<font color="blue"> A continuation of an off topic discussion from another thread:</font>
You asked for my vote, so I'd like to ask a few questions of you if you don�t mind:

1) Would you be able to show proper appreciation to other volunteers working for the PDGA?
2) Are you able to accept responsibility for your own actions and admit when you have made a mistake without blaming it on others?
3) Do you work well on a team of people? Can you provide an example of it on the PDGA level?
4) Similar to 3, do you have leadership skills? Meaning can you work with and direct others and provide direction as to purpose, action, review and result? Do you have an example of doing so?
5) How do you see yourself changing from the �outsider� to an �insider�?
6) Do you think that �Total Transparency� is possible for you or the PDGA? If so what would that entail?
7) You speak often of priding yourself on having an �open mind�, will you have an open mind when it comes to issues facing the PDGA BOD?
8) Will you attempt to change your kidding around and sometimes malicious tone here as a PDGA Officer?
9) Will you use inside knowledge, or partial knowledge, to attack the PDGA once you are out of office?
10) What do you see your duties as Oversight Director being beyond constitutional boundaries?
11) What are your weaknesses? What have you been mistaken about at first that you now understand more fully? What do you wish you had done differently as concerns your involvement with the PDGA?
12) Can you provide a disc golf organizational resume for us of your involvement and accomplishments?

Thanks

"

Thats a pretty good set of talking points, and i will be happy to address each of them to the degree to which they are relevant to the position of Oversight Director. i will likely, over time, add a few more questions and answers also.

Lets start with the reposonsibilities of Oversight Director as detailed in the PDGA Constitution:

"The Oversight Director shall havethe responsibility to ensure that all committees are conducting the duties for which they are responsible in a manner that is both called for in the COnstitution and by the Borad of Directors and which does not conflict with the purpose of the PDGA or harm the sport of disc golf. Any oversight detected shall be dealt with by first providing the individual with the opportunity to correct the situation and then by submitting a full report to the PDGA Commissioner."

Question from Nick Kight: "Would you be able to show proper appreciation to other volunteers working for the PDGA?"

As a volunteer myself, i fully appreciate the incredible efforts and accomplishments of PDGA volunteers. The annual budget of this organization would probably increase tenfold where all work done on its behalf be performed by staff or paid resources. Volunteers are a precious and valuable resource, and the development of volunteers is and will remain a key ingredient to the success of the PDGA.

That being said, if a volunteer was detected to be acting contrary to the Constitution or BoD, or in conflict with the purpose of the PDGA, or who was harming the sport of disc golf, then as Oversight Director i would be compelled to exercise the duties of my office and request the volunteer to make the necessary correction. If made, then we move on. If not made, the the required full report would be filed with the Commissioner.

PDGA volunteers deserve immeasurable appreciation, but because they are either part of a larger committee or assigned ad hoc by the Commissioner, they also are held accountable to the Constitution.

Question from Nick Kight: "Are you able to accept responsibility for your own actions and admit when you have made a mistake without blaming it on others?"

This is actually a two part question, and i'll answer the part about responsibility first.

I believe we are all responsible for all of our own actions. While some may perceive me as "liberal", i do not subscribe personally to the "society made me do it" theories that are popular among the left. Society may have put me in a position where a particular action was more attractive, but I still have personal responsibility for my actions.

Now, on to mistakes:

Admitting a mistake is easy. It is actually rather freeing.
I do it every day. Sometimes my mistakes are in family matters, sometimes at work, and sometimes in my outside activities. Sometimes they are in disc selection!

But to move the PDGA forward will require more than accepting responsibility and admitting mistakes. Thats just the first step. It will require uncovering the root cause of the mistake. Sometimes the search for a root cause feels like shifting blame. As Oversight Director i will work towards fostering an environment in which all appropriate people are responsible. In which we all can feel comfortable in admitting our mistakes. And most importantly, in which the discussion of root causes and how to remedy them is understood and perceived as a productive undertaking rather than a shifting of blame.

Question submitted by Nick Kight: "3) Do you work well on a team of people? Can you provide an example of it on the PDGA level?"

Honestly, it depends on the team. I work best on teams of people who respect and trust one another. Because my default mode is trust and respect, i do not function so well in environments where trust and respect are withheld, or politics overwhelms the functioning of the team.

I'd like to cite two PDGA-related examples of my ability to work as a part of a team.

First, my initial assignment as a website volunteer was to help Cliff Towne finish up a bunch of changes to the Course Directory code. This mostly involved the screens where you edit and add courses, so it was by-and-large a "behind the scenes" project. This project was completed in a very positive manner, and i continue to work with Cliffe on various aspects of the Directory, including ad placements and minor enhancements, on a regular basis. I urge anyone interested to contact Cliff Towne for his take on this.

The second example is the Google Map version of the directory. this started out as a brainstorm idea, but from posting on this board, i quickly became aware that many members, ranging from event players up thru BoD members, had ideas about the project. The thread where we worked together to develop and ultimately deliver the Google Map version of the Course Directory is still available here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=CourseDesign&amp;Number=224602 &amp;page=0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1). a thorough reading should provide a pretty good insight into how i work in a functional group.

question from Nick Kight: "4) Similar to 3, do you have leadership skills? Meaning can you work with and direct others and provide direction as to purpose, action, review and result? Do you have an example of doing so?"

Of course i will answer the first and second questions in the affirmative, and the second question includes a pretty darn good definition of what it means to be a leader, so i will address this response to your third questions.

I have been a member of workgroups ranging in size from 2 to 35 people. I have managed workgroups ranging from 4 to 25. Frequently the larger groups were cross disciplinary in nature, meaning there was a huge difference in the skillset from member to member. One great example was from when i lived in Frederick, Maryland and was Director of Marketing Services for a national trade show services provider. My department consisted of one marketing guy, one administrative assistant, 15 salespeople of various ages and genders, three admins, and four developers. Thats was how it was when i left. When i started with the company the group was one admin and four salespeople. During my tenure my department revenues increased from 800K to 3.2M while my operating income went from 45% to 55%. those results cannot be acheived without leadership skills and the ability to work with others.

Submitted by Nick Kight: "How do you see yourself changing from the �outsider� to an �insider�? "

I don't. I do not subscribe to the belief that some members are "insiders" and others "outsiders". Granted, some may hold positions on the BoD and on committees, but we are all Members first and foremost. Walls and labels do not work well, particularly in what is primarily a volunteer organization.

remembering this, encouraging other position holders to believe and act in the same way, and creating an environment in which all Members justifiably believe they are equal to all other Members is something i can only hope i will be known for achieving.

Question from Nick Kight: "Do you think that �Total Transparency� is possible for you or the PDGA? If so what would that entail?"

Not only is it possible, but it is required! Article 5, Section 10 of our Constitution bestows upon all Active Members the right to obtain copies of all written communications between position holders (both elected and appointed) that concerns the PDGA and the conduct of its business. I believe that monitoring the application of this paragraph is one of the most important focal points for the Oversight Director.

Some may fear such a right. But i believe it may very well be the single most important paragraph in the entire Constitution. Members should not only know of this right, but should also be encouraged to use it. This right is what enables Total Transparency, and is the core principle that allows us to create the atmosphere of respect and trust I embraced in other answers. With it, we actually go beyond being Active Members and become Active Participants!

Is Kirk not doing this again next year or are you just running against him?

i do not know if Kirk is running or not.

Since the Constituion is in rewrite mode, it's unclear how "transparency" and some other issues may end up in the revised version. That's not to say the revised version will automatically be approved by members. However, I suspect rejection of the revised version may create a crisis of leadership with key people not willing to continue if it's not approved. It's pure speculation on my part but that's one risk of constitutional changes.

submitted by Nick Kight: "You speak often of priding yourself on having an �open mind�, will you have an open mind when it comes to issues facing the PDGA BOD?"

I sure hope so. As humans we all face challenges from time to time in keeping an open mind. I have worked my entire career in positions that involve Marketing, Software Development, and Visual Design. The fact that i started 25 years ago and am still in the same line of work attests to my ability to keep an open mind. You can imagine how open a mind must be to function in teams that include marketing, techies, and visual artists!

That being said, i do not view the duties of Oversight Director as negotiable. They are clearly stated, as is the duty of the Oversight Director to act on them. Having and maintaining an open mind does not mean the duties and responsibilities of the Oversight Director can be altered to suit the whims of another party. As per my reading of the Constitution, I perceive the Oversight Director default role to be a builder of trust between all Members regardless of organizational position, and advocate of the Membership when necessary.

Question from Nick Kight: "Will you attempt to change your kidding around and sometimes malicious tone here as a PDGA Officer?"

the kidding... probably not. i have a sense of humor and enjoy using it. i will however need to remain aware of the situation and limit my kidding to people i know and to situations where the kidding wont cause confusion.

as for maliciousness, that will have to go. malicious rhetoric, whether real or perceived, from an unelected Member/Particpant is one thing, but is out of line for someone in an elected role.

submitted by Nick Kight: "Will you use inside knowledge, or partial knowledge, to attack the PDGA once you are out of office?"

in a word, No.

since this question deals with a hypothetical future event, it is impossible to answer empirically. I do believe the people can agree to disagree, can contribute via loyal dissent, and can still remain a functional team. I can only offer my personal integrity as collateral to answer this question. I suggest that people who know me might be in a better position to answer this question, and i encourage all Members to contact those who know me and ask them for their input.

question from Nick Kight: "What do you see your duties as Oversight Director being beyond constitutional boundaries?"

Purely as Oversight Director, the boundaries are clearly delineated in Article 5 , Section 7 and Article 6, Section 8. This position is not a policy making position. It is an oversight position. As long as the procedures and obligations of the elected officials and appointed committee members are in accordance with Constitution, the Oversight Director has no involvement in policy making, except to vote in matters before the BoD.

Of course, the Oversight Director is a Member, and like all Members can certainly provide input to the policy-makers. But such input would not be as Oversight Director, but as Member.

question from Nick Kight: "What are your weaknesses? What have you been mistaken about at first that you now understand more fully? What do you wish you had done differently as concerns your involvement with the PDGA?"

wow, answering this one could take a lot of words!

my biggest weakness is that i can be excessively blunt. while that can be a strength in certain circles, it can really turn people away. this is particularly true if i have not had the opportunity to build trust and respect with someone. while this tendency gets easier to control as i get older and mellower, i do still keep this it in mind in my interpersonal relationships.

Things i have been mistaken about at first range from how smart my parents actually are to the advisability of hyzer-putting with a 30 mph under-disc cross wind. When i was younger i was more of a do-it-alone and challenge-authority type. Over the years i have come to value teamwork much more, gained an appreciation for the delicate tightrope decision makers walk much of the time, and finally understood the value of maintaining longterm friendships, even when life events stretch those friendships geographically.

The biggest thing is i wish i would have done differently regarding the PDGA is i wish i would have become an Active Participant sooner. i learned about disc golf in 1998 when i was 40. i joined that year when i played my first sanctioned event. but it wasnt until 2004 that i started volunteering at the PDGA level. i let some time go by during which i could have been gaining a deeper understanding of the organization, forming bonds with other Members and leaders, and (hopefully) making some sort of contribution beyond my annual dues and event fees.

question from Nick Kight: "Can you provide a disc golf organizational resume for us of your involvement and accomplishments?"

lunchtime, March 15, 1998: played my first round of disc golf, DeLaveaga, Santa Cruz, CA

6:00 PM, March 15, 1998: mentioned disc golf to my brothers who had lived in Santa Cruz their entire lives (i moved there in 1992).

6:01 PM, March 15, 1998: picked up my jaw from the floor when they told me that they had been playing very casually since they were like 8 years old.

6:02 PM, March 15, 1998: punched them both for not telling me about this amazing sport!

(disclosure: i am certain of the date. i am certain of the events. i am estimating the exact timing.)

1998: one novice event, took 2nd and moved to what was then called "Am"

1998 - 2000: got better, and "plasticed" in something like the first 25 or so events in which i played.

2000: in order to stay in the same pool as my travel buddy, i switched to Adv Masters at Texas States. i was prepared to get trounced, but ended up 2nd! never looked back after that.

2002: lived in china and used my minis as doorstops.

2003-2005: tied for 1st (lost on playoff at Tx States as MM1), then repeated as MM1 Champ in 04-05. won some A tiers along the way, and started getting whipped by the Pro Master field from time to time when the event schedule made sense.

1998 - current: participated in various workdays, fundraisers, club activities, etc, for my primary local club, Arlington's Veterans Park and to a lesser degree other area courses. i currently share weekly TD responsibilities with two other club leaders.

2004 (maybe late 03, not really sure): began volunteering for the PDGA website, doing coding and related IT tasks. my major contributions include:
a) completion of an updated Course Directory Add/Edit functionality;
b) creation of the Member's Only code for the message board (i'm glad only Membersget to vote once the non-Members read this :) )
c) creation of the Google Map version of the Course Directory
d) small tasks, fixes, enhancements, etc too numerous to mention

2005: became a member of the related but un-affiliated Disc Golf Course Designers group.

and of course, i've also been an active participant via the message board on various topics/positions/policies/approaches related to the PDGA, its Members, and disc golf in general.

Thanks Pat, I appreciate the time and effort, and again you were very informative. I feel I have a better understanding of where you are as concerns yourself and the PDGA.

Would it be alright to ask some follow up questions?

please ask as many as you want. (although i cant warrant that i can answer as many in one sitting as i did today. its a good thing i did about 48 hours last week and could cash in a couple free hours at the office this afternoon.)

Since the Constituion is in rewrite mode, it's unclear how "transparency" and some other issues may end up in the revised version. That's not to say the revised version will automatically be approved by members. However, I suspect rejection of the revised version may create a crisis of leadership with key people not willing to continue if it's not approved. It's pure speculation on my part but that's one risk of constitutional changes.



why would the writers of the revised version not value transparency? if so, i would be interested in learning why.

Submitted by Nick Kight: "How do you see yourself changing from the �outsider� to an �insider�? "

I don't. I do not subscribe to the belief that some members are "insiders" and others "outsiders". Granted, some may hold positions on the BoD and on committees, but we are all Members first and foremost. Walls and labels do not work well, particularly in what is primarily a volunteer organization.

remembering this, encouraging other position holders to believe and act in the same way, and creating an environment in which all Members justifiably believe they are equal to all other Members is something i can only hope i will be known for achieving.



that's a refreshing approach Pat. The very question itself implies the person asking it (Nick Kight) looks through a filter which sees insiders and outsiders when it comes to the PDGA. No wonder he seems too quick to support and defend those he sees as "insiders" against those he considers "outsiders." To be healthy -- an organization should have no problem with having its way of doing things examined and challenged.

Sure feels like Nick is interrogating you. Does anyone know if he did the same with Theo or others who have ran for a PDGA office? If so, i'd appreciate a link to the respective thread. The upside is this gives you a chance to show how qualified you are and how professional you can be. bravo.

I wasn't there so I don't know the specifics of what's happening with the rewrite. So these comments pertain to organizations in general. I think it's just the nature of common business practices once orgs get to a certain size. For the best functionality, some things need to be confidential (not secret) versus wide open, especially personnel matters. The difference between confidential and secret is that confidential info and decisions still involve a reasonable sized group of people charged with those decisions. In the case of financial matters, they would still be subject to audit. But I guess we'll have to see what's actually happening with the rewrite and the explanations.

i dont mind nicks questions. i rather welcome them, as it gives me a place to voice my positions, and it outlines what questions the Members want Oversight Director candidates to address.

Rob, I assure you that I have as open a mind as is humanly possible concerning this. Clearly, even beyond these Q & As, just by stepping up and running I have a certain degree of respect for Pat now. He has been very informative in his last posts here and elsewhere and I'd like to learn more.

A follow up question:


Question submitted by Nick Kight: "3) Do you work well on a team of people? Can you provide an example of it on the PDGA level?"

Honestly, it depends on the team. I work best on teams of people who respect and trust one another. Because my default mode is trust and respect, i do not function so well in environments where trust and respect are withheld, or politics overwhelms the functioning of the team.

I'd like to cite two PDGA-related examples of my ability to work as a part of a team.

First, my initial assignment as a website volunteer was to help Cliff Towne finish up a bunch of changes to the Course Directory code. This mostly involved the screens where you edit and add courses, so it was by-and-large a "behind the scenes" project. This project was completed in a very positive manner, and i continue to work with Cliffe on various aspects of the Directory, including ad placements and minor enhancements, on a regular basis. I urge anyone interested to contact Cliff Towne for his take on this.

The second example is the Google Map version of the directory. this started out as a brainstorm idea, but from posting on this board, i quickly became aware that many members, ranging from event players up thru BoD members, had ideas about the project. The thread where we worked together to develop and ultimately deliver the Google Map version of the Course Directory is still available here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=CourseDesign&Number=224602&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1). a thorough reading should provide a pretty good insight into how i work in a functional group.



This is good stuff, but what I want to get at is how do you do when you have to work with a diverse group of folks that you couldn't possibly know or have built trust with? How do you handle that sort of situation? Have you ever had to and what happened? Particularly as concerns organized disc golf.

Have you ever held an elected office where there is no avoiding having to deal with the politics of your fellow officers as well as a larger group of local or regional leaders?

This experience is not necessary, I'm just wondering if you have any?

I wasn't there so I don't know the specifics of what's happening with the rewrite. So these comments pertain to organizations in general. I think it's just the nature of common business practices once orgs get to a certain size. For the best functionality, some things need to be confidential (not secret) versus wide open, especially personnel matters. The difference between confidential and secret is that confidential info and decisions still involve a reasonable sized group of people charged with those decisions. In the case of financial matters, they would still be subject to audit. But I guess we'll have to see what's actually happening with the rewrite and the explanations.



I work with condominium Boards of Directors and HOA BoDs in my professional life. One of the laws that governs condos and HOAs in my state is the necessity of open meetings before the membership. There are, however, a few exceptions when this can be circumvented by holding an "executive session." There are something like 3-4 specific cases in which you can hold an exec session. They include:
1. Personnel matters
2. Legal strategy (litigation mostly)
3. Accounts Receviable (people in debt)
4. One other that doesn't immediately come to mind.

The trick about these executive session meetings is that they are closed to the membership and open only to Board members and consultants. No decisions can be made in these meetings, they are purely for discussion. Once the decision has been reached via discussion, the exec. session is adjourned, a regular, open Bod meeting is convened, and the decision is made by a motion, seconded and affirmed.

Language similar to this may already be in the constitution (I haven't read the thing) but if it's not, this could be a useful way of amending it to provide a method of confidentiality safe to Board members and members at large alike.

Erik

Ps. Minutes (according to Robert's Rules of Order) are a record of decisions made. Since no decisions are made in executive session, there are no minutes. Perfect, safe confidentiality for dealing with sensitive matters.

It seems to me the bod is not very user friendly. I'd like to see the rest of the board respond to nicks questions. I am pres of my local club and try to discuss issues with members outside the political ring of the club to get more input from the members my choices will effect the most. We do have meetings but its hard for some members to show up so we usually have a meeting then post some of our ideas and decisions for public response. Sometimes decisions by our club leaders don't fly with our members so we make the appropriate changes to satisfy our core. Seems to me the current board doesn't give a #$*&$! for its core members and would rather do business behind closed doors and to hell with everyone else. Some of the attitudes I see is "we sacrifice to volunteer for this board so the members must respect our decisions because they didn't volunteer". I like Pat because hes candid and open to discusion. I don't always agree with some of his statements but hes not scared to defend them with honest debate. Plus, hes a TEXAN not some yankee fairweather player. :o:) :D

submitted by Nick Kight on another thread: "i.e. You are the president of your company and you have to make a decision immediately on a healthcare plan, or the direction of the company when there or 2, 3, or more factions in your company that want completely different things... What do you do in that situation?

In short, how do you handle leadership responsibilities; will you be able to make big decisions when there is no time for popular opinion polls or extended fact finding activities?"

first of all, i have yet to see a corporate healthcare plan that offers only one "choice". however, that isnt the intent of your question so i will address what i feel is the spirit of the question.

soliciting input does not mean you will always follow the input.. when my 2 year old tells me she wants to walk in the street i do not say "ok, thanks for the input. have fun, see you later." no. i tell her why walking in the street is not safe, why i am choosing to not allow her to do what she wants, and explaining my reasoning for my decision.

such is the way with decisions that involve choosing among competing options. a leader accepts input, discusses it a broadly as possible, makes a decision, and then explain to all the reason for the choice. this allows Members to have real input, to feel valued, and fosters repsect and trust among all levels of Members.

now, if i had to absolutely had make a decision with absolutely no existing input, and had to make it immediately, i would obviously need to make it based on my own judgement. i would attempt to limitboth the scope and duration of the decision. i would then report as soon as possible and using the broadest and fastest communications channels available that such a decision was made, and ask for input so that a longer term, or broader, decision could be reached.

followup questions by Nick Kight: "This is good stuff, but what I want to get at is how do you do when you have to work with a diverse group of folks that you couldn't possibly know or have built trust with? How do you handle that sort of situation? Have you ever had to and what happened? Particularly as concerns organized disc golf.

Have you ever held an elected office where there is no avoiding having to deal with the politics of your fellow officers as well as a larger group of local or regional leaders?

This experience is not necessary, I'm just wondering if you have any?"

I'd like to take the second question first if i may. No, i have never held an elected office, unless President of German Club in High School counts. i have held Department and Executive Management positions in small and mid-sized companies and NYSE traded public corporations. There has been an abundance of politics in some of those positions. as you can well imagine, there was simply no avoiding it.

There are some interesting angles to your first question. The first is that you would like me to address it as regards to organized disc golf. I will start by stating that to seek BoD member from the pool of players with the disc golf experiences you describe is extremely limiting. you will have far fewer "qualified" candidates" and those candidates may actually be less qualified than if you did not place that restriction.

I'm glad you asked the question about working with diverse groups where trust has not been established. i have been in that position so many times i cannot count, and i will tell you very specifically how i handle it:

one step at a time. one sentence at a time. one relationship at a time. one delivered promise at a time.

i have had the opportunity to not only form new bonds at new jobs in the US, but also work in extremely diverse cross cultural environments. i have:

1. put on the first medical equipment tradeshow in Central Europe (Bucharest, Romania, October 31- November 1, 1992)

2. acted as on-the-ground point person between my US employer and the two largest tradeshow facilities in the Netherlands. (this effort came to fruition with one of those entities)

3. acted as on-the-ground point person for European relationships between my US employer and the French company Schlumberger for the purposes of creating the first non-security-related use of "smartcard" technology in the US.

4. built an ongoing business exporting forensic products to Hong Kong and China. i have been doing this for four years. i have lived in ShangHai, China and been in places for weeks at a time where i was the tallest, blondest, and only English speaker (except for my wife, who is native chinese). i can assure you that exporting western technology to the chinese police requires not only an acute awareness of US policy and law, but also the ability to think fast on my feet while operating in a completely and utterly foreign culture.

(as an aside, having a US Department of Justice van roll in from nowhere to block my driveway as i am backing out to go to my office does not get my day off to a good start. fortunately when that has happened, it was to serve me with a subpoena to appear with certain business records before a federal court in NC. the feds were building a case against someone else, not me.)

building relationships on trust and respect is the ONLY way success in these environments is possible. i didnt get lucky and do it once. i have done it repeatedly, not only within corporate America but also in Europe and Asia.

across the world, the same formula works:

one step at a time. one sentence at a time. one relationship at a time. one delivered promise at a time.

Nick,

Come on now, it is not like he is taking us bird hunting or even driving us across a bridge! :p

It seems to me the bod is not very user friendly.



You couldn't find a friendlier group of disc golfers, especially to members.


I'd like to see the rest of the board respond to nicks questions.



So would I, but we do have lots of other things to do. By midnight tonight, I will have spent 8-10 hours creating the next PDGA Member News and the next PDGA Nonmember News. I will reach 18,000 people with those. Why should I kill time reaching a couple hundred here?

DISCussion is a forum that just doesn't reach a substantial enough number of people to be worthy of lots of the kinds of thoughtful responses required. Plus, the inevitable descent into name-calling and personal attacks is a time-sucker.


I am pres of my local club and try to discuss issues with members outside the political ring of the club to get more input from the members my choices will effect the most.



I discuss disc golf and PDGA issues with everyone I meet - more often than not with people outside the political ring of the PDGA. People who've seen me at tournaments, like the Cross Canyon earlier this year, know that I let people know I am there at the players meeting and tell them I am accessible to hear whatever they have to say. Other board members do this as well.


We do have meetings but its hard for some members to show up so we usually have a meeting then post some of our ideas and decisions for public response.



At the scale of the PDGA, this specific technique doesn't work, because the number of people who actively post on DISCussion are a tiny percentage of members. Besides, when we make decisions, actions on them begin at once. We're talking about an organization with close to a $1.5M annual budget and delays cost us.

We even changed the election schedule two years ago so that new board members can be involved earlier in planning for the following season. In doing so, we moved everyone's tenure back six months, so that each current board member got 6 months less to serve. Sure sounds to me like a group of power hungry dictators.


Sometimes decisions by our club leaders don't fly with our members so we make the appropriate changes to satisfy our core.



We've made changes, regularly, after meeting with new ideas and feedback. And, generally our discussions are wide-ranging and represent more views than you could think of, before we compromise and then vote.


Seems to me the current board doesn't give a #$*&amp;$! for its core members and would rather do business behind closed doors and to hell with everyone else.



That's just offensive. We are all serving because of PDGA members. (Being a PDGA board member has cost me more than $10k in nearly five years, and that does not count lost family time and work time.) Why else? To simply impose our ideas on others? That's ludicrous.

See below about "closed doors."


Some of the attitudes I see is "we sacrifice to volunteer for this board so the members must respect our decisions because they didn't volunteer".



It's nothing to do with our sacrfices, which are many, you hear about that mostly when they seem to be unappreciated. However, we are elected to represent and make decisions, which we do. It's a hard job and those who successfully run get the responsibility to do it. Respect them or not, they are the decisions of the PDGA.


I like Pat because hes candid and open to discusion. I don't always agree with some of his statements but hes not scared to defend them with honest debate. Plus, hes a TEXAN not some yankee fairweather player.



I like Pat, too, and hope that if he successfully is elected to the board that he doesn't take his governing style from the man from Texas who doesn't carry anything in his pockets because "People do that for me" - Dubya

We just held the spring summit in Phoenix, less than a mile from the course where hundreds of disc golfers were practicing (including some people on DISCussion, here, who didn't bother to come and visit us or speak to us). We announced that meeting ahead of time, several times, and posted an agenda and the location.

Where was everyone? Well, we had something like 20-25 guests who joined the summit, some invited, some not. As they learned, everyone present was able to engage in every discussion. Before votes, the commissioner even asked specifically for comments from everyone in the room. There were no closed sessions in a day and a half of presentations and decisions.

Got a problem with that?

Terry,

Come on, first you get onto people for having little understanding of how the BoD governs and complaining and then you do the same with Dubya. ;)


.... that he doesn't take his governing style from the man from Texas who doesn't carry anything in his pockets because "People do that for me" - Dubya

We just held the spring summit in Phoenix, less than a mile from the course where hundreds of disc golfers were practicing (including some people on DISCussion, here, who didn't bother to come and visit us or speak to us).
Where was everyone?




I was staying right across from the "Mallorca Room"...Remember me? I was passed out drunk in the hall. 2 more meters and I would have made it inside my room. I said "good morning sirs and madams" when I finally woke up, but was told to shut up by everyone in the meeting, especially Rhett Stroh.

Oh, yes, that hotel was fun. It was nice to see disc golfers there. And the disc golfers seemed to like very much that there were some strippers staying there, too.

Let me get inside the brain of a disc golfer with a dilemma: "Let me see. I could go into the Mallorca room and watch the board or I can sit in the hot tub with strippers. Hmm."

I thought I saw you in the jacuzzi.

it's becoming clearer why the BoD chose that site for the 2006 Spring Summit :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

back on track, could Pat be elected to more than one office? -- i am pretty impressed with his qualifications and think he'd be a welcome addition to the PDGA leadership.

Pat,
Are there any issues that are not being addressed by the current Oversight Director that you feel need attention?

I'm not trying to get you to slam Kirk Yoo, but if he does run for reelection, I'd like to know why you think that you would do a better job.

Thanks,
Lou Moreno

There were strippers at the Board Meeting???....G&DD&MMIT!!!
...and I missed this years Summit because I was buying a house in Phoenix and moving across the United States....and in town the weekend before........

question from Lou Moreno: "Are there any issues that are not being addressed by the current Oversight Director that you feel need attention?"

Lou, thats a fair question in an election. i am going to stay away from discussing whether or not Kirk has fulfilled the duties of the office. i have only heard second hand information, so its best for me to steer a wide berth around such issues. if those with first hand knowledge wish to make specific statements then i will comment on those statements.

Lets remember that currently the Oversight Director role is filled by an appointed, not elected, person. This year the Membership will have a chance to elect their choice to fill the role.

some steps i would take that i believe would be beneficial for the organization, the Membership, and the sport include:

1. visible exercising of the specific duties of the position. by "visible" i mean making regular statements to the Membership that the Constitution is being followed. the Members are justified in requesting that their Oversight Director actively dispose of the duties of the position;

2. proactive education of the Membership as to their rights under the Constitution, particularly as it applies to the openness and transparency of our organization;

3. working directly with Members to understand and document their concerns that transparency is an issue, and taking steps to solve their concerns in accordance with the Constitution. we all know there have been regular concerns expressed about transparency, but we have not seen anything from the Oversight Director that states whether or not these concerns are justified under the current Constitution. i would like to make the position more participatory in nature. after documenting the Member concerns, i would present these items to the BoD as Member feedback with recommendations on how to address their concerns that is both consistant with the Constitution and the needs of the organization.

I'll vote for you Pat. :cool:

Please send me a champaign button and a bumper sticker as soon as possible. :D

back on track, could Pat be elected to more than one office? -- i am pretty impressed with his qualifications and think he'd be a welcome addition to the PDGA leadership.


Better yet, how about something in Texas politics? Too late this year, but after the experience gained from the PDGA, perhaps you would think about in a couple years.

now dats funny laura! i mean all the disc golfers have on me is an occasional foot fault :eek: I'd hate to read in the papers what the good 'ol texan right wing could dig up on an ex-catholic PA boy who lived in both california and china :D:D:D

:D

Yep, that's the same reason I never run. At least I grew up Southern Baptist and still go to church. I do have as many last names as the grandma that is running for governor. :D

i would like to make the position more participatory in nature. after documenting the Member concerns, i would present these items to the BoD as Member feedback with recommendations on how to address their concerns that is both consistant with the Constitution and the needs of the organization.



What methods would you use to get that member feedback that are not already in use to accomplish these goals?

basically doing what i have already described:

1. visible exercising of the specific duties of the position. by "visible" i mean making regular statements to the Membership that the Constitution is being followed. the Members are justified in requesting that their Oversight Director actively dispose of the duties of the position;

2. proactive education of the Membership as to their rights under the Constitution, particularly as it applies to the openness and transparency of our organization;

3. working directly with Members to understand and document their concerns that transparency is an issue, and taking steps to solve their concerns in accordance with the Constitution. we all know there have been regular concerns expressed about transparency, but we have not seen anything from the Oversight Director that states whether or not these concerns are justified under the current Constitution.

all of these could be accomplished by a proactive outreach program via email, the website, and more visible notices in the DGWN. outreach to clubs would be included, both via these techniques and perhaps a mailing to the club "leader". the club would be asked to copy and distribute the material to its members. using a combination of these techniques would provide tremendous outreach and bring the Member closer to becoming an actual Participant.

Those are all things that seem to already be being done by Terry. What new things would you do? Or are you mainly saying that you would just be more accessible here on the DISCussion board? How many members daily visit this board? Surely less than 10%.

And another thought just occured to me, isn't communication constitutionally the responsibility of the Communications Director? Wouldn't you be going against our current constitution communicating things not approved by the Communication Director directly to the membership? (I'm really not sure about this, and it is not intended to be hostile of accusatory, I'm just wondering.)

Openness is the constitutional responsibility of every board member until the members vote that away with the next set of Constitutional revisions.

Since the title Oversight Director will be abolished if the new constitution is approved, is your candidacy or willingness to remain in office contingent upon having those duties assigned to you by the Board under the new constitution, should it be approved?

Openness is the constitutional responsibility of every board member until the members vote that away with the next set of Constitutional revisions.



Are you sure about that Bruce?

<font color="blue"> ARTICLE 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS
Section 3. The Communications Director will be responsible for communicating the actions of the Board and
committees to the membership and will provide to any member upon request any available information about the PDGA and its
affairs.

Section 7. The Oversight Director shall have overall responsibility for ensuring that all Directors and committees are
conducting their duties in accordance with the Constitution.

Section 10. The PDGA shall conduct all of its affairs in the open and shall provide at cost of reproduction and postage
any document requested by any Active member of the association. There shall be no written communication between Directors
or any Committee Chairperson or any written minutes of any meeting concerning the PDGA and the conduct of its business that
is exempt from this requirement unless confidentiality is explicitly approved by the Board.</font>

Section 10. would seem to fall directly under the duties of the PDGA Communications Director. The duties of the PDGA Oversight Director seem pretty straight forword and limited.

Now, I'd have no problem with an Oversight Director communicating things directly with membership relating to their duties, but that would seem to be in direct conflict with their state duties and in conflict with the duties of the Communications Director.

I wonder what the reasoning was behind writing a constitution with wording like this was?

I was involved in the re-writing of the MADC's Constitution a few years back and we used the PDGA's as a foundation. We didn't have an office for Communication Director so this didn't come up.

Nick asks,
Are you sure about that Bruce?


Yes, I am. I think you need to read what I wrote a little slower and then read the Constitution for those key words.

The Board could probably get a lot of things done quicker without Oversight. Instead of having a fox in the henhouse, it will just be the foxhouse.

I suspect the next Constitution will finish the process of abolishing member rights, and there will be nothing for Oversight to do anyway.

Since the title Oversight Director will be abolished if the new constitution is approved, is your candidacy or willingness to remain in office contingent upon having those duties assigned to you by the Board under the new constitution, should it be approved?



Pat should run for Communications Director if that is the case. I'd enjoy the discussions between Pat and Terry. Certainly it would be great to have two seemingly qualified people running for the same office.

Seems natural to combine the duties of those two offices....

Look for something that goes like this, "The PDGA shall conduct all of its affairs in the open and shall provide at cost of reproduction and postage any document requested by any Active member of the association."

If for some reason you have a copy of the new draft constitution, I don't think you will find that there.

Seems to me that you are being "interpretive" where there is no clear indication in the actual wording of the constitution to indicate the sharing of the Communication Directors duties among other officers.

Look for something that goes like this, "The PDGA shall conduct all of its affairs in the open and shall provide at cost of reproduction and postage any document requested by any Active member of the association."

If for some reason you have a copy of the new draft constitution, I don't think you will find that there.



I included that within my quote of the constitution. It says nothing about the Oversight director being responsible for this; while it is explicitly included in the Communications Directors duties.

Is there something else in the constitution that leads you to your conclusion?

Since the title Oversight Director will be abolished if the new constitution is approved, is your candidacy or willingness to remain in office contingent upon having those duties assigned to you by the Board under the new constitution, should it be approved?



Pat should run for Communications Director if that is the case. I'd enjoy the discussions between Pat and Terry. Certainly it would be great to have two seemingly qualified people running for the same office.

Seems natural to combine the duties of those two offices....



Maybe something has changed but Terry said awhile back that he will not be running again.

i believe Terry is doing a fine job as Communications Director. i am certainly not talking about limiting communication activities to just the message board. as you correctly note, that would reach a small sliver of Members. did you know that 85.6% of all current Active Members have an email address in the database? so email could be a huge part of any outreach.

while communication is certainly the responsibility of the Communications Director, communication is obviously not forbidden for other Directors. there is nothing that says the Communications Director must approve all communications. i think a consideration of the message would determine if the Communications Director should/would be involved.

of course, i'm not talking about a barrage of daily emails to all members. i'm talking about an as needed outreach to Members.

heck what would be wrong with including an Oversight Director report within the regular communications ofthe Communications Director? that way the OD and CD could work together to get the word out and do some proactive trust and respect building and that the wording of the message meets all PDGA communication standards.

i believe in an earlier post i already described some other methods of communication as well.

question from Chuck Kennedy: "Since the title Oversight Director will be abolished if the new constitution is approved, is your candidacy or willingness to remain in office contingent upon having those duties assigned to you by the Board under the new constitution, should it be approved?"

as i understand the new constitution, the combined duties of all current Director positions would be distributed among all elected BoD members, based on consensus of the BoD.

under those conditions, i would work with the other BoD members to accept responsibility for those activities which best suit my abilities and interests.

in short, yes i would remain willing to serve.

since it would make no sense to vote for a new Constitution that abolishes named positions at the same time we vote for a named position, i can only assume that the vote for the Constitution would come well in advance of the mandated January 1st vote for Oversight Director.

Seems to me that you are being "interpretive" where there is no clear indication in the actual wording of the constitution to indicate the sharing of the Communication Directors duties among other officers.

Theo seemd rather clear that all titles would be abolished in a post he made on another thread.

do you have a copy of the new constitution? if so, could you share with other Members the proper channel for getting a copy?

Pat should run for Communications Director if that is the case. I'd enjoy the discussions between Pat and Terry. Certainly it would be great to have two seemingly qualified people running for the same office.

Seems natural to combine the duties of those two offices....



Hasn't Terry already said that he plans to vacate the position and not run for re-election? :confused:

Pat, I know you already know this, but the BOD moved the January elections up to this summer instead of next year.

This was done in the best interest of the PDGA. Same with moving the State coordinators elections to every other year. (1/2 this year 1/2 the next year)

The BOD has to do things like this or we would be stuck in the stone ages.

That is why the Constitution is being re written.

Now that I read that you will just be on the BOD and not have spacific tasks, I might throw my name in the hat.

Seems to me that you are being "interpretive" where there is no clear indication in the actual wording of the constitution to indicate the sharing of the Communication Directors duties among other officers.

Theo seemd rather clear that all titles would be abolished in a post he made on another thread.

do you have a copy of the new constitution? if so, could you share with other Members the proper channel for getting a copy?



That would be great!! I would definately like to read the new constitution or it's proposal if not already adopted!!

Actually, last year's election was on the new schedule, too.

Two years ago we changed the election cycle so that new members take office on August 1. We did that because so many decisions that will affect, for example, the 2007 season, will be made in the fall of 2006.

Were the old timing still in place, newly elected leaders would take their positions on February 1, 2007, and be stuck in a year they had nothing to do with planning, and without the benefit of all the thought, discussions, and planning that had gone into the year ahead of time.

The handful of folks here who think board members are power mongers of some sort should note that when we made the change we had the opportunity to:

(a) lengthen our current terms by 6 months; or
(b) shorten our current terms by 6 months.

We unanimously chose to shorten our terms.

That means that the nominating process for new leaders is already open and that voting will take place in June and July. I am trying to finish a PDGA Member News to send later today that will announce all that and link to a web page with the details. (But I keep getting sidetracked by DISCussion.)

Seems to me that you are being "interpretive" where there is no clear indication in the actual wording of the constitution to indicate the sharing of the Communication Directors duties among other officers.

Theo seemd rather clear that all titles would be abolished in a post he made on another thread.

do you have a copy of the new constitution? if so, could you share with other Members the proper channel for getting a copy?



No, I don't.

My point about this is not so much that other officers of the PDGA should not communicate official business or issues with the membership directly, but that in my experience it is far better to handle such issues (particularly constitutional or major organizational) internally and then present a united statement of intent, action or position via someone skilled at such communicative tasks. When you have each BOD member heading off on their own direction, questioning each other, and even quarreling publicly it is harmful to the business of the association.

It may make for decent mess bored fodder, but it is definitely not productive, nor is it really good team work.

I hope Mr. Pizza does run for office, clearly for as much as he lacks writing skills he makes up for it in real world management knowledge and experience.

One thing I'd like to make note of here however. I have taken particular notice of a trend I have found in organizational disc golf, and that is this: Folks experienced in corporate or on the job management do not always make the best leaders or team players in disc golf orgs. They tend to be too much "My Way or The Highway" type A personalities and lack the open mind and negotiative capacity to work well with others. They are too used to just declaring their final decision and having everyone "jump to it". Often these guys make terrific TDs, but poor officers where teamwork is not only important, it is the whole ball of wax (since there is absolutely no way on earth to go it alone in such positions).

I have to admit that I have similar concerns for you Pat. Again, I don't really know you (that's why I'm asking all these questions), and I'm not trying to trip you up or anything; it just seems that your tone implies that you would be inclined to err on the side of this golden ideal of transparency rather than work with your fellow BOD members to actually get "real" stuff done. That concerns me.

I have to admit that I have similar concerns for you Pat. Again, I don't really know you (that's why I'm asking all these questions), and I'm not trying to trip you up or anything; it just seems that your tone implies that you would be inclined to err on the side of this golden ideal of transparency rather than work with your fellow BOD members to actually get "real" stuff done. That concerns me.



Nick, why don't you provide a practical example and maybe Pat can show you the advantage of transparency and the drawbacks of its absence. If you start with the assumption that it is an ideal that doesn't work in the real world that becomes a barrier for learning about and appreciating its efficacy.

Because, I'd rather have him provide the practical and real-world example. I have experience in such situations, as do all of the current and past BOD members; what I want to know is if he has such knowledge and experience, or his he just zeroed in on an unrealistic ideal and will disregard the evidence that will absolutely envelope him should he become a PDGA BOD Member.

There are clear examples of areas of PDGA Business that should not be included in this policy of �total transparency�. I want to know if he realizes this and can expand on it.

After all, it is one thing to say you�d accomplish �total transparency� and another to actually �have done it� or �do it in the future�.

I�m not trying to trip him or anyone up here, I just want to know whether he really gets it or not.

Sorry for the redundancy, but I want him to get what I�m trying to get at.

" hope Mr. Pizza does run for office, clearly for as much as he lacks writing skills he makes up for it in real world management knowledge and experience."

I agree.

I hope there is a big list of candidates to choose from for a change, all of whom, so far, sound like good possible board members. It makes voting more fun and challenging when there is a list to choose from.

BTW, Nick, I really have enjoyed the in-depth interview of candidate Pat and his responses. I realize it takes a lot of time to both ask the questions and answer them. However, it is also quite interesting and rewarding to read and learn from them.

hope Mr. Pizza does run for office, clearly for as much as he lacks writing skills he makes up for it in real world management knowledge and experience."




Never said I could spell. But you are right (in my point of view)
I think I could offer business management, and BOD experience, but I also feel that most of the BOD members have more to offer.

In the 12 years have been on the BOF of Mr. Jim's, I have only missed 1 BOF meeting and 2 Owners meetings. There has been times I was the only one who felt a certain way. I voice my opinion, but have to accept that the majority of the BOF rules. (I will however say that Mr. Jim owns Mr. Jim�s Inc. If he wants to change something and everyone votes against him, he can still make the change.)

I think I may just throw my name in the hat for Competition Director. That is something I think I could do.

(BTW, in all those years I was State Coordinator, I still have a hard time spelling it correctly)


(this post was spell checked via MSWord)

Nick, i run my own corporation in a total transparency mode. quite successfully i might add.

if you would like to supply a specific question that would involve total transparency regarding the PDGA, phrased so that no secret details are revealed, please do. i will be happy to provide a specific answer.

Pat, forgive me if you have already answered this. Nick asks long questions, you write long answers and I have a short attention span.

But, what is it that you mean by "transparency?" This can mean a lot of different things. Does this mean you intend to convey what the BOD did, and why they did it? Does this mean you intend to let people know what they are up to? and if so, is that the end of the matter, or is letting the membership know what is up just the beginning step.

I only ask this cause I've heard these notions that every member needs to vote on everything. IMO, this is a terrible way to run an organization, just as bad as being secretive, insular, and overly sensitive.

One thing I'd like to make note of here however. I have taken particular notice of a trend I have found in organizational disc golf, and that is this: Folks experienced in corporate or on the job management do not always make the best leaders or team players in disc golf orgs. They tend to be too much "My Way or The Highway" type A personalities and lack the open mind and negotiative capacity to work well with others. They are too used to just declaring their final decision and having everyone "jump to it". Often these guys make terrific TDs, but poor officers where teamwork is not only important, it is the whole ball of wax (since there is absolutely no way on earth to go it alone in such positions).




Omigod, I am rolling on the ground laughing right now!

This is exactly Nick's problem: it's his "My Way or The Highway" type A personality, lack of an open mind, and lack of a negotiative capacity to work well with others that make him an extremely ineffective leader and a person people want to avoid.

Bryan, that was a quote from the post from Nick. I can't speak for him, but I think it was a compliment. Some of us, myself included, admire you, at least what you have done for disc golf. (Your pizza is good too. :) )
While it does occasionally grate on my perfectionist nerves, I don't really think you need perfect spelling to be on the Board of Directors. I apologize if my occasional comments on your spelling offend or hurt you. If the most someone complains about you on is your spelling, then you are a good candidate.

If you, Pat, Terry, and Kirk were to run for the same position, it would be quite difficult to choose. However, I rather like the challenge of a loaded slate of qualified candidates. I have never seen it in Texas politics and rarely see it in board elections, whether PDGA or other boards. Most ballots are lucky to get two candidates for one position. Rarely are both qualified. Even more rare is it for there to be more than two to choose from. Often, there is only one lonely name listed.
I do believe that no one has a right to complain about anything that is being done by the Board of Directors if he or she has not at least attended a meeting. I know from reading the DISCussion board that we are always notified of the upcoming meetings. The newsletter also has valuable information in it.
Everyone should easily recognize there are more appropriate pathways by which to make suggestions and ask questions than the DISCussion board. However, I believe most people that criticize on the DISCussion board are actually just trying to have fun instead of trying to make a difference.

Nick, i run my own corporation in a total transparency mode. quite successfully i might add.

if you would like to supply a specific question that would involve total transparency regarding the PDGA, phrased so that no secret details are revealed, please do. i will be happy to provide a specific answer.



This is tough to post without sounding facetious, you�ll just have to take my word for it that I am not doing that.

1) From your company, and to provide full transparency, could you please share the full personal information of your employees including SSN, Salary and race and age?

2) Please also disclose all discussions and communications concerning any competitive assets or intellectual property your company may hold including plans for future development?

3) As concerns your involvement with the PDGA could you provide us with all correspondences, unedited, you have ever made since taking on the role of PDGA Webmaster between you and all PDGA Board of Directors and other PDGA Members, specifically between you and Rhett?

I don't need a physical copy; you can just post them here to the message board, so no cost to you.

Now are we talking �total transparency� or are there limitations? If so what are they as you see them? What is relevant and what is not?

Thanks.

questions from Nick Kight: "1) From your company, and to provide full transparency, could you please share the full personal information of your employees including SSN, Salary and race and age?"

had you been a part of that company, you would have had every bit of that info except for SSN, and possibly age, as i am not sure we collected it.

"2) Please also disclose all discussions and communications concerning any competitive assets or intellectual property your company may hold including plans for future development?"

again, had you been a part of that company, you would have had every bit of that info, period, no exceptions.

"3) As concerns your involvement with the PDGA could you provide us with all correspondences, unedited, you have ever made since taking on the role of PDGA Webmaster between you and all PDGA Board of Directors and other PDGA Members, specifically between you and Rhett? "

the conducting affairs in the open does not apply to me, since Webmaster is neither a BoD position nor a Committee Chairperson.

before you jump on that one, i will say this: i was not asked by a BoD member to NOT reveal how much i was being compensated as Webmaster. i could not therefore fulfill your request (even if i was subject to it) in its entirety, because a BoD member has already instructed specifically NOT to fulfill it.

remember, i didnt write the Constitution. I am running for Oversight Director, and if elected will do my best to uphold the Constitution.

Your answers trouble me, but that is ok. I think that once in the drivers seat, following the road will come naturally. The alternative is too painful. More than that, at this point we have no idea what your duties might entail.

Thanks for the answers.

i assume that this is the troubling part?

"before you jump on that one, i will say this: i was not asked by a BoD member to NOT reveal how much i was being compensated as Webmaster. i could not therefore fulfill your request (even if i was subject to it) in its entirety, because a BoD member has already instructed specifically NOT to fulfill it."

i assume that this is the troubling part?

"before you jump on that one, i will say this: i was not asked by a BoD member to NOT reveal how much i was being compensated as Webmaster. i could not therefore fulfill your request (even if i was subject to it) in its entirety, because a BoD member has already instructed specifically NOT to fulfill it."



Not at all. It is your reluctance or inability to discuss any limitations to the ideal of "total transparency". But that's ok, though reluctant, the necessity of it will clear that up for you once it is in your path; I just wanted see if you have already faced it and what you did. Perhaps it is my question asking skills that are lacking. I'm not trying to prosecute you for a crime; I just want to know a bit about your experience with such real life issues.

Now are we talking �total transparency� or are there limitations? If so what are they as you see them? What is relevant and what is not? Thanks.



Pat, when i hear you talk about transparency i'm thinking it would not involve revealing personal information about PDGA members other than what is reasonable in terms of tracking competitive histories and gender or age-protected category qualification(s) -- but in light of Nick's post i can see it would make sense for you to make more explicit what you mean when you use the term.

if i may start out with a note of levity: by supporting 'transparency' you don't mean that BoD members should have to wear transparent clothes do you?

Pat, I�d like to follow up with your description of �total transparency�. I�m having difficulty getting a singular understanding from what you have presented. I appreciate your patience.

Are you saying that there are no limitations to �total transparency� within our current PDGA Constitution?

So if a member was to ask to have your contract with the PDGA posted to this message board along with all correspondences between you and any PDGA BOD member or just member Terry would have to provide it. Am I getting that correct? That would be �total transparency� right?

Or are their limits to �total transparency�? If so what? Wouldn�t the membership have a constitutional right to know all about your arrangement and the discussions between you and Theo or other board members?

I can't quite make these two things fit together, so I'm hoping you can clarify it for us.

Yup, I am going to have to go with the last two posts also. What exactly do you mean by "total transperency"? I don't think I quite understand.

first the "Wouldn�t the membership have a constitutional right to know all about your arrangement and the discussions between you and Theo or other board members?"

yes, i believe the arrangement would need to be disclosed to the requestor. discussions would be covered if they concerned the business of the PDGA. obviously if i simply wrote "Happy Birthday" to Terry in an email, it would not be covered under "transparency"

regarding the rest of it, within our current constitution, it appears that any communication involving a BoD member (which would include Brian) or Committee Chair and that involves PDGA business must be supplied to any Active member who requests it.

the limits appear to be that the communication be about PDGA business and that one of the parties be a BoD member or committee chair.

nick, you have a copy of the Constitution (if not, i can point you to a copy on the website). where do you think the limitations, if any, are? if my interpretation is incorrect, please explain why. as someone who may need to apply the specific part of the Constitution that we are dicsusing, i am interested in your understanding of it.

(btw, "total transparency" is a term that is being used to refer to the requirement that such discussions be disclosed. i didnt make it up, i read it somewhere on this board, and started using it.)

as a followup, i dont see anything that would require the requested information be placed anywhere except into the hands of the requestor.

that being said, it would be very cool, and consistant with the constitution, if emails and other documents related to the business of the PDGA were auto-posted on a webpage. the webpage could be access-restricted so that only Active members could get to it. the technology to accomplish this is readily available, and remarkably affordable. it would offer all Members the ability to keep current with whats going on, and add absolutely no additional burden on theBoD or Committee Chairs.

question from rob: "by supporting 'transparency' you don't mean that BoD members should have to wear transparent clothes do you? "

only if they are writing messages to one another on their skin. even then, a digital photograph would suffice.

sounds like a poor man's C-SPAN. i like it. it would also make the PDGA leadership less susceptible to rumor and innuendo and would get them credit for all they do for us. Sure there might be criticism -- but isn't that par for the course (and won't it happen either way)?

Thanks, that clears it up for me. I was afraid that you were just stubbornly sticking with the extreme definition of it. Glad to see that you are not.

In general I am all for more open communications, so long as it does not overburden the PDGA and keep them from work that really needs attention.

Thanks again.

sounds like a poor man's C-SPAN. i like it. it would also make the PDGA leadership less susceptible to rumor and innuendo and would get them credit for all they do for us. Sure there might be criticism -- but isn't that par for the course (and won't it happen either way)?



What leads you to think there would be any criticism?

Nick, criticism is essential for things to be improved. if i as your boss make a decision you find problematic -- it is in both of our interests that you communicate with me and criticize it. same goes for if i represent you. not criticize as in mean-spirited or malicious attacks -- but constructively. by the same token, in hearing your criticism i may be able to make you aware of factors that went into the decision that you don't seem to be aware of.

to be sure decisions will never be agreed with by everyone. attempting to build consensus is still the preferred goal it seems to me and there are ways of doing business which can help or hinder that from happening. where practical -- hashing out ideas and getting feedback (criticism) prior to submitting them for an up or down vote seems to me to make good managerial sense.

i certainly would not suggest we try to create some sort of world where criticism is absent.

Nick, criticism is essential for things to be improved. if i as your boss make a decision you find problematic -- it is in both of our interests that you communicate with me and criticize it. same goes for if i represent you. not criticize as in mean-spirited or malicious attacks -- but constructively.

to be sure decisions will never be agreed with by everyone. attempting to build consensus is still the preferred goal it seems to me and there are ways of doing business which can help or hinder that from happening. where practical -- hashing out ideas and getting feedback (criticism) prior to submitting them for an up or down vote seems to me to make good managerial sense.

i certainly would not suggest we try to create some sort of world where criticism is absent.



As a clue to my personality I will share with you that I was in fact kidding in that last post.

Let's say "constructive and well intentioned" criticism is invaluable. Flaming and insinuating insulting things based on pure unadulterated ignorance in a juvanile attempt to gain some illusion of control is not invaluable, nor something to be encouraged, or even really even tolerated.

I'd like to see more folks ask guys that flame out to cool it a little. And inform them that they are among friends and there is no need for shouting or disparaging their honest and very valuable attempts to help as they are able to move our sport forward.

I'll do my part. Sound about right?

sure. let's not fan flames that would die otherwise for lack of fuel. ;)

If we behave ourselves that will be enough. Not sure what ;) has to do with anything.

Let's say "constructive and well intentioned" criticism is invaluable. Flaming and insinuating insulting things based on pure unadulterated ignorance in a juvanile attempt to gain some illusion of control is not invaluable, nor something to be encouraged, or even really even tolerated.

I'd like to see more folks ask guys that flame out to cool it a little. And inform them that they are among friends and there is no need for shouting or disparaging their honest and very valuable attempts to help as they are able to move our sport forward.

I'll do my part. Sound about right?



Do you actually believe what you write? You are the epitome of the exact opposite of what you propose.

Let's say "constructive and well intentioned" criticism is invaluable. Flaming and insinuating insulting things based on pure unadulterated ignorance in a juvanile attempt to gain some illusion of control is not invaluable, nor something to be encouraged, or even really even tolerated.

I'd like to see more folks ask guys that flame out to cool it a little. And inform them that they are among friends and there is no need for shouting or disparaging their honest and very valuable attempts to help as they are able to move our sport forward.

I'll do my part. Sound about right?



Do you actually believe what you write? You are the epitome of the exact opposite of what you propose.



I couldn't agree more.

Now that all that's been said, let's assume that Nick will follow his own advice from now on.

If he doesn't, let's encourage him to re-read his own posts after any and all occurances.

That way we can get back to discussing stuff here instead of concentrating on Nick Bashing. True Nick Bashers should feel confident enough to try this as they should be convinced that Nick will provide them the opportunity to bash him later, so they really won't miss out. Nick should be encouraged to prove them wrong and not behave badly himself.

It's a Nguyen-Nguyen approach! :)

You trying to reverse psychology me Rhett?

The rewards of behaving well are not dependent on others responses.

I'm glad we all had this discussion now again, shall we continue with the real topic now?

Pat, on to rules questions if it's ok? Our disagreements on rules issues, particularly the 2MR, are well documented, so let's not revisit them here, fair enough?

My question is one of administrative approach; if you were to become a PDGA Officer would you be an activist as far as rules changes go or would you allow the PDGA Rules Committee to do their work while you do your administrative work by either passing or not passing their recommendations?

Do you see any line of separation between administrative positions and ones of committee members?

What is your constitutional and personal understanding of the relationship between the Board of Directors and PDGA Committees?

Thanks again for your answers.

Hey Pat,

If I vote for you what tangible benefit will I recieve? I'm talking dollars and cents here.

:D

BTW - is the Capt. running or are you unopped?

I'm not answering for Pat. I think those are good questions. I think we need to encourage Nick when he is asking good questions! And I just feel like answering.

Under the current constitution the committees are created by the board. The head of each committee is to be appointed by the commissioner and approved by the board. The committees are created to manage the affairs of the PDGA.

As to rules changes, the Board is supposed to decide which rules changes are significant enough to be submitted to the membership. There is a big gaping hole in the Constitution as to rules changes which are not deemed significant enough to put before the membership. Are these to be decided by the Committee or by the Board?

My view is that since the Board is elected by the membership and is vested with full authority to govern the affairs of the PDGA, Art IV, sec. 1, the buck stops there. The decisions of the rules committee and the competition committee are entitled to respect and due consideration, but a subordinate committee does not have more power than the Board.

The practice of the Board when I was on the Board confirmed that view. The decisions of the rules, competition and disciplinary committee were given great deference, but in every case the Board debated those decisions and made the final call. There were some issues which generated very little debate and others were very controversial. Some issues went through exactly as proposed by the committee, some issues were modified, and some were sent back to the committee.

I think disciplinary issues should be kept confidential except where the member in question would prefer otherwise. The Board has the power to direct that certain matters be kept confidential. I think rules changes and format changes should be considered openly for three reasons:

1st, this is the default position of the constitution. Openess trumps no call.

2nd, the Board represents the viewpoints of a limited number of people, and not that many of them are running a lot of tournaments. By hearing from our most important volunteers, our TDs, on these issues in advance, we can avoid making a lot of mistakes. By hearing from our players, even if we only pretend to hear them, we give the whole process legitimacy.

3rd, that's just the kind of organization I'd rather belong to. If I wanted to join a secret organization there's always the Federalist Society.

Hey Pat,

If I vote for you what tangible benefit will I recieve? I'm talking dollars and cents here.

:D

BTW - is the Capt. running or are you unopped?

well perhaps i will be too busy to play some southern texas events, thereby impriving the likelihood your investments in MM1 entry fees will pay off for you :D

as for your other question, i have no idea.

questions submitted by Nick Kight: "My question is one of administrative approach; if you were to become a PDGA Officer would you be an activist as far as rules changes go or would you allow the PDGA Rules Committee to do their work while you do your administrative work by either passing or not passing their recommendations?

Do you see any line of separation between administrative positions and ones of committee members?

What is your constitutional and personal understanding of the relationship between the Board of Directors and PDGA Committees?"

in answer to your first question, i see no reason why one cannot be both an activist and allow the RC (or any other COmmittee) to do its work. those are not mutually exclusive. BoD membership does not preclude advocating for a particular rule, rulechange, or any other matter, so long as no quid pro quo is created by the BoD member.

regarding the relationship betwen the BoD and Committees, it is clear that Committees are created by the BoD. each Committee has a specific charge - sometimes it is to get repeated tasks, like rules changes and clarifications accomplished, and other times for limited, onetime tasks. regardless of the reason, Committees exist at the request of the BoD, and can be created and disbanded at anytime by the BoD.

as the elected body, the BoD is under no obligation to accept any Committee recommendations. for example, the BoD need not adopt a rules change recommendation.

however if the committee was established to take care of day-to-day business it would be a poor management practice to micromanage the decisions of the Committee.by that i mean if the BoD chargedthe Ratings Committtee with establishing and executing a process and procedure for calculating and updating ratings, it would be wise to step backand let that committee do its thing.

the same kind of line exists between the BoD and the hired administrative staff.

while on that topic, i believe that the current Constitution requires that any monies paid to any entity, Member or otherwise, be disclosed to an Active Member requesting the information. that might disturb some people, but it IS what the current Constitution says. the Oversight Director, more so than any other BoD position MUST ensure that the Constitution is upheld.

I whole heartly agree with this (that's twice now! :eek:). I believe the TDs and Amateur's are what keeps this organization running. I do NOT believe this is happening. Look at the outcry on the latest "tour standards" as an example (we got a tie in the end, only for this year!).

Is Kirk not doing this again next year or are you just running against him?



I believe he is running for the Comp. Directors position.
He told me so at the Memorial. We discussed it because I was also going to run for the Comp Dir. position but have decided that I need to tend to "closer" matters before taking on a higher responsibility at this time.
Maybe next year ;)

Mike is correct. I do plan on running for the Competition Directors position (if rewriting the C doesn't kill me first).

Pat, you may be running unopposed.

Kirk

sounds like we'll be running for positionsthat wont exist after/if the new C takes effect. kinda surreal :D

What is being fixed by the abolishment of specific board titles in the new constitution? Were some board positions full of tasks needing more than one person to cover them, while other board positions not busy enough to keep one person occupied?

I guess I'm worried that without a known contact for a task, no one will be specifically in charge. What will "getting approval from the Competition Director" mean in the rules for certain changes? Will that mean a majority vote of the board will be required in the future?

I'd sure like to hear why this is happening, because getting rid of titles sounds like a pretty radical thing to do.

Dave Gentry is Co-chair of the Competition Committee. Essentially, all of the current Board title functions are either currently handled by staff or committees, or they would like to be in the next few years. The idea for the new constitution concept would be that Board members would provide oversight for the areas they are either interested in or have expertise. But ultimately, the day-to-day work would be done by staff, contractors and volunteers which provides more continuity and productivity for the organization. The primary issues to be sorted out for each work category would be what type of decisions require Board approval.

That makes a lot of sense, thanks Chuck.

This is exciting that so many folks are considering running for the PDGA Board of Directors!

In case my fan club is worried about me running, I'm working on the opposite end of the spectrum (local) and it is taking up all available burners. I wish nothing but great success to whoever ends up on the board. You will have my support.

Dave Gentry is Co-chair of the Competition Committee. Essentially, all of the current Board title functions are either currently handled by staff or committees, or they would like to be in the next few years. The idea for the new constitution concept would be that Board members would provide oversight for the areas they are either interested in or have expertise. But ultimately, the day-to-day work would be done by staff, contractors and volunteers which provides more continuity and productivity for the organization. The primary issues to be sorted out for each work category would be what type of decisions require Board approval.


I guess I don't understand how that answers my question. Delegating work to others is one of the responsibilities of a leader. It isn't an example of why you don't need leadership.

Also, how is it that only with the new constitution "Board members would provide oversight for the areas they are either interested in or have expertise." You mean with the old constitution, people were running for positions for which they have no interest or no expertise? I don't get that, either.

There must be a better explanation for all this.

Perhaps the explanation isn't clear to you but that's pretty much it. Leadership moves to staff positions once an org gets big enough to have paid staff and a stable pool of volunteers. Guidance, not so much daily leadership, then comes from the Board. In small orgs, the leaders and doers have to be the same because there's little or no staff. Anyone who's been with their local clubs for several years knows how important one person can be. The club can be going along great one year and struggle the next because the person who ran all of the tournaments moved on.

At one point, that was the way it was for some functions at our national level. Now, with a paid staff and reasonable stability among support committees, the pressure will be off of Board members to have specific functional expertise. This should open up opportunities for more people to consider running for Board positions because they don't have to be an expert writer, financial wiz, computer jock or experienced TD, even though that might help them get elected.

Well, how about this. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.

Basically, you're not making sense. You're telling me that leaders are also do-ers in small organizations, so they need specific titles, but in larger organizations, they don't need specific titles, because they have do-ers under them.

That. Makes. No. Sense. At. All.

Seriously. The more people you have doing something for you, the more your title means something. Not less.

About the largest organization I can think of is the US Government. Each of the cabinet members have specific titles, and you are not going to tell me that the cabinet heads are the only do-ers in their respective organizations, right? So there are clear examples that refute what you are saying.

So maybe the PDGA can find a way to make it work with board members without titles, but again, you're making a general statement as if everyone drops their titles as organizations get larger. That's not true. The board is making a choice to do this.

Removing titles from board members is not inevitable. I think it smacks of something more disturbing, like the board is overworked and is giving up its responsibilities to people whose names we don't know. Without someone specific to report to, won't those staff people be more on their own than before? If they're more on their own, if oversight is diminished, won't there need to be a process put in place to make sure they do their work properly? How will they be held accountable?

I think you're about to replace one problem with an even larger one. To your knowledge, did anyone else raise a similar concern on the board, when this move was first discussed? If so, how was this concern answered?

Apparently you're not familiar with how Boards function in organizations above a certain size. None of them except the chairman have functional titles and few of them do day-to-day work in the organization, at least in public corps. Half of the Board members usually come from other industries and are desired for their expertise for participating with long range strategic planning for the org. Few even have oversight for functional areas which is left to the President and operating VPs. We're not that big so our Board will continue to have direct functional oversight for quite a while. But which Board members oversee specific areas will be based on Board agreement not by elected title as before.

That's how Boards for bigger orgs typically work. That's where I believe our new document is headed.

so you are saying we are ready for our Board to function like a publically traded company's?

what aspect of our "growth" requires us to change our BoD structure? if its because our "growth" is blowing away our processes and technology solutions, then perhaps we should focus on updating our process and technology solutions, and turn them into scalable, manageable solutions that will serve an organization 1000 times bigger than ours.

(i'm putting "growth" in quotes because although our numbers in terms of raw paid memberships have increased, the attrition rate, meaning members who decide not to re-up, is disturbing. there may be great and valid reasons for this attirion, but it is something we should look at with open minds, because we are bleeding members.)

it is possible. and you'd still have one BoD member responsible for each of the core functions of the organization.

agree or not, our BoD is NOT a collection of industry leaders from far flung and unrelated enterprises. It basically is what a small or midsized corporation would call a "Department Head".

and that feels just about right for an organization our size.

My purpose was to explain the "why" for the proposed change and reasoning behind it, not necessarily agree or disagree with the pending proposal. On the other hand, let's look at where the org is at in terms of handling business functions if the Board disappeared. These items have been "volunteer stable" and/or are now handled by paid staff: Membership, Budget/Accounting/Finances, Rules/Marshals, Stats/Ratings, Operations/Tour Management, Product Approval, International Outreach, HQ Management. None of these require a current Board member to successfully continue.

These items are partially covered by volunteers and staff but current Board members provide key functional support and/or more outside resources are still needed: Communications, Technology/Web, Marketing, Education, Course Development/Eval, Fund Raising, Major Event Hosting. Although support from volunteers will continue to be essential for moving the organization forward, it's not required that this expertise come from Board members who are elected and may only serve one 2-year term. A case can easily be made that core org functions like communications, technology and marketing would be done more consistently by staff, when that can be afforded as we grow, and ongoing volunteers, versus relying on Board members who sometimes need time to get up to speed to handle a specific functional area and then aren't assured of continuing in that capacity past 2 years.

For my employer-association, the Society for College and University Planning (SCUP), we retain about 78 percent of our membership each year and consider that to be more than acceptable, after previous comparisons with association norms, etc.

I believe that for 2004 to 2005, the PDGA retention rate was about 75 percent. Given the transient and economic nature of some of our younger members, that 75 percent seems pretty good to me.

How steep is the drop off for renewal of 1 year members verses 2 year members, vs. 3 year members, etc.?

I don't have those figures. I am sure they can be gotten, but not sure I personally want to bother the staff for them right now, while they're at this busy renewal time of the year.

I think we have a pretty high percentage, anecdotal and based on my association management experience, of members who 'pick and choose' years in which they will or won't join, for a variety of reasons.

makes sense. i'm not suggesting it is any kind of priority, though if those numbers were entered into a data base once a year, it would be relatively easy and fast to pull out graphs and numbers on all the data though.

Right, and most likely the office has those somewhere already. I bug them too much already, though :D Some weeks I probably average 2-3 calls to them a day + 20+ emails.

Apparently you're not familiar with how Boards function in organizations above a certain size.


I'm aware of how some companies work above a certain size. But not every company does what you're saying, is what I'm saying. You're answer sounds like everyone does this, so it's not an issue. My comment is, no, not everyone does, so it is an issue.

So my question remains, why is the BoD changing? The answer cannot be, as you seem to be answering, because every single BoD changes above a certain size, that removing titles is inevitable and not really something people are deciding to do, as much as it is being forced upon us by virtue of our size. (Geez, how big are we, anyway?)

I'm saying, this is a decision that is being taken for a reason, because there has to be a reason, because it's not inevitable by virtue of our size. And all I'm asking is, what's that reason? Why did we decide that now was the time to make the change? What pressures have been put on the current BoD structure that made people question if the titles should now be removed to solve that problem?

Were we just going along fine as an organization, but got larger, and someone said, hey, we just reached a magic "certain size" threshold, we better remove our titles from the board members, or else we're in trouble! If everything was going along fine, then I submit the issue wouldn't have been raised at all, no matter the size of our organization.

So what's the problem that raised the issue? (And why is this such a difficult question to get an answer on if the problem is so great, we're changing our constitution to solve it?)

The question is difficult to get answered here, because as stated many times before, we have no obligation to answer questions here. It is not an official PDGA information channel - when we do answer something here, it is extra work, usually for a volunteer. This time, me, I guess.

Plus, this is an issue that has been discussed by the board and advisors for several years, so boiling it down to a single, or even a handful of 'reasons' does not appropriately convey the give and take of the discussions; nor can it properly convey the depth of them. We often disagree on something vehemently at the beginning of a discussion but end up voting on it unanimously. At that point, giving a single "PDGA answer" about the "why" of it does not represent the amount of compromise involved and may in fact directly go against one or several board members' reasons for eventually voting for it.

Some of my reasoning for wanting the change is, sort of, this:

Once we doubled the staff and got our senior staff onsite in Georgia, we engaged on an initiative to get the core kinds of things that need to be done more closely managed by staff than by volunteers.

Recent experience had shown us that board members were in fact spending time focusing on work for the PDGA that was more in line with the skill sets they owned than the titles they came onto the board with. A good example is Theo, who was appointed as regional director, but who was brought on board primarily for his tremendous IT knowledge. And he did, in a couple of very hard working years, get the PDGA's level of IT use drastically improved. Theo wasn't 'bad' for focusing on IT instead of regions, in fact overall it was great for the PDGA. Nevertheless, it created some angst.

Another good example is me. I think I've done a good job as communication director, but I also think that my decade and a half experience as a nonprofit association executive has been more valuable to the board and the staff than my "communicator" abilities.

There may not be a magic number at which associations move toward boards that do policy and decision making as opposed to being unpaid administrative staff, but I am personally convinced that the PDGA is past that point.

Removing the specific titles from the board members is a hugely symbolic change that helps us emphasis our new direction of using volunteers in more targeted, small-sized tasks, with the project management handled by staff, not board members. More and more, when a volunteer effort involves tons of work and becomes central to the health of the PDGA, we will be either making it a staff function or hiring the volunteer doing it as a vendor, which gives the PDGA more control over the quality of the work done. It's not so much a single, major change, as it is another small step in the maturation of the PDGA as an organization.

And, as I think Chuck pointed out, it means that folks who want to run for the board can more and more run on their expertise and abilities at the higher level strategic end of things instead of their skill at understanding tournament scoring or writing advertisement copy.

In my employer-association, we are stuck with some "regional representatives" on the board, since we have that sort of structure. But we made the change to the other, non-officer board members being "at-large" members instead of topically-focused members some time ago and it has worked very well.

We still, sometimes, assign board members to important initiatives. And among the other changes for PDGA board members is likely to be the ability to appoint up to two additional board members when we need targeted skill sets at the board level.

Why now? Well, we were gearing up to update the constitution anyway, and this was an appropriate time. Why make changes two or three years in a row? I think we're doing as much upgrading to a new set of bylaws as we can, given the amount of consensus we've reached after a lot of discussions.

I think (though I am not privy to the discussions) that the BOD knew that the constitution was in serious need of an overhaul, and in the process of researching how to best accomplish that, came across examples of other large organizations that had gone with titleless positions.

They may have thought it better to go with that instead of writing a new consititution that would be in need of another rewrite in the near future. Or they may have been swamped and overburdened and thought it was a good way to avoid specific responsibilities. I prefer to think it was the former, not the latter.

It is not an official PDGA information channel - when we do answer something here, it is extra work, usually for a volunteer. This time, me, I guess.


maybe it would be less work to answer a formal request thru the website to obtain all written communcations regarding this topic.

but maybe not, since my formal request of a week ago has gone unanswered and unresponded to so far.

quick question: why not just create an IT Director BoD position?

since IT management is something the PDGA is in dire need of, i intend to request some IT responsibility if a) i am elected and b) the new C passes.

Pat, I hope you stay the Webmaster regardless of the election.

My hope is that there are a bunch of terrifically qualified names in the ring for the BOD and that we can just pick the top 5 or 6 or whatever the number turns out to be. Right now, I will happily vote for you if you are in that top 5 or 6.

What positions are open Terry? How many? (Thanks for your continued participation here BTW.)

BECOMING A PDGA BOARD MEMBER

A Board of Directors is a requirement for non-profit status and is mandated by the PDGA Constitution. The PDGA Board is comprised of 7 elected members each holding a two-year terms. Every year, half - in the PDGA�s case 3 or 4 - of the Board positions are up for election. In addition to semi-annual meetings, the Board and staff conduct monthly teleconference calls and ongoing communication to accomplish required business, and to conduct ongoing reviews of systems, projects, priorities, and challenges.

Some of the Board�s main activities include: setting PDGA policies; hiring and supervision of an Executive Director responsible for headquarters, staff, and ongoing operations; financial management including annual budget; identification of responsible future Board members; and representing the membership�s visions for the future of the sport and the association.

Prospective Board members should have some of the following mix of skills and qualifications:
- Professional experience, involving management, marketing, financial, strategic planning, entrepreneurship, and/or the non-profit sector.
- Communication skills, in representing PDGA, and in corresponding with members, including access to email
- A passion for disc golf
- Familiarity with and commitment to PDGA

As a member of the PDGA Board, and as someone prepared to seize the day, you will have the opportunity to have direct impact on the growth of disc golf and the PDGA.

The following Board positions will be elected in this year's election:
Communications Director, Competition Director, and Oversight Director. Terms will be September 1, 2006 - August 31, 2008.

Here are the descriptions for these positions:

The COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR is responsible for communicating the news of the association to the membership, and to non-members, through the magazine, the e-newsletter, and other channels. The incumbent is Terry Calhoun #15117.

The COMPETITION DIRECTOR is responsible for ensuring all competitive events are conducted in a professional manner and provide a fair experience to participating players. Specific areas of responsibility include the Tour Standards, major event bids, support to Major and National Tour events, and the Marshal�s program. The incumbent is John Chapman #5559.

The OVERSIGHT DIRECTOR is responsible for ensuring that all Directors and committees are conducting their duties in accordance with the Constitution. The incumbent is Kirk Yoo #6161.

Has it been clarified yet when the new Constitution is to go into effect if ratified? :confused:
The reason i ask is that if the BoD positions are no longer going to be associated with specific areas like Communications, Competition, and Oversight -- those titles will become moot if and when the new Consitution goes into effect. If the change is to be effective immediately, perhaps the positions should be listed simply as BoD positions...? Then again, until the Constitution passes and goes into effect the old delineations would stay in effect...
:confused:

has this been discussed and, if so, what is the plan?

I don't see a problem with changing Pat's title from "Oversight Director" to "Board Member" before he is sworn in.

Do you?

i'm down with it. just wondering which it would be and when that will be decided. post-election?

I've been doing a little more thinking and have concluded that whatever Pat's request was for information about the constitution is a good demonstration of why the current constitution is unworkable. (Why he has not gotten any response at all yet, I don't know. I suspect the technology far more than Kirk's willingness to say, "Can't do it" or something like that.)

(a) Does it make sense that any PDGA member can request documents and communications about anything they desire, even if there are staff and board members who have not yet had the opportunity to see them?

I think not. We delegated the job of a re-write to Kirk Yoo. When he's done, we'll review it and approve or disapprove it. If anyone who wants can have all of his communications and drafts at any point in time, then he is basically stuck working with a randomly selected committee and would end up getting no work done. If I were him, I would simply resign from the task at that point.

(b) Given that current technologies mean that board members and staff could discuss the constitution by (a) telephone individually or in subsets, (b) teleconference board meetings, (c) in-person board meetings, (d) email, (e) on DISCussion threads, (f) via instant messenger (several kinds), (g) PMs inside DISCussion, (h) snailmail - there is an impossibility of being able to assemble a large, general request. It would cost thousands of dollars of staff time to literally comply with the current constitution's requirements.

Now, a single document or two, no problem. But then issue (a) arises again. Why should a non-board member have better and sooner access to supporting documentation and proposals than board members and staff? I haven't seen it yet, why should Pat?

I have no trouble saying that the constitution is not literally followed, because it can't be. None at all. That's why it's being updated.

I presume that Pat is not working this issue just so he can have it as part of a campaign platform. That would be pretty short-sighted, because it's just not an issue that anyone except a handful of DISCussion denizens are going to get worked up about. And, frankly, I don't see any serious competition against him for that spot is likely.

My answer to Pat would be, if I were boss of everything, or the appropriate staff/board person to respond, which I am not:

"We can't comply with your request. When a proposed set of bylaws is ready for board discussion, we'll share them with you, but that's likely to be very soon before the board actually votes to put them onto the ballot."

isn't reasonable though for the membership to expect to see the proposed changes sufficiently ahead of time that they have time to review the changes -- and offer ammendments if appropriate -- prior to a vote?

terry, i appreciate your response, i really do. i'd like to address some of tyhe questions you raise.

"(a) Does it make sense that any PDGA member can request documents and communications about anything they desire, even if there are staff and board members who have not yet had the opportunity to see them?"

well, since the request is for written communications between BoD and Committee members, then it is impossible for BoD members not to have seen it. or are you saying that ALL BoD member s must see ALL communications before ANY Member can see it? sounds more like an internal communications problems that the BoD is struggling with.

"(b) Given that current technologies mean that board members and staff could discuss the constitution by (a) telephone individually or in subsets, (b) teleconference board meetings, (c) in-person board meetings, (d) email, (e) on DISCussion threads, (f) via instant messenger (several kinds), (g) PMs inside DISCussion, (h) snailmail - there is an impossibility of being able to assemble a large, general request. It would cost thousands of dollars of staff time to literally comply with the current constitution's requirements."

obviously there are lots of communications methods. the request is for the written ones. since the Constitution deals only with the written ones, any request obviously does not include non-written communications. the problem is that the Constitution EXPLICITLY states this as right for all Active Members. non-compliance with the Constitution is a serious matter for all Members.

"Now, a single document or two, no problem. But then issue (a) arises again. Why should a non-board member have better and sooner access to supporting documentation and proposals than board members and staff? I haven't seen it yet, why should Pat?"

Make a request if you want to see them. i did. you are entitled to, as an Active Member. other than that, its a communications problem that the BoD has, not a problem with the Constitution.

"I presume that Pat is not working this issue just so he can have it as part of a campaign platform. That would be pretty short-sighted, because it's just not an issue that anyone except a handful of DISCussion denizens are going to get worked up about. And, frankly, I don't see any serious competition against him for that spot is likely."

this is completely unrelated to my running for a BoD position. it is everything to do with, as an Active Member, wanting to know what the proposed new Constitution will look like in time to thoroughly digest it and make recommendations in time for any accepted amendments the Membership proposes to be included in the final format that is presented on the ballot.

isn't reasonable though for the membership to expect to see the proposed changes sufficiently ahead of time that they have time to review the changes -- and offer ammendments if appropriate -- prior to a vote?



I disagree. We have a representative form of governance, with all that entails.

We elect board members to do the detail work of bringing things to the point of members voting for them, and also to make tons of important decisions that never are offered to the members for voting.

Those board members do not act in isolation, each is open to all sorts of interactions with members and nonmembers.

Whatever modifications we propose for a membership vote will be the result of years of discussions and thought already.

The suggestion that *after* the board has approved something for the ballot, that the wording of the proposal is open to the ntire membership for suggesting changes defeats the principle of board members making decisions and assumes that we are in fact not representative.

terry, i appreciate your response, i really do. i'd like to address some of tyhe questions you raise.

"(a) Does it make sense that any PDGA member can request documents and communications about anything they desire, even if there are staff and board members who have not yet had the opportunity to see them?"

well, since the request is for written communications between BoD and Committee members, then it is impossible for BoD members not to have seen it. or are you saying that ALL BoD member s must see ALL communications before ANY Member can see it? sounds more like an internal communications problems that the BoD is struggling with.

<font color="red">Actually, it can be made to seem to be an internal communications problem, but it's not.

At the time the constitution was dictated to someone's wife while he was driving to a tournament - true(!) - "written" meant printed on paper. In that case, all we have to share with you so far are minutes - already posted - and board meeting agendas, which contain no pertinent content.

I would add that the constitution does not mention electronic communications, specifically. While I can see the argument that email communications are within the language, that is constitutional interpretation not strict construction. At the same level I can interpret the constitution to have meant to cover the staff and board time costs being paid by the requestor as easily as I can that emails are included.</font>

"(b) Given that current technologies mean that board members and staff could discuss the constitution by (a) telephone individually or in subsets, (b) teleconference board meetings, (c) in-person board meetings, (d) email, (e) on DISCussion threads, (f) via instant messenger (several kinds), (g) PMs inside DISCussion, (h) snailmail - there is an impossibility of being able to assemble a large, general request. It would cost thousands of dollars of staff time to literally comply with the current constitution's requirements."

obviously there are lots of communications methods. the request is for the written ones. since the Constitution deals only with the written ones, any request obviously does not include non-written communications. the problem is that the Constitution EXPLICITLY states this as right for all Active Members. non-compliance with the Constitution is a serious matter for all Members.

<font color="red">Noncompliance is nothing more than a result of a dysfunctional constitution. And, yes, that is a serious matter - which we are addressing with suggested changes.

If by "written" you read this to mean anything in a text form, there is still the impossible, Herculean task of collecting IMs, PMs, DISCussion posts, and thousands of emails. Like I said, dysfunctional constitution. Everyone should be glad, and I think the majority will be at election time, that this board was unafraid to face up to the fact that the constitution was dysfunctional, had not been adhered to because of that for many, many years, and updated it.
</font>


"Now, a single document or two, no problem. But then issue (a) arises again. Why should a non-board member have better and sooner access to supporting documentation and proposals than board members and staff? I haven't seen it yet, why should Pat?"

Make a request if you want to see them. i did. you are entitled to, as an Active Member. other than that, its a communications problem that the BoD has, not a problem with the Constitution.

<font color="red">You are ignoring the fact that responding to such requests - from me or you - interferes with the assigned volunteer actually getting the task done. What if Kirk got 200 requests, each slightly different, from 200 members. Doesn't scale up.: Dysfunctional constitution.</font>

"I presume that Pat is not working this issue just so he can have it as part of a campaign platform. That would be pretty short-sighted, because it's just not an issue that anyone except a handful of DISCussion denizens are going to get worked up about. And, frankly, I don't see any serious competition against him for that spot is likely."

this is completely unrelated to my running for a BoD position. it is everything to do with, as an Active Member, wanting to know what the proposed new Constitution will look like in time to thoroughly digest it and make recommendations in time for any accepted amendments the Membership proposes to be included in the final format that is presented on the ballot.



<font color="red">If you were already on the board, you'd be in that top level decision making loop. But you're not.

I can't wait to discuss this with you in two years. </font> :D

what happens when a governing body decides the Constitution "just doesnt work"?

hmmmm....

The US Constitution "hasn't worked" several times over the years. While it wasn't replaced, several amendments have significantly changed the original such as blacks moving from 3/5 of a non-voting person to full citizens, and women getting to vote, for just a few.

isn't it reasonable though for the membership to expect to see the proposed changes sufficiently ahead of time that they have time to review the changes -- and offer ammendments if appropriate -- prior to a vote?



I disagree. We have a representative form of governance, with all that entails.

We elect board members to do the detail work of bringing things to the point of members voting for them, and also to make tons of important decisions that never are offered to the members for voting.

Those board members do not act in isolation, each is open to all sorts of interactions with members and nonmembers.

Whatever modifications we propose for a membership vote will be the result of years of discussions and thought already.

The suggestion that *after* the board has approved something for the ballot, that the wording of the proposal is open to the ntire membership for suggesting changes defeats the principle of board members making decisions and assumes that we are in fact not representative.



Terry, elected representatives are elected to make decisions for us within the framework of the organizational constitution. i don't agree that changing that document is to be done without requesting review and feedback from the membership. i am not suggesting those making the changes will do something untoward, just that as a matter of protocol they should give the membership sufficient time to review changes -- and even perhaps suggest revisions -- prior to it being thrown on a ballot.

there is a certain irony though that the Oversight Director is re-doing the Constitution :D

I think we can assume that the members' right to request and receive written board communications will not be in the next constitution. I suspect that the clause requiring the PDGA to conduct its affairs openly will disappear as well, as will the provision that requires the Board to submit significant rules changes to the membership for a vote.

:(

If you read the last sentence of the section requiring the PDGA to conduct its affairs in the open, it allows the Board to specify any communications as confidential. It's like the opposite of the 2m rule change. It's currently only confidential if specified. Potentially in the new one, selected communications will be open if they are published, in addition to things like meeting minutes which I can't imagine would be secret by default.

which doesnt explain why a formal request made last week would be rejected and/or ignored.

As Terry said, they're not, not able to, or not willing to follow the Constitution. If they were, then they would have a standing motion at each meeting to make most of the items discussed confidential to deflect requests like yours.

although not entirely acceptable, being not willing or not able are understandable. formal requests through proper channels going ignored are not.

this question was submitted through official channels, so i am posting it here only for informative purposes. i am really interested in learning where the current leadership stands on this issue.

the following was submitted to all BoD Members, including the ex oficio member aka Executive Director, and all Committee Chairs via the "Contact" page on the website:

<font color="purple">
"it was recently stated on the Messsage Board by a well respected PDGA leader that some current BoD and/or Committee Chairs would be unwilling to continue in their roles if the new Constitution were to be rejected by the Membership.

my question to you is:

If the proposed revisions to the Constitution is rejected, are you willing to continue in your current role, or would you step down?

thanks for your insights. your input may prove valuable in deciding whether or not to support the new Constitution.

best regards, and since thanks for your efforts on behalf of the PDGA and disc golf in general.

Pat Brenner
#10403 "
</font>

Pat,

You are not being ignored. I have not seen or received a request from you concerning written communications. If I had I would have replied immediately that there really hasn't been any (written communications).

All of the written communications have been suggestions from other Board members as to where to look for guidance from other entities online.

I made the decision that our new Constitution should probably be somewhat like other sports associations of our size. The only problem with that is there aren't very many sports associations that even have a Constitution. In general a Constitution is more aptly suited to smaller sports clubs at typically the county, city or educational (mostly universities, colleges and high school) levels.

So, I did more research and found that in nearly all cases the sports associations have: a Mission Statement, a Diversity Statement, a Conflict of Interest Statement, Articles of Incorporation (in whatever state they reside), written rules governing how the BOD is elected, and if they are non-profit their 501 paper work. And, occasionally they might have by-laws. But, in general no Constitution.

So, at the PDGA open summit meeting in AZ I presented my findings. It was decided that what I had worked up as a draft was entirely too lengthy and needed to be shortened (significantly).

I am currently working on that. Though it is my opinion that we no longer need a C. Please feel free to email me all the flak you like about that opinion. I will respond to each and every one of your emails as I have time. Please be sure to put either PDGA or Disc Golf in the subject. Otherwise I will most likely delete the email with the other 700+ emails that I delete without reading daily.

Kirk

Pat, I think the quote, from Chuck Kennedy, is "However, I suspect rejection of the revised version may create a crisis of leadership with key people not willing to continue if it's not approved."

That's a far cry from your statement of fact within your question that "some current BoD and/or Committee Chairs would be unwilling to continue in their roles if the new Constitution were to be rejected by the Membership."

But it's a good example of why DISCussion is not an official communication channel, and why reasonable back and forth conversation is almost impossible here.

To answer your question, I really first have to spend time pointing out that a premise for your question is false. (Unless there's another Chuck quote that I missed. That's always possible.) And very often a post here has a half a dozen premisses that need addressed before there can be a true answer.

Bottom line on the constitution/bylaws: The organization needs the change. Those most in a position to know that are in agreement, and they're not making the change for any hint of personal gain.

I was the major first early proponent and I am not even running for re-election.

here is the original statement:

"Since the Constituion is in rewrite mode, it's unclear how "transparency" and some other issues may end up in the revised version. That's not to say the revised version will automatically be approved by members. However, I suspect rejection of the revised version may create a crisis of leadership with key people not willing to continue if it's not approved. It's pure speculation on my part but that's one risk of constitutional changes."

i concede your point about the phrasing. however, my use of "could" instead of "would" could (would?) have made the wording a non-issue.

the fact that someone who is in a position to know "suspects" something, even if he provides a "speculation" disclaimer" reminds me of the smoke/fire proverb.

besides, whats the harm in asking?

Although it wasn't specifically a constitutional issue, I believe Brakel resigned primarily due to his perspective that certain PDGA tournament formats were either not legal in Michigan or he didn't want that discovered on his watch as a Board member.

If an Oversight Director would be elected whose stated goal would be to attempt to enforce the outmoded Constitution as currently written (just following his/her job description), I believe that could potentially precipitate an ugly Board battle that would either force unknown emergency actions and/or possibly several resignations. I believe the Board's action to resolve this potential downstream crisis professionally and amicably is what they are asking Kirk to develop with his research and proposal.

terry, i appreciate your response, i really do. i'd like to address some of tyhe questions you raise.

"(a) Does it make sense that any PDGA member can request documents and communications about anything they desire, even if there are staff and board members who have not yet had the opportunity to see them?"

well, since the request is for written communications between BoD and Committee members, then it is impossible for BoD members not to have seen it. or are you saying that ALL BoD member s must see ALL communications before ANY Member can see it? sounds more like an internal communications problems that the BoD is struggling with.

<font color="green"> I believe what he is saying is that It doesn�t make sense or is practical to share documents and communications that are not even accessible to the Board Members themselves. If a communication is distributed to all Board Members then sharing it is a much simpler procedure. No one is being purposefully left out, it�s just that the resources to provide that level of �total transparency� is prohibitive. Is that right Terry? </font>

"(b) Given that current technologies mean that board members and staff could discuss the constitution by (a) telephone individually or in subsets, (b) teleconference board meetings, (c) in-person board meetings, (d) email, (e) on DISCussion threads, (f) via instant messenger (several kinds), (g) PMs inside DISCussion, (h) snailmail - there is an impossibility of being able to assemble a large, general request. It would cost thousands of dollars of staff time to literally comply with the current constitution's requirements."

obviously there are lots of communications methods. the request is for the written ones. since the Constitution deals only with the written ones, any request obviously does not include non-written communications. the problem is that the Constitution EXPLICITLY states this as right for all Active Members. non-compliance with the Constitution is a serious matter for all Members.

<font color="green"> I disagree that it is that serious of a matter for all Members. What should be of more concern is the very real fact that we have a constitution that is unworkable. One of the primary reasons for the rewrite, as I have come to understand it, is to remove all of the unreasonable and unworkable clauses from it so that it is even �possible� to operate within it.

I strongly suspect that if you became an officer, even you, with your stated commitment to �Total Transparency� would run into so many unworkable situations, you�d find it impossible to follow the current Constitution. Not without hiring a legion of highly paid and motivated clerks. I suspect that this is why Bruce couldn�t function as a Board Member. </font>

"Now, a single document or two, no problem. But then issue (a) arises again. Why should a non-board member have better and sooner access to supporting documentation and proposals than board members and staff? I haven't seen it yet, why should Pat?"

Make a request if you want to see them. i did. you are entitled to, as an Active Member. other than that, its a communications problem that the BoD has, not a problem with the Constitution.

<font color="green"> I have to question the amount of direct experience you have operating under this constitution and whether you are able to comment on such things from a position of knowledge. Folks that have been working for years in organized disc golf with expertise in all aspects of disc golf administration, and specifically PDGA administration, have stated quite clearly and in near unison that the current constitution is unworkable.

What are you basing your assessment on Pat?

Do you not trust their assessment? If so why?</font>


"I presume that Pat is not working this issue just so he can have it as part of a campaign platform. That would be pretty short-sighted, because it's just not an issue that anyone except a handful of DISCussion denizens are going to get worked up about. And, frankly, I don't see any serious competition against him for that spot is likely."

this is completely unrelated to my running for a BoD position. it is everything to do with, as an Active Member, wanting to know what the proposed new Constitution will look like in time to thoroughly digest it and make recommendations in time for any accepted amendments the Membership proposes to be included in the final format that is presented on the ballot.

<font color="green"> It seems like it is highly related to your platform stance concerning �Total Transparency� to me and anyone paying attention Pat. I think you�d be interested and vocal regardless of your candidacy, however to say it is �completely unrelated� is too large a stretch to ask of us.

Again, I have to ask you Pat, what is it the keeps you from accepting the emphatic and repeated pronouncements from our PDGA Board of Director members that our current constitution is, and has been, unworkable? What really is at the foundation of your distrust and objections to them creating one that they can actually function under? </font>




I apologize for the lateness of this response. (power outage)

"Again, I have to ask you Pat, what is it the keeps you from accepting the emphatic and repeated pronouncements from our PDGA Board of Director members that our current constitution is, and has been, unworkable?"

nothing except the FACT that no one knows what the wording is yet. you are asking us to believe that Theo's short response earlier is the best description of the upcoming changes?


"What really is at the foundation of your distrust and objections to them creating one that they can actually function under? "

the use of the word "distrust" is somewhat inflammatory, but i'll let it slide. i have no objections to having a workable document, in fact i rather like the idea. please note that i have never said whether i would or would not vote for the new C. i cant state a position cuz i havent seen it, or even read a decent description of what it would entail. who knows, i might love it!

I'm glad to read that Pat. I agree wholeheartedly with you that the sooner we can look over the document the sooner we'll be able to stop all of our hypothetical discussions and have something worthwhile to discuss. He said's and She said's of the discussion board rarely result in anything productive.

By the sounds of it the PDGA Board of Directors don't even have a working copy of the Constitution yet.

This is an example of where total transparency is disfunctional within our current constitution, in my opinion. The board and Kirk should be afforded the time they need to get this together without distraction; and then when they have a document they have built some level of consensus over they can presented it to the rest of us from a position of unity and strength.

As it is now we just here bits and pieces of "maybe's" and "what if's" and this serves no one but the message board thrill seekers.

Whatever time is afforded I'm sure you and I both will use it well to go over the document. Knowing Kirk (will see him Sat and Sun) and Terry and the other BOD members as I do, I'll likely support it even if I find some things I object to. Later, I'll work towards amending it if necessary.

I think we can assume that the members' right to request and receive written board communications will not be in the next constitution. I suspect that the clause requiring the PDGA to conduct its affairs openly will disappear as well, as will the provision that requires the Board to submit significant rules changes to the membership for a vote.

:(



Bruce, I contacted Kirk specificly about my concerns whether Article 5 Section 10 of the present PDGA Constitution (http://www.pdga.com/documents/PDGA_constitution.pdf) is being changed (and if so in what way), and he assured me that that will not change and that all of the PDGA affairs will be conducted in the open.

Though it is my opinion that we no longer need a C[onstitution].


Okay, I am thinking the BoD is getting really stressed out. They don't want their titles anymore, they don't like the old Constitution anymore, and the guy rewriting the Constitution doesn't think a Constitution of any kind is even necessary.

They want the shackles off, people!

Maybe the new Constitution, if there ever is one, needs to have something in there about term limits, with BoD members not serving longer than a 2 or 3 years without a break of at least a year. I'm reading posts from leaders that seem to indicate some serious burn-out is going on.

If it's not burn-out, then I wonder what it is that is in the tone of many posts I'm reading.

LOL. :mad:

interesting observation, paul! there may be some truth in there.


btw, quite a number of BoD and Committee folks already responded to my question. only one requested confidentiality regarding the response, but i'll refrain from attaching any personally identifying information to anything i say about any of the responses. there are still a good number who havent responded yet, but its still very early.

(if nothing else, it proves the email system on the website is working :) )

so far NOT A SINGLE person has said they would leave if the new C is rejected, altho one or two stated tehir strongdesire to see the change happen. i take that to mean that altho some may want to make a change, they do not attach so much significance to making the change that they believe the organization will become unworkable should it be rejected.

some mentioned other reasons they might not run again whenever their term expires, but those reasons are the same reasons we all deal with in our regular jobs. completely understandable and not out of the ordinary at all.

Paul:

Though it is my opinion that we no longer need a C[onstitution].


Okay, I am thinking the BoD is getting really stressed out. They don't want their titles anymore, they don't like the old Constitution anymore, and the guy rewriting the Constitution doesn't think a Constitution of any kind is even necessary.

They want the shackles off, people!

Maybe the new Constitution, if there ever is one, needs to have something in there about term limits, with BoD members not serving longer than a 2 or 3 years without a break of at least a year. I'm reading posts from leaders that seem to indicate some serious burn-out is going on.

If it's not burn-out, then I wonder what it is that is in the tone of many posts I'm reading.



Pat:
interesting observation, paul! there may be some truth in there.



Please explain exactly what truth there is you find in Paul�s opinions?

Thanks.

needs to have something in there about term limits



Yeah, that would solve the problem of not enough people running for office. Sort of like, but not exactly burnout. Some of the Board members have probably been in office for longer than they might have preferred if other qualified people would have run. If anything, an organized draft would be more in order than term limits. Several Board vacanies in the past 10 years have essentially been filled by persuading (drafting) qualified people to serve or run for office.

I think we can assume that the members' right to request and receive written board communications will not be in the next constitution. I suspect that the clause requiring the PDGA to conduct its affairs openly will disappear as well, as will the provision that requires the Board to submit significant rules changes to the membership for a vote.

:(



An astute and accurate assumption.

-Theo

<font size=2>btw, quite a number of BoD and Committee folks already responded to my question. only one requested confidentiality regarding the response, but i'll refrain from attaching any personally identifying information to anything i say about any of the responses. there are still a good number who havent responded yet, but its still very early.</font>

<hr noshade size=1>

(a) Regardless of whether anyone requested confidentiality, Pat, it is a violation of Internet etiquette to quote with attribution from email messages sent only to you. If that happened, and someone complained, it would be grounds for suspension of posting privileges here.

(b) I can't believe that you are actually considering as valid, responses to a question based on the premiss of a quote from Chuck Kennedy, when you changed his language so as to alter the meaning of what he said enough to make it a different question that you asked.

Let me point out the difference once again: Chuck wrote: "However, I suspect rejection of the revised version may create a crisis of leadership with key people not willing to continue if it's not approved." That's a far cry from what you said in your queries that he said: "some current BoD and/or Committee Chairs would be unwilling to continue in their roles if the new Constitution were to be rejected by the Membership."

It's pretty amazing to me that even though you admit you quoted erroneously, you are still willing to accept the validity of the responses to your query.

(c) As I pointed out already, there is considerable angst in working with a constitution that is so dysfunctional that you cannot comply with its provisions.

A better question than "Would you resign if the changes didn't pass," would be "Would you resign if the changes didn't pass and there was a major effort to force you to work within the constraints of the current, dysfunctional constitution."

My answer to that would be "Yes, I would resign."

Once more: These are examples that prove that 100 email messages and 10,000 posts on DISCussion do not have the educational power of a single phone call - but they can have a multiplier effect on ignorance and confusion. But, it's just not as much fun to learn as to poke sticks into the ants' nest.

Oh, my, now, after being criticized on DISCussion recently for calling PDGA members "frogs," now I am open to calling PDGA leaders "ants." <sigh>

Please explain exactly what truth there is you find in Paul�s opinions?

Thanks.

Nick, i wish i could, but some respondants requested that their responses be kept private. so i cannot answer your question directly. you'll have to decide whether to accept my statement that based on some (absolutely NOT all) responses, Paul's statement contains truth. (i dont mean that in smart-donkey way, just trying to explain why i cannot answer the question head-on.)

how can Theo know that if the new C is not yet writen and distributed?

if it has been, even in draft form, then how come we cannot review it? we're not asking for word-by-word input... just some basic language.

Members ARE permitted to request amendments. would the Board rather have a continuous amending of a new/rewritten document, or one that Members feel likethey participated in developing, and therefore are more able to accept?

Theo knows from experience that the rabble whose opinion is irrelevant to any decision he is going to make will rubber stamp whatever constitution he puts before them.

It's very offensive and unfair to put words into Theo's mouth, Bruce. In my opinion, the only people who use the word "rabble," whether they are saying it for themselves or putting it falsely into the mouths of others, are the only people who believe that there is such a thing as "rabble."

Though it is my opinion that we no longer need a C[onstitution].


Okay, I am thinking the BoD is getting really stressed out. They don't want their titles anymore, they don't like the old Constitution anymore, and the guy rewriting the Constitution doesn't think a Constitution of any kind is even necessary.

They want the shackles off, people!

Maybe the new Constitution, if there ever is one, needs to have something in there about term limits, with BoD members not serving longer than a 2 or 3 years without a break of at least a year. I'm reading posts from leaders that seem to indicate some serious burn-out is going on.

If it's not burn-out, then I wonder what it is that is in the tone of many posts I'm reading.



I like this, I think the co-clause should be that the Executive Director has the power to force leadership on the members of his choice to fill those positions that would now go vacant. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think we can assume that the members' right to request and receive written board communications will not be in the next constitution. I suspect that the clause requiring the PDGA to conduct its affairs openly will disappear as well, as will the provision that requires the Board to submit significant rules changes to the membership for a vote.

:(



An astute and accurate assumption.

-Theo



I would fight to maintain some level of openness in the new constitution. Maybe it's simply posting of minutes like we've been doing, but I think we should be more in the open on most things. I think the members have the right to know in general what the BoD is up to. I'm not sure I agree with providing all email communications and the like, like Pat requested on the constitution. That level of openness is actually extremely time-consuming to carry out. If I had to find every email I wrote on say, the 2006 rules update, and distribute it to every one who wanted it, it would take a lot of time that I don't have, and I'd probably quit if I had to do that all of the time. If people want to ask me specific questions by phone, email or PM, I've always been more than happy to answer those, as has most of the BoD, at least to my knowledge.

As far as requiring significant rules changes to go to the membership, the word "significant" is open to interpretation, but in any regard, I'd be opposed to that. BoD members are voted in by the membership to handle these sorts of issues. If you don't like what we've done, run for office, or vote for someone else the next time. That's the American way. Running to the membership every time we need to make a change in policy, rules, or whatever, strips the BoD of any real authority, and sort of defeats the purpose of having a BoD. Why vote for a BoD if the membership has to vote on every critical issue? It doesn't make sense to go that way, and it's a terribly inefficient to run things.

I listen to opinions from everyone. The discussion board users make up a very small, although vocal, percentage of the PDGA membership. While there is some excellent discussion going on here, and thought-provoking questions and answers get posted here all the time, I would hardly say the opinions on this board are representative of the entire membership. That is why I rarely post here, and much of the reason I've posted here is to debunk misinformation that someone else posted here, although I admit that's rarely happened since the DB went members only.

Chap

(a) Regardless of whether anyone requested confidentiality, Pat, it is a violation of Internet etiquette to quote with attribution from email messages sent only to you. If that happened, and someone complained, it would be grounds for suspension of posting privileges here.

violating internet etiquette is not grounds for removal of posting priviliges. read the Message Board rules.

FURTHER, i have NOT done what you are suggesting in your point "a". your post insinuates that i have, and i find that to be somewhat less than fair. if you meant it as a warning, a PM may have been a more appropriate avenue.

the fact that my words did not match Chuck's exactly does not reduce the validity of my question.

in fact, the overall tone of the responses has been remarkably positive. quite a number of the BoD and Committee Chairs are upbeat and ready to take on the next set of challenges - regardless of the form and wording of the C. that is very encouraging to me, and increases my optimism about the PDGA in general and my working on the BoD in particular.

btw, thanks for publicly stating exactly where you stand on the issue - would considering you to be of the "change it or i am out" mindset be an accurate interpretation of your remarks?

Chap, just to clear one thing up. you stated

"I'm not sure I agree with providing all email communications and the like, like Pat requested on the constitution. "

what i did was file a formal request as per my Constitutional rights as an Active Member. my request may well prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this specific aspect of the C is unworkable, and that the paragraph needs a re-work!

i'm happy you agree that a degree of openness is a good thing. like so many things, the devil is in the details. where do we draw the line? minutes should obviously remain open, but with the plan (which i tend to support at least in spirit) to move most of the operating authority to the unelected Committees leaves me with the feelings that a reasonable level of openness might extend deeper than just minutes. (please note i am not suggesting you said that openness would be restricted to just minutes.)

btw, technology exists that makes distributing written communications to all authorized parties incredibly easy, efficient, and close to free. many departments and most corporations use some form of such software today. it would solve a huge percentage of this issue to simply implement such a system and use it as the system-of-record to provide both a communications channel for the BoD and Committees and also the appropriate level of transparency to the Members

Also, to answer Pat's question in the open:

I am not running for re-election. My reasons are time, work, and quality of life based, and have nothing to do with the constitution. I'd be happy to discuss the position of Competition Director by phone, PM, or email with anyone who wishes to run for the office, and I have already talked to 2 such people, although I don't know that either of them have announced for the position yet. I don't intend to carry out to a long discussion on the DB on this topic. If you're interested, call, PM, or email me, I'd be happy to talk to you.

The people running for Oversight, Competition, and Communications Director should be made aware that their potential directorship could be changed to an at-large directorship, and their responsibilities may change if the new constitution passes. I'm sure the ED will make people aware of this when they send their r�sum� in for inclusion on the ballot.

Chap

Pat,

As chairman of the PDGA National Disc Golf Center committee, I answered your e-mail in good faith that the question you posed was legitimate and coming from a PDGA member who was looking for the truth. Now that I see you deliberately re-worded Chuck Kennedy's post and misquoted him in order to get the answer you wanted to support your agenda. I do not appreciate being manipulated.

For this reason, I ask that you discount my reply to you and to please refrain from using my response as part of your straw poll. Your motives are obviously not what I once thought they were and I am sorry to say that I cannot support you in your quest for the position of Oversight Director of the PDGA.

I thank you for your work on the course maps and website and I hope that you will choose to continue to serve the PDGA in that capacity.

Regards,
Brian Graham

Pat,

As chairman of the PDGA National Disc Golf Center committee, I answered your e-mail in good faith that the question you posed was legitimate and coming from a PDGA member who was looking for the truth. Now that I see you deliberately re-worded Chuck Kennedy's post and misquoted him in order to get the answer you wanted to support your agenda. I do not appreciate being manipulated.

For this reason, I ask that you discount my reply to you and to please refrain from using my response as part of your straw poll. Your motives are obviously not what I once thought they were and I am sorry to say that I cannot support you in your quest for the position of Oversight Director of the PDGA.

I thank you for your work on the course maps and website and I hope that you will choose to continue to serve the PDGA in that capacity.

Regards,
Brian Graham


Brian, i did not "deliberately reword" anything, and somewhat resent your explicit statement that i did. you have not contacted me to seek an explanation about how or whythe "rewording" occurred. it is more than a little disturbing that someone in a leadership position such as yours would make the assumption you have made and post it publicly.

I did not have a reposnse i was trying to elicit.

My motives were to find out if anyone was really gonna quit if the new C was rejected. i believe the core question is valid.

i ask that you review your assessment of my motives and keep an open mind as to how the rewording happened and what it really was worth.

i guess i will have to send out another batch of questions, with no references to anything - just a pure question.

I think we can assume that the members' right to request and receive written board communications will not be in the next constitution. I suspect that the clause requiring the PDGA to conduct its affairs openly will disappear as well, as will the provision that requires the Board to submit significant rules changes to the membership for a vote.

:(



An astute and accurate assumption.

-Theo



As it stands, this has got to be just about the most inflammatory post and repost ever placed on this site.

It is altogether too easy to judge what is going on here without an understanding of the reality of the situation.

No organization can exist for long without fairly decent communication. The Bush Administration is beginning to learn this. The reality is that the PDGA, this current Board, and past Boards communicate extremely well. I know that many argue they don't but that is because most of us don't take the time to look at what is freely distributed both here and in other venues.

To make it worse, when we find out what is going on we immediately get out the black helicopter theories and demand up front and open communication on our current topic of choice. We then inundate the Executive Director, Board Members, and Committee Members with our demands for their time and energy. Ironically, we rarely think to peruse this site and DGWN for the information that is already available.

On top of that, we ask - nay demand - that documents and information which in reality should not be distributed at the current moment be made available to us.* If only we were so proactive with our own government!

The reality is that I've never had a true problem with communications from the Executive Director or any Board or Committee Member for that matter. I write that despite the fact that I've had some of my own requests ignored! An understanding that some things are decided - that are consistent with our Constitution and the mandate given to the PDGA by it's members - that I don't agree with, allows me to be satisfied that the Exec. Dir. and Board are not going to justify their actions to me.

In a Democratic environment there is no mandate that the elected be immediately responsive to every demand of the electorate. There is only a mandate that what they do not be hidden from the electorate. Show me one situation where this Board, or the Executive Director, or for that matter any Board has taken an action that they either purposely or accidentally hid from the PDGA body once that item was enacted. How naive to think that is occurring! What possibly could be their motive? Remember that all their minutes and accounting are open to the membership. What could they hide that wouldn�t come out?

In the past year, since I began volunteering for the PDGA, I've had several cases where members contacted me directly, and politely asked what was going on. The reality is that for me the number of requests is inconsequential compared to what a Board Member gets. However, those requests usually have the unspoken underlying motive of trying to catch me, or the PDGA in some error or misdeed. The result is that I have to compose a careful reply, I have to bounce it off the DC and then the Commissioner to make sure that I've not exposed the PDGA to risk, and then I have to send it back to the requestor, a very time consuming and crippling process! The notion that the Board or Executive Director should be immediately responsive to any member is foolish. It is as foolish as the idea that they are hiding something from the PDGA membership.

Bruce's assertion that these things are going away is astute it is also incomplete. My guess is that on a day to day basis these things are going away, but that the new by-laws will require the same openness as the old Constitution required just not that any member has the right to demand an immediate response. BTW - the idea that the Board or any Committee Member would then immediately shut down all communication is, well... a tad bit silly.

The fact that some find this upsetting suggests that in all likelihood they have never tried to communicate with their Senator or Representative. That rude awakening would surely have dissuaded some of the idea that they are being ignored here.



*The reality is that pre-distribution becomes a time consuming process where Board Members and Committee Members end up spending more time defending what they're doing than actually doing.

In a Democratic environment there is no mandate that the elected be immediately responsive to every demand of the electorate. There is only a mandate that what they do not be hidden from the electorate.



Well said!!

Please explain exactly what truth there is you find in Paul�s opinions?

Thanks.

Nick, i wish i could, but some respondants requested that their responses be kept private. so i cannot answer your question directly. you'll have to decide whether to accept my statement that based on some (absolutely NOT all) responses, Paul's statement contains truth. (i dont mean that in smart-donkey way, just trying to explain why i cannot answer the question head-on.)



Pat, you are being evasive now. You do not need to include confidential information to share why you think there is some truth in what Paul said.

It is "obviously" your "opinion" that there is "some truth". What opinions are they?

You have been very responsive up to this point, please don't stop short. You hint that there is some "hidden" truth in his post. What is it?

Where is your "total transparency" here?


Paul:

Though it is my opinion that we no longer need a C[onstitution].


Okay, I am thinking the BoD is getting really stressed out. They don't want their titles anymore, they don't like the old Constitution anymore, and the guy rewriting the Constitution doesn't think a Constitution of any kind is even necessary.

They want the shackles off, people!

Maybe the new Constitution, if there ever is one, needs to have something in there about term limits, with BoD members not serving longer than a 2 or 3 years without a break of at least a year. I'm reading posts from leaders that seem to indicate some serious burn-out is going on.

If it's not burn-out, then I wonder what it is that is in the tone of many posts I'm reading.



Pat:
interesting observation, paul! there may be some truth in there.



Please explain exactly what truth there is you find in Paul�s opinions?

Thanks.

Actually, Pat, whatever Terry says is grounds for loss of posting priveleges is grounds for loss of posting priveleges. Tread lightly.

Posting private messages without approval of the message writer is wrong. You know that, right?



(a) Regardless of whether anyone requested confidentiality, Pat, it is a violation of Internet etiquette to quote with attribution from email messages sent only to you. If that happened, and someone complained, it would be grounds for suspension of posting privileges here.

violating internet etiquette is not grounds for removal of posting priviliges. read the Message Board rules.

"Posting private messages without approval of the message writer is wrong. You know that, right?"

um, i havent done that have i??? this is a non issue. if its a warning, fine. but then again, i am smart enough to know where the line exists. give me some credit, please.

Pat, you are being evasive now. You do not need to include confidential information to share why you think there is some truth in what Paul said.

It is "obviously" your "opinion" that there is "some truth". What opinions are they?

You have been very responsive up to this point, please don't stop short. You hint that there is some "hidden" truth in his post. What is it?

Where is your "total transparency" here?


you do realize the impossibility of detailing the reason i believe there is truth in Paul's statement without revealing a communication that was requested to be kept confidential, dont you?

suffice it to say that more than one respondant mentioned reasons other than a rejected C rewrite as reasons they might leave the BoD/Committee or decide to not run again. those reasons included the time demands, the mental burden, the stress of the positions. that sounds like burnout to me, therefore, my opinion that Paul's statement contain some truth in it.

IF i was a BoD member, then under our current Constitution, i would not be bound by a unilateral request for confidentiality. only a BoD decision can legalize confidentiality.

but since i am NOT on the BoD or a Committee Chair, then a BoD or Committee Chair's communication to me can remain confidential. nothing in the current C requires communications between a BoD/Committee Chair and a "regular" Member to be made public. besides, as an ethical human being i am obligated to respect their request for confidentiality.

certainly ironic, i admit, but i hope that clears up your concern.

btw, only a couple/few made any request for confidentiality, but i am acting on the side of caution by not revealing ANY details of who said what to me since i did not state in my question that i would post their responses. i encourage anyone wishing to know the feelings of a BoD/Committee Chair on this or any other issue to submit their request/questyion to the BoD and Committee members directly. the website makes it easy, just go to the Contact page.

Contact page: http://www.pdga.com/contact.php

I personally prefer my email (below) or my phone (below) or IM (below).

Pat,

As chairman of the PDGA National Disc Golf Center committee, I answered your e-mail in good faith that the question you posed was legitimate and coming from a PDGA member who was looking for the truth...


I thought Pat was a PDGA member looking for the truth to the question he was asking. Where is all this anger coming from?

<font size=2>btw, quite a number of BoD and Committee folks already responded to my question. only one requested confidentiality regarding the response, but i'll refrain from attaching any personally identifying information to anything i say about any of the responses. there are still a good number who havent responded yet, but its still very early.</font>

<hr noshade size=1>

(a) Regardless of whether anyone requested confidentiality, Pat, it is a violation of Internet etiquette to quote with attribution from email messages sent only to you. If that happened, and someone complained, it would be grounds for suspension of posting privileges here.

(b) I can't believe that you are actually considering as valid, responses to a question based on the premiss of a quote from Chuck Kennedy, when you changed his language so as to alter the meaning of what he said enough to make it a different question that you asked.

Let me point out the difference once again: Chuck wrote: "However, I suspect rejection of the revised version may create a crisis of leadership with key people not willing to continue if it's not approved." That's a far cry from what you said in your queries that he said: "some current BoD and/or Committee Chairs would be unwilling to continue in their roles if the new Constitution were to be rejected by the Membership."

It's pretty amazing to me that even though you admit you quoted erroneously, you are still willing to accept the validity of the responses to your query.

(c) As I pointed out already, there is considerable angst in working with a constitution that is so dysfunctional that you cannot comply with its provisions.

A better question than "Would you resign if the changes didn't pass," would be "Would you resign if the changes didn't pass and there was a major effort to force you to work within the constraints of the current, dysfunctional constitution."

My answer to that would be "Yes, I would resign."

Once more: These are examples that prove that 100 email messages and 10,000 posts on DISCussion do not have the educational power of a single phone call - but they can have a multiplier effect on ignorance and confusion. But, it's just not as much fun to learn as to poke sticks into the ants' nest.

Oh, my, now, after being criticized on DISCussion recently for calling PDGA members "frogs," now I am open to calling PDGA leaders "ants." <sigh>


And again, look at all that vitriole up there!

A better question than "Would you resign if the changes didn't pass," would be "Would you resign if the changes didn't pass and there was a major effort to force you to work within the constraints of the current, dysfunctional constitution."


Why would that be a better question?

My answer to that would be "Yes, I would resign."


Terry, you realize you are working under that Constitution now, right? You're abiding by it now, right?

Because if that's truly the way you feel about the present Constitution, you should resign now and stop getting so angry at the rest of us for asking simple questions. Right?

Or, I've got an idea: how about acting like a leader yourself and not picking on the up-and-coming members who also want to be PDGA leaders. How about giving them a hand instead of a foot stomp.

Thanks.

needs to have something in there about term limits



Yeah, that would solve the problem of not enough people running for office.


What would solve the problem of not enough people running for office is better leadership, don't you think? People are inspired by true leaders to do what they are doing. If leaders aren't getting enough people to follow in their footsteps, then that's usually a problem in leadership.

I've been a Student Activities Board president, and a Resident Assistant, and a engineering team lead, and a Jaycees committee chairman, and I've made mistakes in all those positions, and I've seen what works. If you're a leader, and something's wrong with the group, you don't blame the group. You look to yourself and fix what's wrong there first.

Maybe that's what you're trying to do: fix the Constitution and hopefully fix your leadership. If so, then great. Make that case and we will all gladly vote for it.

But do this without a proper amount of openness, and bite anyone who asks for the smallest amount of info, and all you're doing with a new Constitution is covering your leadership problems with different colored wrapping paper.

Pat - You've got my vote.

While in theory, inspiring leaders should garner more people clamoring to work with them, I believe that happens more on a face-to-face, local basis. Perhaps it's somewhat cynical but it's my observation that when things are going well on the national level with the PDGA, members in general are glad that they won't need to feel guilty by not pitching in because things appear to be under control.

However, if it looks like the org won't survive without them or the current leadership appears to have problems, that's when more people seem to step up to save the org. I'd suggest a creative strategy for volunteer Boards like ours is to do a real good job but be somewhat coy on how well it's going and create "artificial" crises (variation of crying 'wolf'), or bicker in public, or make changes that don't hurt the org but where members feel they didn't get enough input. Then, you seem to stir up new blood willing to step up and volunteer. Too cynical, or close to the truth?

It's a theory but it does not match what I learned on the inside.

Then how about sharing?

While in theory, inspiring leaders should garner more people clamoring to work with them, I believe that happens more on a face-to-face, local basis. Perhaps it's somewhat cynical but it's my observation that when things are going well on the national level with the PDGA, members in general are glad that they won't need to feel guilty by not pitching in because things appear to be under control.


Maybe that's because it's volunteer work. There's a price to be paid for volunteer work, and not as much perceived gain. When I was Student Activities president, that felt like thankless volunteer work, too, putting all the activities together but not getting to be a part of them.

But that was only for one year. For the other (prior) years, I was a member of one of the smaller groups on the board, each who were responsible for their own set of activities. Things were organized that way so that the entire board wasn't all involved on every activity.

We had a Mini-programs group, who had a small budget for their activities, like a scavenger hunt or an ultimate tournament. And we had a Concerts group, who had a fairly large budget and was responsible for Homecoming and the Spring concert. And Encore presentations, who had moderate budgets for bringing in local talent, like hypnotists and singers. Each group had their own focus, and that allowed people from the other two groups to relax and enjoy an activity put together by just one of the groups. That's the way we avoided burn-out.

Maybe what we need on the PDGA board, instead of no titles, are just different titles. Give people responsibilities that are not needed on every single activity put on the by PDGA. I have no idea how those would be split out. Would there be a director for west-coast A-tiers and another for east-coast A-tiers? Would there be a director for contests (like long-distance and ace challenges) and another director for training new members (organizing basic disc golf lessons? teaching course design techniques? giving advice on how to find sponsors and promote disc golf as a sport? heck, how about a tournament for sponsors only?)

Lotsa ways to do that, but you have to be motivated and be able to positively motivate others.

However, if it looks like the org won't survive without them or the current leadership appears to have problems, that's when more people seem to step up to save the org. I'd suggest a creative strategy for volunteer Boards like ours is to do a real good job but be somewhat coy on how well it's going and create "artificial" crises (variation of crying 'wolf'), or bicker in public, or make changes that don't hurt the org but where members feel they didn't get enough input. Then, you seem to stir up new blood willing to step up and volunteer. Too cynical, or close to the truth?


Ah, so that's what's happening here, is it?

Pat,

Please feel free to quote anything I have sent to you via email.

I won't say anything via email that I won't say here.

That has always been my policy. The only downside to that is that my wife now proof reads everything I email or post on the Disgusting Board (that is just my pet name for the Discussion Board). She says that I am typically too inflammatory. She is afraid that I am going to tick someone off to the point of violence. So, I have tried to tone down my emails and posts.

It is interesting to note that I have invited any and all inquiries via email and so far I have received exactly 3 emails regarding the Constitution.

Kirk
[email protected]
[email protected]

Then how about sharing?

Sharing would further offend Terry. I don't like being offensive. Terry is someone I'd rather try to get along with. The next time I'm on the Board I'll be more sharing as we go along, unless you all vote to replace openess with secrecy.

thanks Kirk. after our email exchanges, i am happy to know you are running for the BoD again and that since it is for a different position than the one i am running for, we may likely end up working together on that body.

Terry's post did sound kinda like Paul took it. i want to say that Terrry and i also talk via email, and he has always been straight up with me. i do not think it would be a violation of any confidences to say that Terry has actually been quite supportive to me, and encouraged me to pursue a BoD position.

Chuck, i have no idea what you are saying. it sure seems obtuse, whatever it is. Bruce apparently has figured it out, but he's a lawyer and smarter person than me :D i really hope he finds his way back to the BoD. Run, Bruce, Run! we need you!

I have no idea why Brian responded the way he did. maybe he really thought i would deliberately and maliciously misquote someone, then post the misquote here on the same thread as the original and think no one would notice. if that really were the case, then he is certainly justified in not supporting my candidancy, cuz if that were the case i sure would be stupid. or maybe he got up on the wrong side of bed. Occam's Razor would suggest it was the bed thing :D regardless, hopefully there will be another candidate running for Oversight Director with whom he will feel more comfortable.

Nick, i hope my answers to your coupla posts were sufficient. let me know either way. i've enjoyed our relative truce after the 2MR wars :cool:. btw, since one of your original questions to me involved admitting mistakes, please note my ready admission that i misquoted, although accidently, Chuck's post. i should have gone back and actually quoted rather than just relying on memory. i remain of the opinion if doesnt really change the spirit of the question, though, but that doesnt change the fact of the misquote.

Theo, thanks for being extremely clear about your belief that all transparency should go the way of the dinosaur. what i continue to not understand is how you can be so sure, when supposedly there isnt even a full working draft of the new C available yet. but at least we know towards what end you are working.

Lyle, where are the aliens when you need them! :D ( i sure hope at least he understands that one :D)

Paul, thanks for pointing out some of key, and surprising, statements that were made lately. i'm glad someone else noticed, and had the courage to call it for what it was. thanks for your continued support.

a few thoughts on openness and transparency:

i am still trying to understand why Theo suggests openness is going away, when indications from Kirk are that it will not(?) Theo and Kirk, am i misreading either of you?

while our present leadership seems quite competent and trustworthy -- there are no guarantees that will always be the case, and as our organization grows the more removed our leadership may feel from the average dues-paying members. being open about decisions and decision-making seems to have a lot more upside and less downside than its polar opposite. while practical concerns may mean that the making of all BoD correspondence available to any member that requests it is something that will be edited out in the re-write of our Constitution, openness in general is something that should remain. while openness may at times be an administrative headache, i'm afraid that the absence of openness creates more potential problems than it solves.

i have read coverage recently of instances where governing bodies are attempting to use 'security' as a cover to do away with transparency when in fact the real intention is often just to be less scrutinized and less accountable. it seems to me that is not healthy for the leaders nor the led, and we should attempt to avoid even the appearance of such a scenario... please do not misread that as my suggesting anything other than that we would be well served by retaining openness as outlined in the present Constitution as an important part of any re-write of the Constitution.

Pat i really find your approach here refreshing and intelligent and you will get my vote

<font color="blue"> I think we can assume that the members' right to request and receive written board communications will not be in the next constitution. </font> <font color="green"> I suspect that the clause requiring the PDGA to conduct its affairs openly will disappear as well, </font> <font color="red"> as will the provision that requires the Board to submit significant rules changes to the membership for a vote.
</font>
:(



An astute and accurate assumption.

-Theo



Theo, in the interest of clarity -- was your above reply only pertaining to the part of Bruce's post above that i have colored in blue, or did it also pertain to the parts i have colored above in green and / or red? :confused:
(since you didn't single out the part [i've colored] in blue for your reply, i read it to pertain to everything you quoted Bruce as saying.)

I think the part about the BOD being required to provide all correspondence at the request of any member on any topic should be retired. It is onerous, and in the case of disciplinary actions an unwise move unless the request comes from someone directly related to the case.

In most cases I don't see the BOD objecting to publishing the minutes to most of it's meeting, but do see a need for some closed door session provision in the new C/by-laws.

I don't really have a position on the rules, but don't think the general membership should have a line item veto on new rules changes.

In most cases I don't see the BOD objecting to publishing the minutes to most of it's meeting, but do see a need for some closed door session provision in the new C/by-laws.



<font color="blue"> Have you considered the following potential solution that was posted by Erik Wilson on the bottom of the first page in the Is The Constitution Being Rewritten? (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=OtherPDGATopics&amp;Number=518 470&amp;page=0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) thread: </font>


I work with condominium Boards of Directors and HOA BoDs in my professional life. One of the laws that governs condos and HOAs in my state is the necessity of open meetings before the membership. There are, however, a few exceptions when this can be circumvented by holding an "executive session." There are something like 3-4 specific cases in which you can hold an exec session. They include:
1. Personnel matters
2. Legal strategy (litigation mostly)
3. Accounts Receviable (people in debt)
4. One other that doesn't immediately come to mind.

The trick about these executive session meetings is that they are closed to the membership and open only to Board members and consultants. No decisions can be made in these meetings, they are purely for discussion. Once the decision has been reached via discussion, the exec. session is adjourned, a regular, open Bod meeting is convened, and the decision is made by a motion, seconded and affirmed.

Language similar to this may already be in the constitution (I haven't read the thing) but if it's not, this could be a useful way of amending it to provide a method of confidentiality safe to Board members and members at large alike.

Erik

Ps. Minutes (according to Robert's Rules of Order) are a record of decisions made. Since no decisions are made in executive session, there are no minutes. Perfect, safe confidentiality for dealing with sensitive matters.

a few thoughts on openness and transparency:

i am still trying to understand why Theo suggests openness is going away, when indications from Kirk are that it will not(?) Theo and Kirk, am i misreading either of you?




I have spent a fair amount of time wrestling with the current outdated constitution. I was the co-author, with Pat Govang, of the last set update (2003) of the Constitution, which passed without any issues.

I am NOT against open communications. What I am against is a legal/constitutional dictate on how communications should be done. The current wording is impossible to abide by. And I don't think there's an easy way to incorporate details about how to achieve "transparency" in a set of bylaws. And I don't think it's typically done by organizations of our size.

If anyone wants to send me examples of reasonable language that they've found in bylaws from other organizations, I would be interested in seeing it. What I don't want to try to do is to rewrite that part of our current constitution. I would rather remove it altogether, and have the members elect individuals that they trust to do the right thing.

It's clear from some of the comments in this (and other) threads than there are individuals that think I'm one of the board members that prefers doing things behind closed doors. That's not the case, and I'm going to try not to worry about it in my last few months as Commissioner (I've been on the board for over 4 years now). I'm not going to be running again.

Some people might actually consider me a "lame duck" board member at this point, and wonder why I even care about following through on a commitment to revise the constitution, given the diffuculty that we've had making it happen. A reasonable thing to wonder - and I wonder myself at times. However, I know that the current constitution is not appropriate for our organization at this stage, so I'm willing to continue pushing for overhauling it.

The board has been discussing this for years (at least 3) now, and we have a strong concensus, which anyone at the Summit in Phoenix when we discussed it can attest to. Yeah, there are some points that some board members have different opinions about, but none of us feel that the current constiution is even close to what we need right now.

-Theo

<font color="blue"> I think we can assume that the members' right to request and receive written board communications will not be in the next constitution. </font> <font color="green"> I suspect that the clause requiring the PDGA to conduct its affairs openly will disappear as well, </font> <font color="red"> as will the provision that requires the Board to submit significant rules changes to the membership for a vote.
</font>
:(



An astute and accurate assumption.

-Theo



Theo, in the interest of clarity -- was your above reply only pertaining to the part of Bruce's post above that i have colored in blue, or did it also pertain to the parts i have colored above in green and / or red? :confused:
(since you didn't single out the part [i've colored] in blue for your reply, i read it to pertain to everything you quoted Bruce as saying.)



Blue: That definitely won't be in the next constitution.
Green: If there's anything about being "open" or "transparent", someone will have to come up with a very well worded article for me to support it.
Red: I don't think any rules changes should be submitted to the membership for approval. However, I have been supportive of polling the membership for their opinions on various issues all along. I was also one of the key people that moved us to online ballots, which has more than doubled membership participation in elections and surveys.

Note that I was the board member that implemented the current practice of publishing board minutes on pdga.com, where everyone (not only current members) can see them. If that doesn't show my support for the board being "open", I don't know what would...

And I'm sorry if my curt reply caused confusion.

-Theo

Then how about sharing?

Sharing would further offend Terry. I don't like being offensive. Terry is someone I'd rather try to get along with. The next time I'm on the Board I'll be more sharing as we go along, unless you all vote to replace openess with secrecy.



But Bruce you already are and have shared.

Innuendos.
Hearsays.
Unverifiable Statements of Fact.

Why not stop the charade and just tell us what is on your mind? Terry is likely already at odds with you, so no need to putting on airs of sensitivity. I know I, for one, am utterly confused by your tentative mudslinging.

Or, I've got an idea: how about acting like a leader yourself and not picking on the up-and-coming members who also want to be PDGA leaders. How about giving them a hand instead of a foot stomp.

Paul Young, you're only seeing the public argument - about ideas and facts - that I am having with Pat. Like many on this board, you seem to assume that nothing is happening if it's not on here.

Like many Republicans who believe that you can't think that Dubya is reprehensible and incompetent without also hating him, you seem to think that argumentative disagreement (Where facts are not made up and names are not called.) is "picking on" someone.

Someone who wants to be a PDGA leader has to know better.

In fact, on the side with PMs, emails, and a phone call, I am encouraging Pat to stick in there.

Try this mantra: "DISCussion is NOT all. DISCussion is NOT all. DISCussion is NOT all."

P.S. Any relation to Matthew/Michael Young from Cuyahoga Falls?

Pat,

Please feel free to quote anything I have sent to you via email.

I won't say anything via email that I won't say here.

That has always been my policy. The only downside to that is that my wife now proof reads everything I email or post on the Disgusting Board (that is just my pet name for the Discussion Board). She says that I am typically too inflammatory. She is afraid that I am going to tick someone off to the point of violence. So, I have tried to tone down my emails and posts.

It is interesting to note that I have invited any and all inquiries via email and so far I have received exactly 3 emails regarding the Constitution.

Kirk
[email protected]
[email protected]



I agree, I won't say anything in email that I won't say here. However, I still think it best to abide by appropriate Internet etiquette and *not* quote others' email content.

Very interesting, Kirk, in that I have invited comments also, and despite by email, phone, and IM being published, have received nothing from anyone yet that wasn't in direct response to my emailing them first: No non-reply emails, no IMs, no phone calls. Hmm.

Terry is likely already at odds with you, so no need to putting on airs of sensitivity. I know I, for one, am utterly confused by your tentative mudslinging.

Nick, whatever it is that Bruce is hinting at, please don't consider me at odds with him. We often disagree about things, but I really like Bruce and admire his brainpower.

Bruce, the offense earlier was insinuating that Theo thinks that PDGA members are "rabble." I don't think you'll ever offend me with just an opinion.

I also admire Chuck Kennedy, and despite his opinion on my earlier thread that I should not run or re-election, while others were praising me to much that I killed the thread from embarassment (But thanks anyway, folks.), it was that opinion that helped me decide not to.

I probably don't know who everyone is who has decided to run for a position, but I am content in knowing that there is at least one candidate for each of the three positions who I think will be good for the PDGA as a board member. That's really all I was looking for.

I don't know if I should feel good for you, or bad for the PDGA that you decided not to run. You know Terry that I had all the reasons to "gush" about you on that other thread, too. But I hoped what I said would be more helpful for you.

Try this mantra: "DISCussion is NOT all. DISCussion is NOT all. DISCussion is NOT all."

P.S. Any relation to Matthew/Michael Young from Cuyahoga Falls?

[/QUOTE]
DISCussion is NOT all. DISCussion is NOT all. DISCussion is NOT all...(is this anything like "Serenity now"?)

(I don't think I'm related to either Matthew or Michael, but you never know. We Youngs are all over the place.)

...DISCussion is NOT all. DISCussion is NOT all. DISCussion is NOT all...

Nick, whatever it is that Bruce is hinting at, please don't consider me at odds with him. We often disagree about things, but I really like Bruce and admire his brainpower.



Now that's something that I can wholeheartedly agree with. Some wise man once said "If Bruce doesn't #$*&$! you off every once in a while, you just aren't paying attention!"

I don't know if I should feel good for you, or bad for the PDGA that you decided not to run. You know Terry that I had all the reasons to "gush" about you on that other thread, too. But I hoped what I said would be more helpful for you.

We can all be happy for Sheila.

bruce, you are such a uniter! :cool:

Nick, whatever it is that Bruce is hinting at, please don't consider me at odds with him. We often disagree about things, but I really like Bruce and admire his brainpower.



Now that's something that I can wholeheartedly agree with. Some wise man once said "If Bruce doesn't #$*&$! you off every once in a while, you just aren't paying attention!"



I'll try to pay less attention to him from now on then...

If there's anything about being "open" or "transparent", someone will have to come up with a very well worded article for me to support it.



if Kirk has been charged with the re-write, don't you have confidence that he will craft a well-worded article regarding openess / transparency?

If there's anything about being "open" or "transparent", someone will have to come up with a very well worded article for me to support it.



if Kirk has been charged with the re-write, don't you have confidence that he will craft a well-worded article regarding openess / transparency?


Interesting, isn't it? With Terry saying he would resign if the old constitution isn't changed substantially, and Theo saying he has definite opinions on what he would support in the re-write, it seems like the only people who might vote down the new constitution, if it isn't written to their liking, are the board members!

And then Kirk wonders aloud if any regular member would really have problems with the new constitution and not vote for it? (I guess he doesn't expect us to have as strong an opinion on the subject as the board members.)

It certainly wouldn't effect the majority of players as much as it would a BOD member.

May I ask why the point you are making about Terry and Theo is so vital to your outlook on this topic?

Shouldn't you base approval or disapproval of the new constitution on it's own merits rather than on what Terry and Theo think?

It certainly wouldn't effect the majority of players as much as it would a BOD member.


Maybe so, but I guess what I don't understand is that a BoD member expressed surprise that a regular member might have some concerns about a new draft, when the people he's working with side-by-side have expressed so much more than concern regarding the old constitution. I don't know of any regular member who has stated what would cause them not to vote for the new constitution, but what concern has been expressed has been responded to with something like: "What? You care?"

If the constitution brings out that much emotion in the people he works with, he should already be sensitive to that -- he shouldn't be surprised to hear others might be concerned, as well, right?

You're mis-reading me, Nick.

I think the membership has given Theo good reason to be confident that whatever the Board approves, the membership will ratify. Most players will not inform themselves on the issue. They will read an official statement from the PDGA supporting the new constitution and that will be good enough for them.

So in a practical sense, only the Board will have a real vote on the new constitution.

Shouldn't you base approval or disapproval of the new constitution on it's own merits rather than on what Terry and Theo think?



sounds reasonable enough. it also sounds reasonable that the re-written Constitution will be made available for membership review well in advance of any vote. right?

sounds reasonable enough. it also sounds reasonable that the re-written Constitution will be made available for membership review well in advance of any vote. right?



I'm sure it will be available just as soon before the vote as are candidates' statements.

candidates statements by candidates who will be running for positions that will not exist if the new C passes :D

this couldnt get better if Washington DC had scripted it! :cool:

I think that there is a richness of context for certain users here that borders on art. I hope others feel that way too...

That would be the side of "Light".

Pat, if elected to be on the BoD, and the Constitution was deemed to need revision, would you support ensuring the membership was given several weeks to review the changes before it was put up for a vote -- or would you feel such consideration was impractical and unnecessary?

also, would you welcome member interest in the rewrite, or would you consider such interest negative or unnecessary?

Hi Rob,

I can't speak for the BOD members, nor would I want to, but I think that we could all agree that getting member input would be a good thing for the new constitution.

The challenges and situations are this:
1) It hasn't even been written yet.
2) Not even the BOD has come to agreement on its content yet.
3) Discussion on this message board, like it or not, usually heads into a deep nose dive as soon as anything of seriousness is raised and personal attacks on the BOD members follows like thunder after the lightening.
4) The necessity to do this quickly so that we are not adversely affected by having to continue to go around the difficult, if not impossible aspects of the current document is a very real and tangible one for those who actually have to do their volunteer work under it.
5) The PDGA BOD by even current constitution is mandated to make such necessary and expedient decisions on all of our behalf.
6) If the revised constitution turns out to be, as some here fear, so onerous, we the membership are provided the �power� or �authority� to reject it.
7) If the revised constitution turns out to be, as some here fear, only somewhat misguided, we the membership are provided the �power� or �authority� force a revision at a later date.

Though entertaining, discussion of hypothetical political dramas play little if any role in resolving or moving us forward in any of these challenges or situations.

Mostly it just seems that some folks here just enjoy watching our hard working thankless volunteers squirm in an impossible ballet to prove a hypothetical negative.

Regards,
Nick Kight

Question from Rob: "Pat, if elected to be on the BoD, and the Constitution was deemed to need revision, would you support ensuring the membership was given several weeks to review the changes before it was put up for a vote -- or would you feel such consideration was impractical and unnecessary? "

We elect the BoD to run the PDGA's affairs on behalf of the Members. But I believe that sharing information to all Members, regardless of their position in the organizaion, is not only extremely desireable but completely do-able. Member input, when available, should be a key ingredient in any change, indeed any significant organizational affair.

BoD and Committee positions are Leadership positions, and that one of the single most important qualities of a good Leader is the ability and desire to communicate with the folks they lead (in this case, Members).

I cannot imagine how an organization could responsibly use a ballot to present to its Members a new core document (C or ByLaws) for the first time. Even if the voting period is two months long, the necessity and wisdom of a period of time, even a couple of weeks prior to the printing of the ballot, for review and comment by the Members should go without saying. There is no change that is so important that it must be sprung on the Members for vote without giving them ample time to read, understand, discuss and comment.

All Member interest in the rewrite of any significant document (C, ByLaws, Rules, etc) is positive. Proactively soliciting the Members for input is imperative. In the event that no interest is forthcoming, the BoD should feel free to go ahead and make their decision - thats what the Members elected them to do. Such a situation does not imply that Member interest is unnecessary, just that there was none.

Personally, i have a feeling that Member interest is much higher in many areas than the current communication channels provided would indicate. As a board member, I want to work towards opening up those channels in a responsible manner, to encourage Member input, and to engage Members in dialog about the issues that face our organization.

Mostly it just seems that some folks here just enjoy watching our hard working thankless volunteers squirm in an impossible ballet to prove a hypothetical negative.

Regards,
Nick Kight



Nick, if you are accusing me of being motivated with the intention of making anyone squirm, rather than my being motivated by concern for our PDGA and the way it conducts business, you are mistaken and out-of-line.

Pat has just answered my question quite well imo and i doubt he had to squirm at all in doing so. If the BoD needs to they could enact temporary revisions if truly necessary, *and* give members ample time to review a document as important as the one being revised. The vote could be postponed for months or even a year if the rewrite isn't feasible within time limits that allow for adequate member review.

I don't mistrust our leaders, but i don't think it is appropriate to rewrite the Constitution in such a hurry that ammendments wouldn't have time to get included on the ballot if any member wished to do so. It is a matter of protocol -- not trust.

I do not expect to find anything disagreeable in the re-write, but i don't think i or anyone should pre-judge the document before we see it. And, as i have been trying to point out, i think the possibility that some member(s) might want to get some ammendment on the ballot should be accomodated in terms of the time frame in which the re-write plays out.

Pat the more i hear you speak on any issue other than the 2MR [ :eek: ] the more you impress me.

you have my vote, just don't call for Texas to secede from the union! :D

Rob,

I am saying "Mostly it just seems that some folks here just enjoy watching our hard working thankless volunteers squirm in an impossible ballet to prove a hypothetical negative."

If you feel a part of that sort of thing then I'd ask why. If you say that that sort of thing doesn't go on here then I think that you are being naive.

For the most part I am impressed with Pat's answers, I do think that he lacks a great deal of experience at any level of disc golf organization and promotion, but that doesn't preclude him from service nor from my vote.

I hope folks no more poke at him with long sticks if elected than I do the current members.

I really am stunned by the rudeness and nasty insinuations that periodically show up in people's posts here. Do you deny that they do?

I really am stunned by the rudeness and nasty insinuations that periodically show up in people's posts here. Do you deny that they do?


Anybody that has ever read your posts cannot deny that. :)

i'll butt in here, if i may... the board has been generally clear of nastiness lately. this is not to pick a fight, Nick, but i would say (without doing any statistical analysis of course) that you have referred to nastiness more times recently than nastiness actually has occurred. did the board have a problem in the past? absolutely. and you and i were both part of that problem, and we both know it. has the problem gotten smaller? amazingly so. at this juncture, i feel that complimenting people on improved behavior will go further that reminding us all of what used to be.

I really am stunned by the rudeness and nasty insinuations that periodically show up in people's posts here. Do you deny that they do?



Nick, if you were replying to the post above in which I asked Pat a question, i would appreciate your being specific about what you found nasty or rude. in the absence of that your accusation itself seems to be caught by the very net you are casting.

i do find the some of the posts on the message board surprisingly rude, but i also find many that are quite considerate and thoughtful. is there any reason why you would emphasize the rude and nasty posts and discount the ones that are not? have you seen it in this particular thread?

maybe people aren't as critical and negative about the PDGA and its leadership as you imagine...(?)

No, if I found them rude I would say so Rob. But in general witch hunting does take hold of many discussions of a more serious nature. Where this tension comes from I don't know. I am quite sure it is not the PDGA BOD or it's volunteers. If I had to guess it would be a general frustration with the way things are going in America right now. But I don't have to guess.

Please continue your questions of Pat, he continues to be quite informative.

4) The necessity to do this quickly so that we are not adversely affected by having to continue to go around the difficult, if not impossible aspects of the current document is a very real and tangible one for those who actually have to do their volunteer work under it.

Nick, what parts of the current Constitution do you think are difficult or impossible for the PDGA or its volunteers to follow?

i just wonder if

a) any other candidates will announce publicly on this board
b) answer any and all questions presented

there ARE already other candidates announced. maybe each candidate should get their own thread for the purposes of providing Members an insight into what they are all about and their thoughts/visions about the PDGA.

i find the "resume" and ""summary statement" required by the qualification process to be rather constraining. we've covered a huge amount of ground on this thread. although some of it is not directly related to my candidancy, the majority of it addresses some core issues. a paragraph with the ballot just doesnt seem adequate. not much that can be done about that, i realize, short of funding a mailing to all members, so i am basically just musing.

i wonder if the PDGA would allow announced candidates to communicate with PDGA members via the Members email address of record?

i wonder if the PDGA would allow announced candidates to communicate with PDGA members via the Members email address of record?


I hope not. I don't want a bunch of spam.

4) The necessity to do this quickly so that we are not adversely affected by having to continue to go around the difficult, if not impossible aspects of the current document is a very real and tangible one for those who actually have to do their volunteer work under it.

Nick, what parts of the current Constitution do you think are difficult or impossible for the PDGA or its volunteers to follow?



Total transparency would be one, if it really is a part of the constitution (there seems to be some valid questions as to whether or not it really is). Beyond that I don't know, you should ask Terry, Theo and the other folks that have had to work under it. Were there any things that you found difficult in your short stint on the BOD?

I don't think it is required by the constitution, though it's a mildly interesting idea.

Most candidates have a body of work in disc golf that speaks for itself. Things they have actually done to deserve our respect and understand their commitment and ability to function under real disc golf organizational situations.

i.e. Jon Lyksett - EDGE, organizing PDGA State Coordinators, Course Designer, PDGA Marshal, Worlds support staff, etc.
Others have headed very successful local and regional clubs, while others run PDGA Worlds, or headed up major volunteer coordination projects, and so on.

Still, I'd enjoy it if they communicated here more often; fully understanding that it would not qualify as a "qualification" or real disc golf "accomplishment" on it's own...

there is no such thing as "total transparency" in the C. the IS a very clear requirement that all affairs be conducted in the open. that include the very clear requirement that ALL written communication between the BoD and/or Committee Chairs regarding PDGA affairs be supplied to ANY Active Member who requests them. the Member may be charged for copying costs and postage.

this is all very clear in the current C.

i recently requested some written docs and was told there werent any. very wierd. we'll see what happenswith my followup request.

What have you requested Pat? That would help explain why it might be difficult to supply, or not...

i requested all written communication regarding the upcoming rewrite of the constitution. imagine, not a single written word has been exchanged between BoD members and/or Committee Chairs regarding this issue! now i am not calling anyone a liar, dont take this as an accusation in any way. its just that i am beyond surprised that such a topic doesnt have any written communication about it at all.

btw, i wasnt told it was difficult to supply. i was told there wasnt any.

If Kirk was doing the research and gave an oral report at the Summit without handouts, that would be the extent of it, I would guess, since I don't believe there's a Constitution Committee. Once the Summit minutes are approved, there might be something in there about it.

Anyone want the slides from our Pro Worlds 2007 bid?

there was a written draft presented at the Summit. somehow that must not qualify as written communication. that will be part of my followup. It was decided that the draft was entirely too long and needed to be shortened. the draft will certainly be requested as part of my followup. as written communication, it must be made available to Members, even if it is going to be reworked extensively.

Pat,

You are misinformed. There was an oral presentation given by me at the Summit. There was not a written draft presented at the Summit.

When I send the draft to the rest of the Board I will send you a copy.

Kirk

Pat,

You are misinformed. There was an oral presentation given by me at the Summit. There was not a written draft presented at the Summit.

When I send the draft to the rest of the Board I will send you a copy.

Kirk


i appreciate your offer to send a copy. i will look forward to it.

in an email you sent to me, you referred very specifically to the draft that you presented at the Summit and the decision that it was too long. am i crazy to be of the mind that such a statement implies written words were exchanged?

since the email used words such as "presented", "worked up", "draft", and "lengthy", i can easily understand how i could be "misinformed" if in fact no lengthy draft that had been worked up was presented!

i can quote the paragraph from the email here if that would help any interested parties understand my misinformed condition.

When I did a presentation regarding the Constitution it was oral and without hand outs also. I had extensive written notes, but I never sent them to anyone. About the same time I left the Board my laptop was destroyed in an automobile accident and I lost everything I had done on that issue and on the issue that precipitated my resignation.

About the same time I left the Board my laptop was destroyed in an automobile accident and I lost everything I had done on that issue and on the issue that precipitated my resignation.



was it REALLY an accident? :eek:
it could have been a plot to keep you from having to supply written proof of your ideas :D

you ARE a very clever attorney aren't you??? ;)

Pat,

I did have one print out of the draft with me at the Summit. I did my oral presentation based on that. I still have that copy.

I understand your eagerness to see the new Constitution but don't you think the Board should see it and have a chance to form an opinion on it before I start sending it out to the rest of the world?

Kirk

When I did a presentation regarding the Constitution it was oral and without hand outs also. I had extensive written notes, but I never sent them to anyone. About the same time I left the Board my laptop was destroyed in an automobile accident and I lost everything I had done on that issue and on the issue that precipitated my resignation.



i can neither confirm nor deny laughing after reading your above statement.

I saw that single copy, also. It was in a three-ring binder and was about 5-6 feet from me, slightly off to my right, while Kirk talked about it with the board and others present. There was a funny kind of glow about it and once, when I shifted my body weight in its direction, it buzzed and moved - all by itself - a little further away from me.

Seriously, the odor of conspiracy theory here is weird.

Where is the central "power structure" that intends to benefit from the alleged wool being allegedly pulled over members' eyes regarding an updating of our bylaws/constitution?

Who profits? Kirk has only been on the board for a little while, so he might be around a while. John Chapman and I have decided not to run for re-election. Theo said he's not running again when his term is up next year. Our two top, most experienced staff people are going to be leaving in late 2007.

I think the problem here, right now, is that there are a very small handful of people on DISCussion who think they should be involved in decision making about things at the level of board member without having to first be elected to the board.

It doesn't work that way, folks. As Pat is going to be finding out when he is elected to the board.

Pat, you don't need this as a campaign issue and I think that once you've been on the board for a while you will look back on this with a little bit of embarassment.

Or, maybe some folks planning to run saw the current Constitution as a way to seize power with all of the Board and staff leaving and are now second guessing whether a new constitution will foil their plot... Hmmmm...

wow, chuck, talk about conspiracy theories! :eek:

terry, there is no suggestion of a conspiracy here. i am not suggesting that wool is being pulled or anything of the sort.

no one has suggested (yet) that the people here be making board level decisinos without being elected. we ARE suggesting that until such time that the new organizational paperwork does not require it, that the current constitution be followed.

now, let me be the first to suggest that Members have a vote on all BoD votes. the majority of Members votes = ONE BoD vote. now that wold be a major improvement to the current state of affairs, and automatically encourage better communication.

i know i dont need this as a campaign issue. we'll see about the embarassment part. i doubt that i will ever be embarassed about asking for something that i was told exists, was presented, and that i am entitled to under the current constitution.

remember, if nothing else, i am helping prove the unworkability of certain aspects of the current C.

Members already do have seven votes on every board vote: The seven board members, six of whom they elected + the one that was appointed by their elected representatives to fill a vacant board seat.

I'll go you one better.

Maybe we should write the board of directors out of the bylaws? Every time anyone has an idea or a project, they propose it on DISCussion and, after two weeks of DISCussion by anyone who chooses to participate, a vote by any member who wants will decide every issue.

That goes along pretty well with a certain currently-suspended from DISCussion member's proposal that every salaried position be opened up to potential new hires every year.

Actually, that doesn't go far enough on the staff side. Perhaps any member can call for a staff person's resignation for any reason at any time, and force a membership vote to fire any or all staff?

Yeah, that's the ticket. Those two changes will open up a bright future for the PDGA. Why didn't I see that possibility sooner than after nearly five years on the board. Shees!

Members already do have seven votes on every board vote: The seven board members, six of whom they elected + the one that was appointed by their elected representatives to fill a vacant board seat.

I'll go you one better.

Maybe we should write the board of directors out of the bylaws? Every time anyone has an idea or a project, they propose it on DISCussion and, after two weeks of DISCussion by anyone who chooses to participate, a vote by any member who wants will decide every issue.

That goes along pretty well with a certain currently-suspended from DISCussion member's proposal that every salaried position be opened up to potential new hires every year.

Actually, that doesn't go far enough on the staff side. Perhaps any member can call for a staff person's resignation for any reason at any time, and force a membership vote to fire any or all staff?

Yeah, that's the ticket. Those two changes will open up a bright future for the PDGA. Why didn't I see that possibility sooner than after nearly five years on the board. Shees!



you are characterizing this DISCussion Board by the worst that goes on here. isn't that the very type of thing you complain about (and rightly so) when the PDGA BoD is criticized by PDGA members???

interest in the re-write of the Constitution and the time frame of the re-write process, the subsequent election, and the changes in BoD position responsibilities is not some kind of witch hunt nor conspiracy theory. Shouldn't such interest be welcomed?

why not just announce when the re-write is expected to be made available for member review, what the gist of the changes will be, and what has triggered the need for them?

you are characterizing this DISCussion Board by the worst that goes on here. isn't that the very type of thing you complain about (and rightly so) when the PDGA BoD is criticized by PDGA members???



Um, Rob Johnston, I don't see any place in my writing above where I "characterize (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/characterize)" the DISCussion board at all. I simply suggested that an alternative to the current for of governnance could be that DISCussion be used as a replacement for the board of directors: making decisions, hiring and firing staff.

Here are the two sentences in which I mention DISCussion:

<blockquote>Maybe we should write the board of directors out of the bylaws? Every time anyone has an idea or a project, they propose it on DISCussion and, after two weeks of DISCussion by anyone who chooses to participate, a vote by any member who wants will decide every issue.

That goes along pretty well with a certain currently-suspended from DISCussion member's proposal that every salaried position be opened up to potential new hires every year.</blockquote>

Where in there do I "characterize" DISCussion, negatively or positively?

A reader might choose to decide that my proposal is wild fancy and unworkable, based on their own internal perceptions of DISCussion, but I didn't characterize it at all.

many organizations provide a vote on their BoD that is cast as the majority of a Member ballot. its nothing new or earthshattering. it is an idea, thats all. you do not seem to be one to belittle ideas, or seek to trump them with by proposing absurd alternatives. so i am wondering about the intent of your response to my post.

you are characterizing this DISCussion Board by the worst that goes on here. isn't that the very type of thing you complain about (and rightly so) when the PDGA BoD is criticized by PDGA members???



Um, Rob Johnston, I don't see any place in my writing above where I "characterize (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/characterize)" the DISCussion board at all. I simply suggested that an alternative to the current for of governnance could be that DISCussion be used as a replacement for the board of directors: making decisions, hiring and firing staff.

Here are the two sentences in which I mention DISCussion:

<blockquote>Maybe we should write the board of directors out of the bylaws? Every time anyone has an idea or a project, they propose it on DISCussion and, after two weeks of DISCussion by anyone who chooses to participate, a vote by any member who wants will decide every issue.

That goes along pretty well with a certain currently-suspended from DISCussion member's proposal that every salaried position be opened up to potential new hires every year.</blockquote>

Where in there do I "characterize" DISCussion, negatively or positively?

A reader might choose to decide that my proposal is wild fancy and unworkable, based on their own internal perceptions of DISCussion, but I didn't characterize it at all.



okay Terry Calhoun, but it had read to me like you were implying by <font color="blue"> association </font> that the interest here in the re-write of the Constitution is some kind of demand that it be opened up to message board construction. (i would view such a demand as absurd)

so i can better appreciate your perspective on this, would you mind answering the following question i put before Pat earlier in this thread? (from page 22): --


Pat, if elected to be on the BoD, and the Constitution was deemed to need revision, would you support ensuring the membership was given several weeks to review the changes before it was put up for a vote -- or would you feel such consideration was impractical and unnecessary?

also, would you welcome member interest in the rewrite, or would you consider such interest negative or unnecessary?

Sorry that you take it as belittlement.

I find the proposal to have a virtual board member whose vote is determined each time the board makes a decision by a majority vote of the membership to be as absurd as just letting decision making take place on DISCussion by whoever's here at a given point in time. I thought an absurd alternate proposal would highlight that. I still think it does, actually.

BTW, I've been a member of the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) since 1993 and I have - except for your post - never heard of that particular governance model.

It might possibly have some symbolic value for those who don't understand representative governance in general, or trust it, but the cost to the PDGA of creating and managing that would be immense, especially when you take into consideration how it would inevitable, dramatically slow down all board-level decision making.

[W]ould you support ensuring the membership was given several weeks to review the changes before it was put up for a vote -- or would you feel such consideration was impractical and unnecessary?

Impractical and unnecessary.

[W]ould you welcome member interest in the rewrite, or would you consider such interest negative or unnecessary?

Welcome interest.

It's interesting how I have yet to receive a single email, IM, or phone call from any "interested members."

Saying that anyone on the PDGA board or staff doesn't welcome member interest - which you are not saying, I note here - would be a lot like one of Dubya's Pat-Robertson-like core constituents saying that "American's can't pray in public schools."

I've prayed in every public school I've been in for over 20 years now and was never stopped. Partly that's because I don't insist that the entire world join in, or even know that I am doing it.

I think expressing member interest is a lot like prayer. (And now someone will accuse me of saying that volunteers and staff are deities.) It's always a little suspect if whoever's doing it only wants to do it while holding center stage.

That was pretty easy.

[W]ould you support ensuring the membership was given several weeks to review the changes before it was put up for a vote -- or would you feel such consideration was impractical and unnecessary?

Impractical and unnecessary.

[W]ould you welcome member interest in the rewrite, or would you consider such interest negative or unnecessary?

Welcome interest.

It's interesting how I have yet to receive a single email, IM, or phone call from any "interested members."



Terry, i emailed Kirk about the issue and not you because it was my understanding he was doing the re-write. It did not occur to me to ask you about it, and it seems less appropriate now after learning that no written correspondence has occurred on the re-vision of the Constitution.

Is there anything you can tell us about the general gist of the changes envisioned, about what problems triggered the need for the re-write, and about the expected date on which the new version will be made available for member review?