provincial flagthe ugliest in Canada. A spokesmanfor the Canadian branch of thevexillogical society, a group thatstudies vexillums (Latin for flag), saidManitoba’s Union Jack-based ban-ner lacks style and violates all therules of good flag design.

The Free Press recently asked read-ers for their ides on what a newManitoba flag should look like - ifand when the province ever decidesto replace the current one - and theentries have poured in. While bison,crocuses and wheat were the mostcommon adornments, the 150 or soentries are a diverse, imaginativeand colourful sampling of Manitobapride. We also invited prominentManitoba artists and graphic design-ers to provide us with their visions,and you’ll see them on this page.There are five of them: Ivan Eyre,Jordan Van Sewell, digital Chame-leon, Ivy Gowen of Number Ten Ar-chitectural Group and LouiseWilmot. see if you can pick out theprofessionals’ work.

Our panel has selected 34 final-ists and we invite readers to vote fortheir favorite by mailing, faxing ordropping off the enclosed ballot. Youcan also email us your favorite byfilling out the form below. The win-ner will receive a full-size flag fea-turing their design after it has flownfor a day in a prominent, but stillsecret, location. Deadline for votingis midnight Wednesday [July 11].Please select your favorite flag byclicking on the “radio button” besideits corresponding number, and hit“Send” at the bottom of the page.Please include the reasons that youchose this flag as your favorite.

© Winnipeg Free Press, July 7, 2001

First-ever flag road sign! Here’s aphoto from Jim Babcock in HamptonRoads.

Three Professors and the Flag PoleThe professors of mathematics and

physics were staring away at the flagpole in front of the front of the col-lege building. The professor of engi-neering walking by asked, “Whatseems to be the problem?”

“We,” said the professor of math-ematics, “were wondering how tomeasure the height of this flag pole.”

The professor of engineeringquickly unscrewed the pole from itsmoorings, laid it on the ground,whipped out a measuring tape, mea-sured it, and said, “It is exactly 20feet long,” and walked away smok-ing his pipe.

Looking at the engineeringprofessor’s receding back, the overanalyzing professor of physics re-marked, “Smart alec. We wanted toknow the height, and he tells us thelength!”

NAVA News 34/2

—12—

Visit NAVA’s Award-winning Web Sitehttp://www.nava.org

CALL FOR PAPERSIf you wish to present a paper or

set up a display at the 35th AN-NUAL CONVENTION of NAVA (5-7October 2001 in Hampton RoadsVirginia), please mail the followinginformation to 1st Vice PresidentAndrew R. Biles, Jr. by 30 JUNE2001:1) Your name, address, telephone

number, and email address ifavailable;

2) Title of paper, presentation, sym-posium, workshop or exhibit;

3) Abstract of same;and

4) Type and size of

exhibit area and/or equipmentneeded, including tables, electri-cal requirements, AV equipment,etc.NO EXHIBITS OR PRESENTATIONS

WILL BE ALLOWED IF THE NOTIFI-CATION LISTED ABOVE IS NOTMADE IN A TIMELY MANNER.

A COMPLETE COPY OF THE PA-PER OR PRESENTATION OR NA-TURE OF EXHIBIT MUST BE RE-CEIVED BY 31 AUGUST 2001.Send to:

Andrew R. Biles, Jr.16035 Maple Wild Ave SW

Seattle WA 98166 USATelephone: 1 (206) 244-1666

Email: abiles@pol.netNAVA reserves the right to accept

or reject any presentation withoutprejudice.

CAPTAIN WILLIAM DRIVER AWARD GUIDELINES1. The Captain William Driver

Award was created in 1979 forthe best presentation at theNAVA annual convention. It isnamed in honor of Captain Will-iam Driver, who christened theUnited States flag “Old Glory.”The award is generously cospon-sored by the National Flag Foun-dation.

2. The award consists of a certifi-cate and US$250.

3. The executive board shall deter-mine the recipient of the awardbased on the criteria given be-low. At its discretion, the execu-tive board may determine that nopresentation delivered at theconvention has met the criteriafor the award and decline to givean award that year.

4. The criteria for the award follow,in descending order of relativeimportance:a. The presentation should be

an original contribution of re-search or theoretical analysis

on a flag or flags resulting inan advancement of knowledgein the field of vexillology.

b. It should be characterized bythoroughness and accuracy.

c. It should be well organizedand, as appropriate, illus-trated.

d. It should be delivered well,i.e., interesting for the audi-ence as well as informative,such that it is easily compre-hendible.

5. No presentation may be consid-ered for the award unless a com-pleted written text is submittedin advance of its delivery.

6. No single individual may be giventhe award more frequently thanonce every three years.

7. Because of the conflict of inter-est, current members of the ex-ecutive board are ineligible forthe award.

8. If at all possible, the executiveboard shall not give the awardjointly to corecipients. In ex-

traordinary circumstances, theexecutive board may recognizeanother presentation with thedesignation “Honorable Men-tion.”

9. As a condition of being consid-ered for the award, presentersagree that NAVA has the right offirst refusal to publish their pre-sentation in either NAVA Newsor Raven: A Journal ofVexillology. This right of firstrefusal extends to both the ac-tual recipient of the award andthe remaining nonrecipients. Apresenter who desires to have hisor her presentation publishedelsewhere may decline to havethe presentation considered forthe award, provided that the pre-senter makes this fact knownbefore the presentation is deliv-ered.

10. These guidelines should be dis-tributed to presenters in advanceof the annual convention.

Approved August 1 1998

available for everyone on NAVA’s website.Note that this was the first time ever

that a flag contest was judged in arational, quantitative manner accordingto basic principles of good flag design,over the Internet, by nine judges fromall across the United States. We hope ourexperience will provide others with astarting point for conducting andevaluating similar contests.

I know you will want to extend yourcongratulations to Dino (SFArchitec@aol.com) as well as to give a hand tothe exemplary effort by our volunteerjudges (in reverse alphabetical order) —Gus Tracchia, Chris Sweet, Jon Radel,Phil Nelson, Bob Milka, Ted Kaye, DickGideon, John Gámez and Nathan Bliss— all of whom are now living, followingextensive plastic surgery, underassumed names in the flag-witnessprotection program west of Alaska.

See you at NAVA-35, October 5-7,2001, in Norfolk, Virginia!

Continued from page 1