<font color="blue"> from another thread, moved here to keep that thread on-topic and to provide a forum dedicated to this topic: </font>
quoted from ChuckKennedy:

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.

end of quote

rob's question:

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

one could certainly ask the Office for copies of all correspondance from and among the BoD members, including the Exec Dir, and committee chairs on this topic.

under the current constitution they must supply all written correspondance. that would include all emails and PMs as well.

if the changes are really serious enough that the current leadership would not continue in their roles if the changes are not approved by the Members, i feel the Members should have as much input from the start.

Hopefully Theo or someone will check in with an unofficial or official update regarding what they are changing and why.

It seems to me that transparency is very healthy for an organization like ours. I really like the part of the PDGA Constitution which outlines the responsibilities of Oversight Director:

"The Oversight Director shall have the 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."

Those responsibilities will not be changed or watered down, will they?

The Constitution rewrite was right on the agenda for the Summit meeting which was open to members. Current Oversight Director gave the presentation according to the agenda. I think they are in the process of getting the meeting minutes completed and approved before publishing them for members.

cool. when is the vote? i couldnt find anything about the election date on the website.

also, as a point of fact, the minutes or synopsis are often jiust part of the story. the constitution clearly makes all documents, not just minutes, available.

This was included in the latest DGWN also.

Pat, I asked you in another thread about you running for Oversight Director, what your organizational experience was in disc golf and you didn't not provide any examples other than working with Cliff on the course directory. Do you have any experience as an elected official for a local or regional club?

Did you have a constitution?

Did it have provisions for transparency?

Yes, yes, yes I know that things should be done in open, but you don't see any need for a board to be able to discuss things in private to build concensus and just plain get some things done from time to time? You seem rather niave about how such things work, that's why I ask about your experience as an elected officer.

i have never been an elected official for a disc golf related organization.

i have been in several higher level management positions in corporations, including one of my own.

i understand the need for consensus, and believe consensus with the Members is the most important consensus of all. building consensus about how a vote is going to go results in internal politicking and questionable decisions. privacy in matters such as these almost never works. witness the current US government for copious examples. i sincerely doubt i am naive about such matters, but you are entitled to an opinion.

i will state this: in all of my management positions, including when i ran my own corporation, i found that without exception, making decisions in the open ALWAYS produced a better result than any other approach. you never know when you will get awesome input, or from whom. i want as many inputs as possible, not a pre-arranged rubber-stamped decision by the few that impacts the many.

its so simple: just say "i am considering ____________." then ask "what do you think?" repeat this with as many people as possible. use the internet and email to reach as high a percentage of Members for the lowest possible cost. resort to printed mailings when necessary. but make sure you do it. input is like publicity - there is no such thing as bad.

most people understand that not all input will be adopted. and most also appreciate the chance to provide it, and the respect and trust it demonstrates when it is requested.

i dont call that naive. i call it progressive, enlightened, and aware.

I tend to agree with your general tone of seeking input from as many sources as possible. But what about where that is not possible. Have you ever had to deal with such a situation?

Because it is absolutely going to arise for you if you are elected to the PDGA Board of Directors, where you will not always have the luxury of such polling and public opinion. That is what I'd like to know about. Have you ever been in that situation.

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?

Thanks again for these answers, sorry they are coming at you in two threads, but it seems appropriate to this topic and the way you are trying to divine public opinion from this message board.

From another thread. I thought it might be more useful here.


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.

Why dosen't the board have a thread dedicated to them and no members can post. But, all discussions about pdga related considerations be done in the wide open. no more emails and pms, let the members see what you guys on the bod actually do. Just because you threw your hat in the ring dosen't mean you know more than the next fella. The pdga does not want to turn its seasoned tournament players away, the rulings effect them the most because they are truly active members as well as leaders to the younger tournament players. If bod members are afraid to let be known their ideas and stances on rulings then they should not be where they are. Are there any laws in the constitution allowing for a membership vote of a no confidence ruling against individual or all board members? If not then there should be because it would provide for some accountability for board members.

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?



[/QUOTE]

I hope and pray that decisions about the direction of the pdga are not being made IMMEDIATELY. and if you are making an IMMEDIATE decision on your companies healthcare you are probaly not making the BEST business decisions. If real examples of immediate decisions don't exsist then why are you making such a big deal about being able to make split decisions. Better planning is need not SNAP decisions.

Why dosen't the board use null soft technology and stream the meeting online and monitor the discussion board for membership input? It all just seems so simple and the technology is free.

The primary communication mechanisms for access to all members are the DGWN and mail. Not enough members have web access or email to make these the only channels for important member communications. The cost and time delays preclude using the DGWN and mail for transparency of all communications and decisions without slowing PDGA business to a snail's pace. That's not to say this information shouldn't ultimately get to members with the slower methods.

Nick, your 'grilling' of Pat on leadership responsibilities and abilities is the very definition of irony and hypocrisy.

so whats wrong with a dedicated thread? Any member without access to the net that wants to know what the leaders of his org are discussing could go to the library and check the thread out. The only people complaining are those with internet service. Those without are just about in the dark on everything that is being discussed here. Winamp and null soft have a broadcasting program that works really well. I did a fantasy football talkshow with a buddie of mine year before last and used an chatroom to recieve questions and comments. It was easy and worked really well. Open the doors for members with the technology to be a part of the pdga.

Members are fortunate that anyone volunteers to lead based on the lack of candidates. Raising the time requirements for volunteers makes the situation even worse. More transparency is more expensive and less productive. What are you willing to pay for? We all make a tradeoff of complete communication for better cost and time efficiency of our volunteers.

costs? its free software. The discussion board is here why not use it? null soft wincast is free. Where would we have to spend all this money? I am getting an uneasy feeling about this rewrite. Since there is no open and public debate dealing with the changes in question and members are not privy to the details being discussed so they may discuss the changes amongst themselves its not sitting well with me especially since the constitution that is in play now calls for transparency. Since the constitution is not being followed, the rewrite will ineffect be unconstitutional.

I've spoken with members who have said they would like to run but don't because they don't know how to go about putting there name in the hat.

The cost is primarily time. If you had three or four people vying for each Board position, they might have to compete for how much free time they are willing to spend individually communicating with members to get elected. Heck, even two candidates is uncommon for a position. Essentially, more Board members have been drafted, encouraged, persuaded to serve rather than eagerly seeking the position. That's not to say our current Board isn't highly qualified and dedicated to do what they can. They are. However, at least half of them would be happy to let others take their place if qualified candidates stepped up.

i posted a reply to your question on the Pat Brenner thread, in order to keep things together.

The Constitution rewrite was right on the agenda for the Summit meeting which was open to members. Current Oversight Director gave the presentation according to the agenda. I think they are in the process of getting the meeting minutes completed and approved before publishing them for members.



Will this be another mail in ballot? If so, when do you plan on mailing them out to us "members"?

open to member meetings that require travel at the expense of Members are only marginally "open" both from a time and expense viewpoint.

how was the presentation prepared? who had input? i am eagerly awaiting the synopsis of this part of the meeting.

I hold an elected position on the Board of Franchisees for Mr. Jim's Pizza Worldwide Inc. (Just got re-elected again in January) I have held this position for 12 years now.

A lot of what members post hear happens at our level too. Some store owners think we are "yes Men" to Mr. Jim. they don't realize how much we argue over things at the monthly meetings.

They don't realize we have to look at the good of the company and not just the good for one store.

In 12 years, we have managed to double the sales of Mr. Jim's and increase the number of opened stores. (more opening every month these days) This has been done by making disitions that were tough to do. Disitions that #$*&$! off several store owners because it was going to cost them money. Shoot, even I have to pay for these things too.

But in the long run, things have worked out VERY well. This last years was the best year ever for Mr. Jim's and so far these two quarters are over last years. (8% on just the last quarter alone.) This is double of what our compeditors are doing.

Basicly, I Understand what members of the board do, I have had comunication with some of them over the years when they asked me for my opinion (when I was Texas/Region 11 coordinator, an elected position) I only stepped down because someone stepped up to the plate and I was getting burned out. (and heavily in debt at the time) BTW, Gary Duke is the man. He has done a fantastic job taking over for me. I would only run again if he wants to step down.

As far as the PDGA BOD, I would like to run someday, but to not have the qualifications for most of the positions. (nor the time at the moment)

Now on the constitution being rewritten, it is out of date and needs to be redone. There is a committe doing this. We have to trust that they do a good job. When they are done, we will get to read it and vote on it.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING INCLUDED IN THE COSTITUTION, DON'T VOTE FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To address some of the topics being discussed:

1. The minutes of the Summit will be published in the usual place, once they have been transcribed and reviewed (done tirelessly by Lorrie Gibson, after listening to hours of tape she records at the meetings). Here's the link to where the minutes are published on pdga.com: http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php

2. The PDGA Constitution is being overhauled, and we're hoping to put it up before the membership in the annual ballot this summer. If you were at the Summit, you would have heard the discussion, but two major things came out of it:

* We are going to remove all the titles of the board members. There will no longer be a Competition Director, Financial Director, etc. Those were appropriate for a small organization where the directors had to do the bulk of the work for the organization, but they aren't at all common or useful for a larger organization where staff performs those functions. For certain board responsibilities, such as being the board liason for a particular committee, the board members will vote among themselves for who will take on those responsibilities.

* The Constitution is going to be broken out into Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, which is the standard way these documents are structured, legally. In general, we are going to remove alot of what is in the Constitution now, and we'll make references to organizational policies (e.g., discipline) that will cover those points, and those policies will be set by the board and staff, and won't require constitutional amendments every time a change is needed. This is the trend in most organizations of our size or larger.

Kirk Yoo did an excellent research job before his presentation at the Summit, and we are finally ready to move forward with a set of legal documents that are appropriate for our type and size of organization, which will help streamline decision-making.

Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

Better yet, if you have concerns let the Oversight Director and the re-writers of the Constitution now so they can give them due consideration before the darn thing is up for a vote. Hopefully they will read this thread as a place where they might get some good ideas and feedback. I think Theo does consider what is posted here as he weighs in from time to time.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING INCLUDED IN THE COSTITUTION, DON'T VOTE FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



One thing to keep in mind is that the vote on the Constitution is an all-or-none proposition. There is no line item veto available to members. So if there's one thing you don't like about the new Constitution, even though you're ok with everything else, then you'll have a decision to make. We're trying to make sure that a majority of the members will not find something that causes them to vote against it. We're sure that we're not going to please everybody on all the changes (even the board members).

-Theo

Theo, when wil the re-write and proposed new documents be available for membership perusal?

Do you have a paypal account? I think you owe me TWO DOLLARS. :)

Theo, when wil the re-write and proposed new documents be available for membership perusal?



It's going to be tight to get it ready for the ballot, so I suspect it won't be available much before that deadline, maybe a week or two ahead, if we can get it out. We will be having an attorney review it before it goes up for vote.


Do you have a paypal account? I think you owe me TWO DOLLARS. :)


I do! Send me your account name via email, and I'll pay you. BTW - it probably isn't cool for me to be doing gambling transactions in public. Not good for the image, you know? :o

-Theo

We had no idea the $2 was a gambling debt until you just posted it... :o

it must be available at least two months prior to the election. that should allow plenty of time for discussion.

We had no idea the $2 was a gambling debt until you just posted it... :o



Actually, Rhett was nice enough to post a spreadsheet with the gory details on another thread...

it must be available at least two months prior to the election. that should allow plenty of time for discussion.



It "must" be? Is that a constitutional requirement or PDGA policy that I missed somewhere? I don't believe I've seen any requirements that we run it by the membership in any form before we submit it on the ballot, nor for any minimum time. We're not looking for "discussion", and we certainly aren't going to try to weed through topics on this message board looking for useful feedback. If current members want to provide comments in writing, that's a different story.

-Theo

We're not looking for "discussion", and we certainly aren't going to try to weed through topics on this message board looking for useful feedback. If current members want to provide comments in writing, that's a different story.

-Theo



you have at least been following this thread -- that's not too much to ask -- right? i especially would like you to consider messages #518480, #518504, and #518534 all of which are on the first page of this very thread. Thank you in advance for taking our feedback seriously.

Rob, if you really want your feedback to be taken seriously then send a letter, email, PM or call the PDGA Board of Directors. This message board is notorious for malicious ill-willed demagoguery. Many folks in organizational (tds, club officers, committee members, volunteers) I know personally have sworn off ever visiting here again.

This is a topic in and of itself; suffice it to say, DISCussion is not a place of business but of entertainment.

Nick, i was asking Theo to read three specific posts, all of which were maid by PDGA members and which are serious in nature and pertain to the issue this thread was created to address. As non-members can no longer post here, it isn't as simple as dismissing DISCussion board comments as irrelevant. I would hope that anyone who cares about the PDGA Constitution and is involved in rewriting it would be very interested in member ideas regarding it, whether or not they were submitted via formal channels that demand attention.

it must be available at least two months prior to the election. that should allow plenty of time for discussion.



It "must" be? Is that a constitutional requirement or PDGA policy that I missed somewhere? I don't believe I've seen any requirements that we run it by the membership in any form before we submit it on the ballot, nor for any minimum time. We're not looking for "discussion", and we certainly aren't going to try to weed through topics on this message board looking for useful feedback. If current members want to provide comments in writing, that's a different story.

-Theo

Theo might be correct about the two moth thing. the 2 month requirement is for the list and info regarding BoD nominees being distributed to the Membership 2months prior to the election, which according to the constitution is held on January 1st.

there is no mention anywhere of when or how constitutional amendments ballots will handled. therefore, we cold receive ballots one day beforethey are due back at the office. hmmm....

there are however, other methods available to Members to discover what these amendments are, and what the reasoning behind them is. i am exploring those methods now.

If they were serious they wouldn't rely on this message board to communicate there concerns Rob. There are a variety of better ways; I listed a couple of them.

Though Pat, you and I enjoy this playground sandbox, it is still just a sandbox were little of any lasting worth will ever really get done. Seems to me most members either don't know about, or if they do know about the DISCussion board avoid it due to the numerous cat droppings mixed in here and there.

If they were serious they wouldn't rely on this message board to communicate there concerns Rob. There are a variety of better ways; I listed a couple of them.

Though Pat, you and I enjoy this playground sandbox, it is still just a sandbox were little of any lasting worth will ever really get done. Seems to me most members either don't know about, or if they do know about the DISCussion board avoid it due to the numerous cat droppings mixed in here and there.



Nick, this DISCussion Board is what we make it. Now, despite the fact that the exclusion of non-members was cited as a way to make this board more informative and professional -- you seem to be suggesting you look at it as mere entertainment. There may be some who look on it that way, but some areas of the board are taken more seriously than others and some posts are very serious and informative. This DISCussion board has potential in that regard so it would be premature and cynical to write it off as a lost cause. I was definitely no proponent of members-only posting privileges -- but it seems to me the onus is on those of you who were in favor of that to raise the level of DISCussion here. Theo has posted here so he has obviously been following this thread. I am sure he values the Constitution and wants the re-write to be as good and far-sighted as possible so he would not be averse to further revisions prior to a final draft if he thought it might improve the document and be favored by a majority of the mebership.

This is a serious thread that was started about a very serious issue -- the PDGA Constitution. The beauty of providing feedback here and hearing back from those in leadership positions is that instead of only one or two people being involved into what amounts to a closed-door meeting (as would be the case if i used the 'Contact' page) -- everyone can hear firsthand what's being discussed. Probably the importance of retaining transparency in our Constitution is as valued by those re-writing it as it was to the orginal writer(s) and therefore it was one of the first things they decided NOT to change. Please correct me if i am wrong.

You are not wrong Rob, you are optimistic, hopeful, enthusiastic, ready to pitch in, but I fear, as concerns this medium, na�ve. I can appreciate where you are coming from concerning this, I too once hoped that this board could accomplish what you hope it can.

Unfortunately, it has proven again and again to be primarily a source of entertainment, and all too often a source of indigestion, constipation and discourteous behavior. Never once has it proven to be a valuable source for communicating more than rudimentary information and certainly not official or serious feedback to the PDGA and it�s volunteers.

More times than not it is more of a soapbox for stating positions and throwing out ideas just to see what this smallish demographic of the PDGA thinks about it; or a sandbox where ideas are built up and then wiped out to start all over again. It is entertainment at it�s best. At it�s worst it is an embarrassment.

Regardless of how you slice it, it is not a place to communicate serious membership concerns to our PDGA volunteers. For that you�d do way better, and be taken way more seriously by writing an email or better yet making a call to the PDGA office. If you�ve never done it, you are in for a nice surprise.

Rob, if you really want your feedback to be taken seriously then send a letter, email, PM or call the PDGA Board of Directors. This message board is notorious for malicious ill-willed demagoguery. Many folks in organizational (tds, club officers, committee members, volunteers) I know personally have sworn off ever visiting here again.

This is a topic in and of itself; suffice it to say, DISCussion is not a place of business but of entertainment.



While the message board has its pros and cons, I'm not sure if I would characterize it as a "malicious ill-willed demagoguery." However, I sure hope that the many folks in organizational (tds, club officers, committee members, volunteers) you know personally that have characterized it this way also confided that you were personally responsible for a great deal of that malice and ill will, Nick.

We're not looking for "discussion",

wow. just wow.

and we certainly aren't going to try to weed through topics on this message board looking for useful feedback.

cant blame you for that.

If current members want to provide comments in writing, that's a different story.

can you tell us when a copy of the proposed new wording might become available for Members to read, ponder, and potentially comment on through appropriate channels?

Pat, did you email/PM that to Theo also???

If there is a way to see a working copy, I would like to see it too.

i just sent a PM. if no answer by the morning, i will email the Office requesting it.

you could also exercise your current Constitutional rights by requesting copies of all written communications regarding this matter. according to the Constitution, the PDGA must provide all written communications to any Active Member who makes such a request, as long as the requestor agrees to pay for copying charges and postage. i'd bet a lot of the communications have been electronic, so the copying and postage fees should be minimal. but i dont know if such a request should be filed with the Office, or through the Oversight Director.

i just sent a PM. if no answer by the morning, i will email the Office requesting it.

you could also exercise your current Constitutional rights by requesting copies of all written communications regarding this matter. according to the Constitution, the PDGA must provide all written communications to any Active Member who makes such a request, as long as the requestor agrees to pay for copying charges and postage. i'd bet a lot of the communications have been electronic, so the copying and postage fees should be minimal. but i dont know if such a request should be filed with the Office, or through the Oversight Director.



One thing that you are forgetting or are unaware of, Pat, is that - and I use myself as an example only because I don't know other board members well enough to understand their financial circumstances - "payment" for costs incurred includes payment for the time of the people who have to spend time responding to a query.

My time is valued at $200/hr. (If only I got paid that much!) Since I receive more than 2,000 email messages each day, the time needed (even if I could afford to do it at all) to respond to the kinds of queries you suggested would be thousands of dollars. Who's going to pay for that? If you are not considering re-instituting slavery, then it can only be members' dues payments.

Nick wrote: This message board is notorious for malicious ill-willed demagoguery.

-- and --

I too once hoped that this board could accomplish what you hope it can.

Unfortunately, it has proven again and again to be primarily a source of entertainment, and all too often a source of indigestion, constipation and discourteous behavior. Never once has it proven to be a valuable source for communicating more than rudimentary information and certainly not official or serious feedback to the PDGA and it�s volunteers.

More times than not it is more of a soapbox for stating positions and throwing out ideas just to see what this smallish demographic of the PDGA thinks about it; or a sandbox where ideas are built up and then wiped out to start all over again. It is entertainment at it�s best. At it�s worst it is an embarrassment.

Regardless of how you slice it, it is not a place to communicate serious membership concerns to our PDGA volunteers. For that you�d do way better, and be taken way more seriously by writing an email or better yet making a call to the PDGA office. If you�ve never done it, you are in for a nice surprise.



to call for and then make this place members-only in order to make it family and donor friendly and then two months after it has become members-only to turn around and call it a proverbial brothel is to talk out of both sides of one's mouth.

i just sent a PM. if no answer by the morning, i will email the Office requesting it.

you could also exercise your current Constitutional rights by requesting copies of all written communications regarding this matter. according to the Constitution, the PDGA must provide all written communications to any Active Member who makes such a request, as long as the requestor agrees to pay for copying charges and postage. i'd bet a lot of the communications have been electronic, so the copying and postage fees should be minimal. but i dont know if such a request should be filed with the Office, or through the Oversight Director.



One thing that you are forgetting or are unaware of, Pat, is that - and I use myself as an example only because I don't know other board members well enough to understand their financial circumstances - "payment" for costs incurred includes payment for the time of the people who have to spend time responding to a query.

My time is valued at $200/hr. (If only I got paid that much!) Since I receive more than 2,000 email messages each day, the time needed (even if I could afford to do it at all) to respond to the kinds of queries you suggested would be thousands of dollars. Who's going to pay for that? If you are not considering re-instituting slavery, then it can only be members' dues payments.



wow. why not at least post the re-written draft of the Constitution highlighting the major changes and rationale behind them and then allow a few months for input and feedback in order to pull from the diverse talents and perspectives of the membership? If the elected office structure is changing -- won't the new Constitution have to be delayed in terms of going into effect after a theoretical vote in which it passes anyways?

so you value your time at $200/hour but dont get paid that much, but would charge the Member making the request your perceived "value rate"? hmmm....

actually the constitution explicity mentions copying costs and postage. it doesnt include paying for the time, at least explicity. i suppose a case could be made either way, but a decent lawyer would likely claim the specificity of the copying and postage breakdown indicates that if time were to be included it would have been explicity stated.

even if it were, you can bulk forward 2000 emails (have you had that many on the constitution topic?) in a few minutes. i cannot believe someone who runs as many lists as you and is so in tune with computer usage and culture would not have some sort of efficient foldering structure that would make the identification of relevant emails rather straightforward.

(btw, even a FOIA request requires the requestor to pay for copying costs but not the time involved to make the copies. not entirely relevant, but advisory at a minimum)

well, my time is worth $500 and yea if I could only get paid for it. :D

Terry If your time is soooooo valuable and you don't even have time to do your real job, how can you justify your volunteering for the pdga? if you can't be open and honest, get the hell out of dodge and let someone who has the time get the job done.

It "must" be? Is that a constitutional requirement or PDGA policy that I missed somewhere? I don't believe I've seen any requirements that we run it by the membership in any form before we submit it on the ballot, nor for any minimum time. We're not looking for "discussion", and we certainly aren't going to try to weed through topics on this message board looking for useful feedback. If current members want to provide comments in writing, that's a different story.

-Theo

This is how Theo interprets the Constitutional provision that the PDGA be run openly. It is also how he interprets his Constitutional obligation to ensure that all sides of an issue have been heard before the Board decides an issue. This is why I'll be voting for Pat this June and two more like minded candidates.

Are those candidates ready to step up?

Have any women been on the BoD yet? Either way, now might be a good time ;) I guess we haven't ever been overwhelmed with volunteers of either gender though?

Elaine King and Kathy Bramlage are a few along with one in the late 90s that was a marketer. At the moment, it sounds like the women are struggling to even find one to head their Women's committee.

I think the members who are active in the discussion are only asking to be "in" on what is taking place between BOD members. Like I have said before, A thread dedicated only to boardmembers to actively discuss pdga concerns. They would be able to post all communications on the board for all members to follow. Of course members would start threads discussing what is going on and board members could refrence these posts for ideas and concerns from members. I think that by rewriting the constitution is an update that is needed but because it is not being openly discussed where I can see the progress of discussions on the rewrite, I don't know If I would even vote yes on it even if I totally agreed on it. For me, because the discussion is not being had between members and BOD to fine tune what is needed and there is not a line item type veto to be able to say "yes I like this part but not this one" all it will take is one thing I don't agree with to get me to vote no and to actually be active in trying to sink the new constitution. If it were actively being discussed then maybe some of the things I would disagree with would be made more clear as to the overall function and be persuaded to vote yes even though I have some disagreements. As for now, no matter what comes out my vote will be to nix it.

Terry If your time is soooooo valuable and you don't even have time to do your real job, how can you justify your volunteering for the pdga? if you can't be open and honest, get the hell out of dodge and let someone who has the time get the job done.

Absolutely classic DISCussion board slander, Jeff. It's amazing to me that everyone can't read right through that. It's amazing that you can fit so many unsupported, derogatory insults in a short paragraph.

(a) That I am not open;

(b) That I am not honest;

(c) That I am not getting 'the job' done;

(d) That I am a bad person for volunteering for the PDGA.

Wow.

No one likes to be ignorantly- or maliciously-wrongly accused of such things. You are the kind of person who poisons open forums like this. A living, breathing gold mine, dumping caustic wastes in public spaces. You and others like you are the reason that most members won't post here at all.

It's called public service, Jeff. I do work more than 50 hours a week at my day job. I also have a large family, three kids and a gorgeous wife. Also: 3 cats, 1 dog, a parrot, and a pet rat. In the past 2 years I have, by hand, built my own private disc golf course, and we're just about done gutting and renovating our entire house, including new siding and windows. Beyond that I am usually active in disc golf locally (been to four parks and rec-related meetings working on new courses here in the past two weeks) and serve on the PDGA board. I am also an officer on the board for the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, a member of the Education Steering Committee of the United States Green Building Council, and on the Editorial Review Board of Innovate, journal of online education. I write a weekly newsletter and opinion column for Campus Technology magazine (for which I do get about $200/hr). There's more.

I'm a busy person. But I know that I have done a good job as a PDGA board member, despite being busy. I know it partly because for every mindless criticism like yours, I receive (privately, because lots of people are worried that they will receive similar criticism if they dare to post on DISCussion) plenty of nice thoughts and compliments from PDGA members about my work.

I have already announced several places that I am stepping down from the board this year - after about 5 years - but that I will continue to do the PDGA Member News as a volunteer. Posts such as yours are causing me to reconsider - talk about unintended consequences! :grin:

So, I don't know who you are, Jeff, or what you do, but you feel free to sit out there and decide that *I* am too busy to be on the board, that I am not doing the job, that I am not open, and I am not honest. Amazing.

And you, and the others who do such public hatchet jobs, seem to need to do it on DISCussion, even though I am the rare volunteer who regularly posts his email, his cell phone, and even his AIM handle (on every post here!). Why is that? Why don't I get phone calls from people like you wanting to talk person to person?

I think it's cowardice. You don't want to engage me in meaningful dialogue and share ideas or learn something, maybe have to think before speaking or face disagreement that you have to respond to in a personal fashion - you just want to strike out. So you post bad things, knowing that (a) even the act of disputing them will turn some people off and have negative consequences for me, and (b) that there will always be a percentage of people who believe them, no matter how wrong they are.

Obviously, I care, so you are successful at hurting my feelings, if nothing else. And taking up some of my time, too. But your words can't change the reality we live in. And that reality is that disc golf is an awesome sport, the PDGA is lucky to have the great leadership that it has, and you're not on the board. And you won't ever be, because your attitude can't survive the light of an open campain and no one wants elected leadership that can so easily cast unfair slurs.

Plus, no doubt you are afraid to run, anyway.

Jeff Thomson:
As for now, no matter what comes out my vote will be to nix it.



What an eloquent, revealing statement.

Okay, we won't count on your vote.

...this June...



this June? how do you know that?

We're not looking for "discussion",

wow. just wow.




That is pretty shocking. Chuck posts on another thread that many in PDGA leadership positions may leave if the new constitution isn't approved but yet Theo doesn't want feedback that might ensure its passage. :confused:

It's going to pass. Anyone who is honest enough to actually pay up when it does want to make a side bet? I'd be happy to take your money.

Of course it is going to pass. Most of the membership won't vote, and most of those who do won't read the proposed version.

And I'm saying that as a reflection on people, not with any intent for or against the rewrite.

It's not that it would be sour grapes and Board members might quit if it doesn't pass, other potential volunteers who might have become board members also might not do so without the revised constitution. The current one can't be followed properly as written and is outdated for the structure and size of our organization and where it's headed.

Even with an exhaustive attempt to explain items blow by blow on a message board, it can't possibly capture the depth of discussion, compromises and tradeoffs that occur when hammering out a document like this. It would be like a movie team trying to show you and explain why each take, dialog change and edits were done to produce a movie. Most people don't care including the electrician, hairstylist, and grip on the production team. They buy their ticket and judge the final product.

Theo said they were not looking for "Discussion". He also said they were on a very tight schedule, and were hoping to have it done a week or two before the election.

Given the likelyhood of any type of useful consensus beign found here on any single topic (other than complete publication of all PDGA correspondence, which is a very bad idea) I hope they don't look for discussion if they are in a time crunch. Get it together, then we'll look at it and decide if it is a step forward.

That's a very good analogy, Chuck, and I think the difference is that although there may be a passage or two they might differ with, many people still respect the overall movie and the production that went into it. I would be in that boat. Others choose to dismiss the movie altogether - I think El Jefe and some other non-members who are no longer on this message board fall into that category.

From Pat: "Can you tell us when a copy of the proposed new wording might become available for Members to read, ponder, and potentially comment on through appropriate channels?"

Pat, even the board has not seen the written language yet. We had a verbal report on it from Kirk at the Summit and expect to have the recommended new language, most of which will be required-by-law boilerplate that the current document lacks, to approve for the ballot in the next month or so.

If I were Theo, I would have said that "we don't want DISCussion here of the rewrite prior to our board approval of it because we've all been busily talking to members about it now for years" (I am sure I've had more than a hundred such conversations.) and think that we have a pretty good idea of what changes are needed. I've certainly seen nothing on DISCussion yet that we haven't already been through and around.

I can't speak for others, but there's no way I think that a DISCussion here about it would have any value at all - because, like always - it would degenerate into name-calling (I just called Jeff Thomson a gold mine!). And, the active participants would be so few in comparison to the numbers of people we're already gotten input from.

Plus, there's no time unless we moved the vote back to 2007, which we won't do. This is needed now. And before you get critical about there being no time, note that one of the folks on here who is critical of the leadership was among that leadership and charged with this rewrite but couldn't finish the job. (No criticism of him intended for that! Someones we can get things done and sometimes we can't, for all sorts of reasons.) So we have the timing we have because of the long delays before we could find someone, Kirk Yoo, to do the job for us.

As for the feasibility of responding to a request for, say, all of my related emails. Well, I do *not* store my emails away in any hierarchical fashion except for date, and there are nearly 1,000,000 stored in my laptop. I'd have to take a week off of work and do nothing else to do a good job of finding the pertinent ones and organize them for someone else to read. I don't get $200/hr for most of my work, but I do get roughly $45/hr + benefits. I don't think anyone wants to pay me $1,600+ to get a pertinent set of my emails. (And I'm only one board member.)

If anyone does have those kind of bucks, though, I'd be happy to take a week's vacation and do it. I could collect vacation pay *and* that money - which would pay for Sheila and I to go on the disc golf cruise. She'd like that.

(Of course, there's a certain member of the film crew who is currently a Co-Producer when their obvious lack of people skills and leadership abilities should exclude him from even a role as gaffer or best boy...) :D

I won't be taking that bet. The new constitution will pass no matter what is put in it just like an incumbent would, with out doubt, get re-elected if they run again regardless if 100% of people that I have talked/heard from say they wouldn't vote for them.

Btw...

Terry,

Jeff is not the Grunion/Kernan/Discdud type guy. He is the Pres of our club so I know from experience that he is just very opinionated, stands up for what he beleives in and, as you have seen, does not sugar-coat his thoughts or pull punches. In the last 8 months he has done more then any other club President could hope to do in twice that time, not too mention the dude is incredible at pulling in sponsor money. Truly a great asset to the sport, especially here in the growing GT, IMO.

Jeff is not the Grunion/Kernan/Discdud type guy. He is the Pres of our club so I know from experience that he is just very opinionated, stands up for what he beleives in and, as you have seen, does not sugar-coat his thoughts or pull punches. In the last 8 months he has done more then any other club President could hope to do in twice that time, not too mention the dude is incredible at pulling in sponsor money. Truly a great asset to the sport, especially here in the growing GT, IMO.

I am so glad to hear that. You will note that I already, without even knowing him, called him a "gold mine." :) Nothing personal, Jeff, you tweaked me in a way that gets my goat. I am sure I'd like you in person - never met a disc golfer yet that I didn't like - but DISCussion, well . . . .

Anyway, Jeff has stimulated me to rethink not running for re-election. You are all invited to my poll (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Players&Number=519338&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1&fpart=1).

so Terry, how much do I owe you for that diatribe?

While this DISCussion board can be a free-for-all, characterizing all of what goes on here by the worst that happens paints a false picture. And merely pointing out that it isn't practical to go over all the ins and outs of the re-write process fails to look for the more practical solution of highlighting the differences between the old and new Constitutions as well as the rationale behind the changes.

Also, suggesting it's like a movie where every edit is not info that those making the movie, nor those funding the making of the movie, need to know about works so long as you also note what the themes of the movie are and what the gist of the changes are that are being made (especially if it is a re-make of an older movie). If that info has already been officially communicated and i missed it please point me in the right direction.

That would probably go a long way toward getting people to look forward to the changes to the Constitution, rather than fearing them.

If the PDGA leadership gets on the DISCussion Board and states the position that this board is a joke -- then that certainly creates an effect. Obviously there is less serious communication here if this place is passed by the leadership as a place to make serious communiques. Yet, it seems to me that Chuck communicates well here about ratings and course design (okay he does have extraordinary patience), and other announcements work here as well. Not discussing things may hide the degree of misinformation and negative opinions the membership holds, but it certainly won't do anything to change that for the better.

I am still trying to figure out why the leadership moved to make DISCussion exclusive to members-only, but now it discounts the value of this Board for serious discussion about the PDGA and disc golf?????

When you consider that almost every PDGA member 21 years or younger -- is online and looks online for information -- isn't now the time to treat at least one section of this DISCussion Board as a place for serious PDGA communication?

so Terry, how much do I owe you for that diatribe?



Well, it's a good thing that I'm a fast typist, Jeff. It probably took about 15 minutes, and I was doing other things at the same time. So, I'll let it slide.

Im actually good at tweaking people. Alot of honesty spews fourth when some one is po'ed. Let me know what I need to do to throw my hat inthe ring for a bod spot.
PS I'll respond to the diatribe attempting to slam me as a slanderer tonight when I get off the job site I'm on. Plus it will give me time to reflect on the comments made in order to respond with total effectiveness. :D

Nick wrote: This message board is notorious for malicious ill-willed demagoguery.

-- and --

I too once hoped that this board could accomplish what you hope it can.

Unfortunately, it has proven again and again to be primarily a source of entertainment, and all too often a source of indigestion, constipation and discourteous behavior. Never once has it proven to be a valuable source for communicating more than rudimentary information and certainly not official or serious feedback to the PDGA and it�s volunteers.

More times than not it is more of a soapbox for stating positions and throwing out ideas just to see what this smallish demographic of the PDGA thinks about it; or a sandbox where ideas are built up and then wiped out to start all over again. It is entertainment at it�s best. At it�s worst it is an embarrassment.

Regardless of how you slice it, it is not a place to communicate serious membership concerns to our PDGA volunteers. For that you�d do way better, and be taken way more seriously by writing an email or better yet making a call to the PDGA office. If you�ve never done it, you are in for a nice surprise.



to call for and then make this place members-only in order to make it family and donor friendly and then two months after it has become members-only to turn around and call it a proverbial brothel is to talk out of both sides of one's mouth.



Not at all and you are mischaracterizing my characterization of the discussion board. The reason I supported the policy of making it members only is to remove anonymous posters and to add value (without cost) to our PDGA Membership; not to make it a message board utopia. That would be completely impossible for more reasons than I can or want to discuss.

There are channels for serious discussion, the demogoguery that goes on here precludes this forum from serving any purpose beyond entertainment and very rudimentary information about discs, tournaments and where you're planning to shoot a round on Saturday.

In the end, you are more than welcome to keep attempting to push this rock up the hill. I'll be just as happy as the next guy if you ever manage to get it to the top; but what that would entail is nearly beyond comprehension or logistical possibility.

Terry If your time is soooooo valuable and you don't even have time to do your real job, how can you justify your volunteering for the pdga? if you can't be open and honest, get the hell out of dodge and let someone who has the time get the job done.



Jeff Thompson, that is just plain rude. It really is unacceptable. Do you behave this way out on the course? There is no need for that here, or anywhere.

Nick wrote: This message board is notorious for malicious ill-willed demagoguery.

-- and --

I too once hoped that this board could accomplish what you hope it can.

Unfortunately, it has proven again and again to be primarily a source of entertainment, and all too often a source of indigestion, constipation and discourteous behavior. Never once has it proven to be a valuable source for communicating more than rudimentary information and certainly not official or serious feedback to the PDGA and it�s volunteers.

More times than not it is more of a soapbox for stating positions and throwing out ideas just to see what this smallish demographic of the PDGA thinks about it; or a sandbox where ideas are built up and then wiped out to start all over again. It is entertainment at it�s best. At it�s worst it is an embarrassment.

Regardless of how you slice it, it is not a place to communicate serious membership concerns to our PDGA volunteers. For that you�d do way better, and be taken way more seriously by writing an email or better yet making a call to the PDGA office. If you�ve never done it, you are in for a nice surprise.



to call for and then make this place members-only in order to make it family and donor friendly and then two months after it has become members-only to turn around and call it a proverbial brothel is to talk out of both sides of one's mouth.



Not at all and you are mischaracterizing my characterization of the discussion board. The reason I supported the policy of making it members only is to remove anonymous posters and to add value (without cost) to our PDGA Membership; not to make it a message board utopia. That would be completely impossible for more reasons than I can or want to discuss.




Nick, it is quite a leap to go from granting that this Discussion Board has practical value for communications purposes and saying it can be a utopia. Noone is suggesting it will ever be that.

As to making this place members-only to add value to the membership -- did you really find yourself thinking that the PDGA membership isn't valuable before, but now that you can get on this DISCussion board and non-members cannot -- you find it suddenly has more value?

That is really backwards thinking. I still don't understand your denigrating this place as an avenue for serious discussion and then calling it an added value of membership. If there were sections that were open to all and sections for members-only that might be more true. Hasn't DISCussion Board use declined quite a bit since it went members-only? I know of at least one person who was about to join the PDGA and but after the move decided that the "PDGA doesn't want me." I am still trying to convince him to join, but haven't been successful (yet)... In this age of the internet isn't getting people to your website the trick, not keeping them away? Not letting them actively participate is a great way to make them lose interest.

Of course it is going to pass. Most of the membership won't vote, and most of those who do won't read the proposed version.

And I'm saying that as a reflection on people, not with any intent for or against the rewrite.



This is a pretty broad negative brush you are painting with there. I know that I will read it carefully and always vote.

I am actually comforted by the fact that only people "that really give a dang" about it are the ones that vote. It is sort of like a pre-screening, very convenient.

Rob, I'm really not sure of the source of your apparent hostility towards me is coming from but I simply am not going to play that game with you. I believe I have been as clear as possible:

In my opinion and experience this message board is incapable of serving any meaningful purpose as a place for serious "action-oriented" discussion. I get that you think it can and simply disagree.

I know for certain that emails and phone calls succeed, where clear acts of testosterone and bravado here on the mess bored fall on deaf ears fail. It is painfully obvious when folks would rather fan the flames of prejudices and ill-informed preconceptions than really achieve any understanding or resolution. All such pretense is impossible with a one-on-one email, phone call or face-to-face meeting. It just has nothing to feed on in those situations and dissipates into the molecules of hot air it is made out of.

Don�t take my word for it. Try it for yourself. I think you will be impressed with the results. Results are what it is all about, right?

Im actually good at tweaking people. Alot of honesty spews fourth when some one is po'ed. Let me know what I need to do to throw my hat inthe ring for a bod spot.
PS I'll respond to the diatribe attempting to slam me as a slanderer tonight when I get off the job site I'm on. Plus it will give me time to reflect on the comments made in order to respond with total effectiveness. :grin:

Uh-oh.

I believe that the nomination/election information is now posted (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=519412&Main=519412#Post519412).

Hello Everyone,

I have a challenge for those of you concerned about the re-write.

Please do some research about other sports associations and their constitutions (or lack there of). You will be surprised at what you find (or don't find).

Please feel free to drop me an email at [email protected] with your findings. Make sure to put something about the PDGA or Disc Golf in the subject line so it won't get deleted with the 700 other emails that I delete daily.

Kirk

Nick -- hostility?

also, do not assume i have no experience of communicating with the PDGA through what you see as appropriate channels.

Nick -- hostility?

also, do not assume i have no experience of communicating with the PDGA through what you see as appropriate channels.



Yes, hostility; there really is no call for it. And I can only go off what you tell me. Have you used the other means of communication I mentioned? And have you found that they yield superior results?

We are all aware of the results of this message board; a day doesn't go by without it attempting and then failing once again to accomplish anything of serious value. It is fun though, and I suppose that has value...

We are all aware of the results of this message board; a day doesn't go by without it attempting and then failing once again to accomplish anything of serious value. It is fun though, and I suppose that has value...



Nick, by 'we' are you speaking for the PDGA leadership or for everyone here including me? :confused:

Also, have you ever seriously examined your own role in the tendency of threads to turn unnecessarily personal and sour?

being interested in and offering concerns regarding the Re-writing of the Constitution should be welcomed, not slammed and dismissed as if it is some sort of hostile witch-hunt.

nevermind!

Im actually good at tweaking people. Alot of honesty spews fourth when some one is po'ed. Let me know what I need to do to throw my hat inthe ring for a bod spot.
PS I'll respond to the diatribe attempting to slam me as a slanderer tonight when I get off the job site I'm on. Plus it will give me time to reflect on the comments made in order to respond with total effectiveness. :D



Uh-oh.


Yep, I think the thesaurus is coming off the shelf...

so the timing of the constitution rewrite is unknown. if it is before the summer elections then the positions titles are gone, according to Theo. if its at the same time, we'll be voting for people to do things that the new constitution if approved will not permit them to do.

i am becoming confused, and i wish i could discuss this situation.

so the timing of the constitution rewrite is unknown. if it is before the summer elections then the positions titles are gone, according to Theo. if its at the same time, we'll be voting for people to do things that the new constitution if approved will not permit them to do.

i am becoming confused, and i wish i could discuss this situation.


I think it is very possible that Pat will be elected to the position of "Oversight Director" only to find that his position has been renamed and re-classiffied to "Board Member".

I also think that there will be no problem with that. :)

In the end, you are more than welcome to keep attempting to push this rock up the hill. I'll be just as happy as the next guy if you ever manage to get it to the top; but what that would entail is nearly beyond comprehension or logistical possibility.


I disagree.

Back to pushing...

There is not a single discussion on this board that resulted in any serious and real difference in the policies of the PDGA. Any real and serious discussion or action was worked out via email, phone or face to face.

It is entertainment at best for some and nearly (or completely) unbearable for others, getting anything serious and constructive is likely by accident.

I too am interested in the rewrite and would like to look at it and discuss it, but as Pat explained in glowing detail I trust and respect Kirk, Theo, Terry, Chappy and do not think that they would do anything to in any way damage the PDGA nor our membership rights.

Witch-hunting and demagoguery are a natural part of a forum like this. It would take a monumental effort on the part of every user to eliminate such distasteful and destructive tendencies. Even greater censorship would and seems to result in a distasteful and destructive situation of a different sort. It is what it is, and I appreciate it for that and the efforts of Rhett and others to improve it.

I think some of the tour rules were changed as a result of knee jerk reactions on here. The forced membership for B-tiers a few years ago is one and possibly the proposed raise in PDGA fees for 2006 that were rescinded is another one that were partially influenced by message board reaction.

I think some of the tour rules were changed as a result of knee jerk reactions on here. The forced membership for B-tiers a few years ago is one and possibly the proposed raise in PDGA fees for 2006 that were rescinded is another one that were partially influenced by message board reaction.



Partial perhaps, but without the other correspondances it would have had no effect.

Once again I find myself painfully in agreement with Nick.

I too once thought that Discussion could be used as a forum for ideas to help the PDGA and to some degree; I still feel it is a good sounding board, but the idea of actually vetting a new Constitution here gives me the willys.

I will quote an oft repeated post. The people who #$*&$! and moan the most about this kind of stuff, for the most part, are the ones who have the least experience in how these things actually occur. Often enough, they are also the last to volunteer. Of course there are no absolutes.

Why the Board isn't looking for a discussion. Why should they? All of them are experienced business leaders. They assigned the task of reviewing how small organizations handle these matters to Kirk Yoo who did a huge chunk of research on the topic and presented it in an open forum (I knew that forum occurred because I read the post that Brian placed on this site). Their intent is to make the organization run more smoothly and dynamically.

Oh wait, I see, why would we want that. Bad Board, Bad Board.

The notion that we should treat this proposal as a stinky dog dropping without even looking at it is why Nick feels that nothing truly profitable occurs here. It is hard to argue he is wrong.

Well then, let's help effect a change in culture here ourselves. :)

Let those of us who would like to see effective discourse here rise to the occasion with points like the one that Lyle had above. Let's remind the members that read this forum that we should not instantly assume the worst possible motives from our elected BOD.

I think Nick disagree's with me because I wasn't clear on what I meant. I do not think that this forum can be used to form the new constitution for the org. However, I do believe that meaningful discussion about the proposed new document can be done here. There are about two months that the polls are open, IIRC. In order to vote on this proposed change the document must be ready by then, hopefully sooner, so we will have that period of time to discuss it.

Some will try and moan and cry for no reason, but they can be ignored. Those of us that are interested in the workings of our org should read the re-write and post here where we can question things we don't understand and hoepfully get explanations about it. This forum is perfect for that. I expect that the re-write will be very well-done and the contents of it should be defensible by the authors and BOD. If we find anything truly wrong with it it will be too late for revision, but I seriously doubt that there will be anything extreme enough to warrant rejecting it. But who knows.

We should be able to fight the good fight and keep a discussion about the re-write on topic, and we should be able to, as a community, shout down the naysayers who try to ruin that discussion without trouncing on those who have legitimate gripes with the language. I would have no hesitation in moderating and deleting personal attacks or extremely off-topic drifts. This is an important topic and the more communication about it the better.

My optimism is running kind of high today. Somebody, quick, bring me back down to Earth.

Rhett,

I want to personally thank you for all of the work you have done and will do.

Kirk

Why the Board isn't looking for a discussion. Why should they? All of them are experienced business leaders.



First of all, I have no idea what they are after with rewriting the constitution. Secondly, "experienced business leaders" means nothing to me. It doesn't imply compentency, nor does it give me an inkling of their intent. It's almost insulting, like telling your wife not to worry her pretty little head about your new investment cause you have done it before. In other words, this "trust them" attitude is bad policy.

That being said, I don't assume any nefarious motives at all. I just think there are ways to get support and buy in, and the BOD should pursue them. "Just trust us" is not one of them.

IMO, it helps both PDGA members and the BOD when the BOD makes a conscious effort to sell their ideas, and then take public input. The BOD might find the input useful; a good sell both eliminates some dissent and creates some support; and at a minimum, people do appreciate the fact that you care enough to inform them of decisions which will affect them.

Here here Rhett!

looks like the message boards is getting ready to blow up. isee wierd eros at the top of the page. and i didnt change ANY code this time! :eek: :D

I hate to be harsh James... well O.K. I'm going to enjoy this. The reason what I wrote means nothing to you is because you haven't bothered to a) read their posts, b) read through their r�sum�s (posted when they ran for office or were asked to participate), ask questions or participate in a meaningful way in Board decisions (I admit that some of this I know from talking to Board members at events and on the phone, but of course, I took the time to do that). You are right though, a business background doesn�t imply competency, accomplishing what these guys have, as written in their personal statements posted when they ran for office does. You may be right, that they are incompetent, but that ignores the fact that they were voted into office or asked to participate by those who were voted into office. That empowers them at some level. Does it mean they should go unchecked? Obviously not, but then again, they haven�t asked for that now have they.

As for why they are rewriting, go back to Theo's post. He states some of the goals. He also says that much of what is there will still be there just in a different format structured the way that most small organizations structure these documents.

It feels that the assumption here is that the board is trying to pull a fast one. My guess is that the board is confident enough in what they are doing that they know when the membership looks at this stuff there won't be a hue and cry to lynch them all.


As for input, what makes you think they haven't gotten input? The recognition that because they didn't post it here or didn't ask you doesn't mean they had no input. However, that aside, the kind of input you're asking for takes time and effort. Furthermore, by long experience, I know that asking for it is for the most part a time consuming waste of effort. It isn't that people don't care, they're busy living their lives. The Board, being mature businesspersons understand that those who really want to contribute will find a way to do so. The rest will sit back and post nasty messages here.

Conversely, I agree completely with your assessment that good communication and sales is important and should be applied. I suspect that these guys find it hard enough just to get the job done without having to sell it to the 5 people who are mad about it and determined to tell the world - right here.



Why the Board isn't looking for a discussion. Why should they? All of them are experienced business leaders.



First of all, I have no idea what they are after with rewriting the constitution. Secondly, "experienced business leaders" means nothing to me. It doesn't imply compentency, nor does it give me an inkling of their intent. It's almost insulting, like telling your wife not to worry her pretty little head about your new investment cause you have done it before. In other words, this "trust them" attitude is bad policy.

That being said, I don't assume any nefarious motives at all. I just think there are ways to get support and buy in, and the BOD should pursue them. "Just trust us" is not one of them.

IMO, it helps both PDGA members and the BOD when the BOD makes a conscious effort to sell their ideas, and then take public input. The BOD might find the input useful; a good sell both eliminates some dissent and creates some support; and at a minimum, people do appreciate the fact that you care enough to inform them of decisions which will affect them.






Why the Board isn't looking for a discussion. Why should they? All of them are experienced business leaders.



First of all, I have no idea what they are after with rewriting the constitution. Secondly, "experienced business leaders" means nothing to me. It doesn't imply compentency, nor does it give me an inkling of their intent. It's almost insulting, like telling your wife not to worry her pretty little head about your new investment cause you have done it before. In other words, this "trust them" attitude is bad policy.

That being said, I don't assume any nefarious motives at all. I just think there are ways to get support and buy in, and the BOD should pursue them. "Just trust us" is not one of them.

IMO, it helps both PDGA members and the BOD when the BOD makes a conscious effort to sell their ideas, and then take public input. The BOD might find the input useful; a good sell both eliminates some dissent and creates some support; and at a minimum, people do appreciate the fact that you care enough to inform them of decisions which will affect them.

The first time that I had to refer to the constitution I was stunned at how poorly written, redundant, full of holes, lacking required language for corporate entities, self-inconsistent, and so forth it is. From that day on, for four years now, I think, I have been pushing the board (joined by others) to get it written and brought up to date.

I don't mean the above to be critical of the founders. They did a good job (a) for the time, (b) for what their experience was, and (c) for a drastically different and much smaller organization.

A rewrite to a modern set of bylaws is something that the board has been talking about, thinking about, and trying to get done for a long, long time. (Quite a bit in public - what with minutes, postings, and discussions at Summits.)

Other priorities, of course, kept getting in the way, since there is more to do than we have people to do. Without even seeing what Kirk has produced yet, I am thrilled that he is getting the job done. And will be even happier when it's in place and we can move on with a much better footing for the organization.

You may be right, that they are incompetent



Wonderful mischaracterization. Too bad I don't have more time to expose it for the crap that it is. When I say that your assertion "'they are experienced business leaders' hardly equates to "they must be right,'" I am hardly implying that "they are incompetant."

I just hope that when they draw conclusions, they excercise more intelligence and integrity than you.

Courtesy violation called!

I just hope that when they draw conclusions, they excercise more intelligence and integrity than you.

my nominee for Burn of the Year ! :D:D:D

Pat, even the board has not seen the written language yet. We had a verbal report on it from Kirk at the Summit and expect to have the recommended new language, most of which will be required-by-law boilerplate that the current document lacks, to approve for the ballot in the next month or so.

well, the BoD at least knows what the basic approach and high level structure and principles the new Constitution would have. (i would hope.) how aout just getting a synopsis of that online?

remember when the "transformational model" was a hot topic? there was a lot of input. versions were posted, comment was solicited.

most of us are not privy to all of the murmurings that have been occurring since whenever the idea of a rewrite began. we have no clue as to the changes proposed, and this change is far more important. it is the basis upon which the organization operates! at this point we dont even know if the current version is being thrown out completely, or just heavily amended.

I just hope that when they draw conclusions, they excercise more intelligence and integrity than you.

my nominee for Burn of the Year ! :D:D:D



More like uncharacteristic rudeness of the year. Is there something going on between you 3 that the rest of us don't know? If so, please don't feel any necessity to share it or your apparent hostility towards one another.

Somehow I get the feeling this is not kind-natured kidding even with the 3 smileys...

What are you seeing that i am not?

What i see is Lyle made a statement towards James(i actually beleive Lyle didnt mean it the way he wrote it) James took offense to it and responded with the same way he thought he was being talked to. Sandal popped in with a comment which appears to me to be humor with genuine 3 smiles.

and...Why does it seem that you are trying to jack with Pat at every chance possible? Are you afraid of something?

Your assumption is incorrect Scott. There seems to be genuine animosity between them; I'll be happy if that is not the case. If it is, they may want to cut each other a little break here so they don't come off so angry with each other. Something easily misunderstood here, and easy to correct.

I can see where you think that about Lyle and James...just not sure how or why you are putting Pat into that. I think Lyle said something that came out the wrong way and of course James took it the wrong way. I could be wrong on that but I don;t think I am wrong that Pat doesnt fit into this . Did I miss something that was going on elsewhere?

Hello Everyone,

Take some time away from the Disgusting Board and do some research on sports associations constitutions.

Please tell me what you find...or don't find. That was a hint.

Kirk

actually, i know both Lyle and James. i've played rounds with both. i consider both friends.. in fact i wish i knew both of them better. i am fairly sure that both know i think highly of both of them. James and i are often on opposite sides of discussions, and James almost always kicks my butt on the course. (ok, i'll admit it, the "almost" part can be dropped"). Lyle and i are often on the same side of political discussions. i find both extremely reasonable, often humorous and genuinely good guys.

it was just some simple message board humor, nothing malicious or sinister about it.

would volunteer organizations be weighted the same? there are lots of those organizations around.

Hello Everyone,

Take some time away from the Disgusting Board and do some research on sports associations constitutions.

Kirk



didn't you hear? it is now members-only and so the board is now tasteful and serious. (or at least can be if we make it that way instead of denigrating it)

my dog ate that homework. are you implying other sports organizations have no Constitutions to be found?

http://gwired.gwu.edu/gwellness/ClubSports/SampleConstitution/

http://www.jcu.edu/studentl/Athletics/club/constitution.doc


probably not what you are looking for. i dont have the time at the moment to make a thorough search or to read through them. From what I have seen so far there is not too much to be found though.

Your assumption is incorrect Scott.



Sandal man says:
actually, i know both Lyle and James. i've played rounds with both. i consider both friends.. in fact i wish i knew both of them better. i am fairly sure that both know i think highly of both of them. James and i are often on opposite sides of discussions, and James almost always kicks my butt on the course. (ok, i'll admit it, the "almost" part can be dropped"). Lyle and i are often on the same side of political discussions. i find both extremely reasonable, often humorous and genuinely good guys.

it was just some simple message board humor, nothing malicious or sinister about it



Nick,

Whoda thunk it, you dont know everything /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

You chasing Pat around giving him a hard time about everything reminds me of something...dont you have a follower :)

i think Nick has several ;)

some interesting things in this one (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~stact/sam.const.html)

a yahoo search for "organization sample constitution" yields "about 1,780,000" results. many of these are samples and templates, many are actual constitutions.

You may be right, that they are incompetent



Wonderful mischaracterization. Too bad I don't have more time to expose it for the crap that it is. When I say that your assertion "'they are experienced business leaders' hardly equates to "they must be right,'" I am hardly implying that "they are incompetant."

I just hope that when they draw conclusions, they excercise more intelligence and integrity than you.



Pat is closer to the truth and knows me well enough to not only post some humor but to also give me a hard time.


First of all, I have no idea what they are after with rewriting the constitution. Secondly, "experienced business leaders" means nothing to me. It doesn't imply compentency, nor does it give me an inkling of their intent.



Perhaps my use of English is not what it should be but I'm pretty sure that your intent was to say that the fact they are business leaders doesn't mean they are competent. I will fully admit that you didn't call them incompetent but your post was rude nonetheless. My reply in kind was inappropriate I admit and therefore I apologize.

On the other hand, you've taken this basic approach seems to be that they are doing something that won't be vetted and are going to force it upon the PDGA when that is not the truth. Their approach is to write the thing in their own way and then submit it to the body of the organization for approval. That is hardly saying "don't worry your pretty little head about it."

The simple fact is that the Board has informed the members of this change in several ways and at different times. Most recently, they posted it as an agenda item at their summit and those meetings are open to any who wish to come. Given this, I have to wonder why you are so upset? I understand that you didn't realize the process had started and is ongoing but that isn't the Boards fault. Perhaps you felt they should have sent out a letter to each member explaining that this was ongoing?

If you read Theo and now Terry's posts you can see that their main goal is not to change the direction of the Constitution, but rather to tighten it up and make it a more viable legal document. I don't see that as anything but caring about the organization. Furthermore, I don't see how my faith in their ability to do that comes off as they must be right. I have to ask, right about what? Right about tightening up the Constitution? I think that is a great idea and that is what has been said in the past. What is it you think they might be doing? Writing themselves into paid positions? Giving themselves unprecedented powers? Or is it that you feel that each part, as it is rewritten, should be presented to the membership?

As for competence as business leaders, I've read enough of their writing and seen enough of the documentation put together by them to know that they will do a more than competent job of "cleaning up" the Constitution.

As for trusting them, well yes I do. Does that mean that I would say �do what you want?� No it means I trust them to do a good job of rewriting the Constitution and then to provide it to the membership for a vote.

By the way, contrary to your opinion of me, I think you are very intelligent and have a great deal of integrity, I just disagree with you on this point.

actually, i know both Lyle and James. i've played rounds with both. i consider both friends.. in fact i wish i knew both of them better. i am fairly sure that both know i think highly of both of them. James and i are often on opposite sides of discussions, and James almost always kicks my butt on the course. (ok, i'll admit it, the "almost" part can be dropped"). Lyle and i are often on the same side of political discussions. i find both extremely reasonable, often humorous and genuinely good guys.

it was just some simple message board humor, nothing malicious or sinister about it.



Glad to here it.

What are you seeing that i am not?

What i see is Lyle made a statement towards James(i actually beleive Lyle didnt mean it the way he wrote it) James took offense to it and responded with the same way he thought he was being talked to. Sandal popped in with a comment which appears to me to be humor with genuine 3 smiles.

and...Why does it seem that you are trying to jack with Pat at every chance possible? Are you afraid of something?



No, we're actually discussing things. Why? Does that scare you?

Hello Everyone,

Take some time away from the Disgusting Board and do some research on sports associations constitutions.

Kirk



didn't you hear? it is now members-only and so the board is now tasteful and serious. (or at least can be if we make it that way instead of denigrating it)

my dog ate that homework. are you implying other sports organizations have no Constitutions to be found?



Rob, is it some kind of crime not to like or respect this message board? If so then a majority of PDGA members are criminals.

I can think of at least 10 big time organizers that hate this board with a passion.

Do you have any interest in knowing why?

Nick there is a lot of dirt here that's for sure. But why throw out the baby with the bathwater? I have learned a great deal here about rules, about our leadership, and about discs and tournaments and players -- though i have certainly come across a lot that i find distasteful. We could wax nostalgic for a pre-internet era -- but the internet is here to stay and our message board is the PDGA message board. And at least for the time being -- all posts reflect the opinions of PDGA members. Would you characterize it as disgusting?

It just kinda comes off like you are on a mission to stump Pat up at every corner. I guess it is fine since he doesn't seem to have a problem answering all your questions. I was just curious as to why you are taking such an interest in Pat when I have never seen you do anything like this with anyone else.

I have no reason to be "scared" of anything.

I enjoy reading his responses to your questions. Your questions have also sparked someone into asking Terry to go through the "Nick Kight Questionaire" should he run for BoD again and I really look forward to reading his answers. Maybe it will change my current opinion of him. Hopefully everyone that plans to run for BoD will answer all your questions also.

The reason I responded to you earlier was becasue you lumped Pat into a disagreement between 2 others, couple that with your constant questioning I thought maybe there was something you were afraid of about Pat or about him being on the board.

Occasionally, yes. But you are preaching to the choir here. I like the message board. I enjoy it thoroughly and even enter into serious discussions in good faith.

What is all too apparent is that it turns nasty more often than not. Yes, yes, yes I've heard it before, it is my fault for that, well, there may be some truth to that, but it does take two to tangle and I've seen things escalate out of control when I'm not involved at all.

I hope that we see better discussion and plan to do my part to keep it that way. But don't fault me for seeing it for what I have seen it now for almost 10 years, as entertainment and not as a place for productive discussions.

Hey! If that changes GREAT! But I have seen no such trend yet. Little by little let's hope, but at the same time we need to respect that some folks will continue to detest the bad stuff that goes on here.

Too often do folks with nothing at stake deeply insult those with a great deal at stake, the result of that equation is that many folks that do a lot don't want any part of this board. Not all, but a significant portion.

How do you change that? Good question. I've been trying to find answers to that since 2000 when I started the DGLC. Even there, where there is not threat of flaming, organizers tend to post only rarely.

I was just curious as to why you are taking such an interest in Pat when I have never seen you do anything like this with anyone else.



I did this with Mike also until it got ugly. I don't plan that here, nor would I participate in it if it got ugly here.

I am extending every benefit of the doubt to Pat honestly and sincerely, no hidden agenda what-so-ever.

I realized a long time ago that folks personalities on this board are rarely their real ones. Most of that realization comes from dealing with them out in the "real" world.

At any rate, I'm simply not going to participate in flaming arguments here anymore. The thrill is gone, if it was ever there in the first place. It's actually easier than I thought and a lot more seems to get done.

Then again I haven't been openly disagreeing with Pat; that will be the real test; see how we behave then...

Any conversation with Mike gets ugly. You should see the mess he is making over at the SN board now that he doesnt have the PDGA board to do it on.

Hello Everyone,

I like the idea of having some meaningfull discussion here. So, can we please keep the discussion limited to matters concerning the constitution?

If you limit your search to sports associations you will find very few of them actually have a constitution. Here are some that don't: the PGA, the LPGA, the USGA, the USRA (racquetball), the PBA (bowling), the list keeps going.

Most of what you will find is geared towards small clubs and collegiate sports. There are even some sample constitutions provided by some of the associations listed above that are specifically targeted to small local clubs.

Typically a constitution is used when an association is very small (as we were when our original C was written).

Anyway, so far I have only received 1 email from my request yesterday. Either very few people are paying any attention to this thread or no one is taking the time to do any research.

Those of you that have so far (Scott &amp; Pat) I appreciate your efforts but neither of your examples really apply to our situation.

I will be happy to reply to any emails that I receive and I will try to reply to any posts on this thread that are relevant.

Kirk

I played a round with some very hospitable southern gentlemen in Little Rock in 2001. I was in town with my parents visiting a friend and was able to get to the course and play. Mostly all the local disc golfers were at the SN Championships and there were only a few players left in town. Anyway, one of the guys and I were visiting about the PDGA and he said he still had the copy of the original, hand-written PDGA Constitution. His name was Ted S. I was honored that he shared with me the history about how he and his friend dictated the entire first PDGA constitution to his wife while on their long road trip to Rochester, NY Worlds. He was an amazing person to listen to and learn about early PDGA history, and play disc golf with! He even gave me a mini from the Rose Bowl $50,000 disc golf tournament!

The PDGA has been in existence for 30 years now. I wonder how many actual constitution rewrites there have been, or has there mostly been amendments to it?

And Kirk, you for sure are doing your homework by comparing other associations. I know you are putting a lot of time and thought into the rewrite. Thanks for your hard work!

now i am confused. are you saying that constitutions of sports associations are applicable (i agree) but those of volunteer organizations are not (i disagree)

are you saying that because not many sports associations have constitutions, then we should not either? no disrepect intended here, but that sounds like a "cuz its always been done that way" attitude. (and i absolutely could be interpreting your comments in a manner in which you did not intend.)

if neither scotts or my examples apply, then what exactly would apply? what specifically are you looking for?

Pat,

My point was that as an organization grows the need for a Constitution diminishes. We will still have one but it will be considerably shorter and more streamlined than the current one.

I was merely pointing out that if you do the research (and believe me I have) there are almost no sports orgs or associations that have a Constitution.

I did find one sports association that has one but it is 126 pages long. I can tell you right now (in as Southern an accent as I can muster) "That ain't gonna happen!!!"

Kirk

corporations and other business have Policy and Procedure documents. other forms of organizations have either contitutions or bylaws or both. whatever you call it, entities have documents that describe their purpose, values, and how they operate. these documents almost always outline consequences for failure to follow the procedures. most also outline how change is to be handled.

so whether it is called a constitution or a bylaw or a whatever, we are changing the fundamental document of our organization. the Members, apparently, will have little time to review and consider these changes. within reason, the more time the better. hence the underlying desire for as much advance notice, even in draft form, as possible.

this is (or should be) a matter for serious concern for all Members.

Kirk,

Do you have a reference to the structure you are trying to move the Constitution to? Will it continue to encompass all the areas that are in the current constitution? Will there be major additions or subtractions to the current rules that govern the organization (with the exception of changing the structure of the Board)?

I know I'm asking a lot but short answers to these quesions might go a long way towards giving James and Pat a higher comfort level.

Pat,

You are absolutely correct. And, we will have those documents in place.

However, I don't believe it "is (or should be) a matter for serious concern".

Do you truly believe that I or any of the BOD are going to produce a document that is not in the best interest of Disc Golf, our Members and the PDGA?

If you truly believe that the Constitution presented to you during the voting process is not overall better than the current one then you have the option to not vote for it. And, if it is not overall better then I would actively encourage you to lobby others not to vote for it as well.

Kirk

Lyle,

It will be significantly shorter than the current version.

Kirk

Pat,

I guess I should have asked this as well:

Isn't a 2 month window long enough for our Members "to review and consider these changes"?

Kirk

i think a two month window was be awesome. Theo however used the phrase "very tight", which is what lead some of the concerns expressed here.

i have no reason to pre-judge the quality or appropriateness of the proposed document. (i am very consciously keeping my feelings about the recent rules changes to the sidelines in order to keep an open mind on this topic :D)

Pat,

I believe that the window for Member voting is 2 months long. You will have 2 months in which to vote. I would hope our Membership has time in that 2 months to read through it and make their decision.

Kirk

although if a Member(s) wished to submit a proposed amendment to the changes they would have very little if no time at all to get their ideas reviewed, or to gather the 10% of the Active Membership required to force a rejected proposal onto the ballot.

(not picking a fight here, just pointing out a procedural issue)

I went ahead and checked some other Disc Sports orgs to see what I came up with. There were also many more sports with mission statements pages and bylaws on their sites. I also sent out a few emails for some copies of some org's constitutions. These are a just few I found in disc sports:

http://www.ukultimate.com/About/constitution.aspx

http://www.afda.com/showcontent.php?page=constitution

http://freestyledisc.org/docs/bylaws.html

If you were just trying to send me on a wild goose chase or something please tell me since I assumed you were actually wanting help in located other orgs documents. :)

Besides the dial-up connection I am on slowing me down, I am not having too hard a time finding stuff.

Pat,

Again, you are correct.

Kirk

Scott,

I am sorry. I did not mean to send you on a stobor hunt (now there is an obscure literary reference).

I was attempting to get folks thinking about what the possibilities are. All too often I see folks going ballistic on the Discussion Board without doing any research.

Kirk

Because you asked for input via e-mail, I am responding. I agree there is little (no) need for a constitution. However, there is need for some rules for the governance. Normally, it would be the by-laws of the organization. It appears by further reading on the DISCussion board that essentially the constitution will become a more definitive by-laws agreement. Sadly to admit, I have not read them for the PDGA. I am too heavily involved in too many other organizations, similar to Terry, but realized best not to keep overloading. I trust those involved, including you to take care of matters at hand. Believe me, if I did not, I would make time to do further research, contact Board of Director members directly with my exact concerns, attend a summit meeting (s), and be on the board.

Thank you for all you do...and have done.

PS - this is a copy of the e-mail that I sent.

However, I don't believe [rewriting the Constitution] "is (or should be) a matter for serious concern".

Do you truly believe that I or any of the BOD are going to produce a document that is not in the best interest of Disc Golf, our Members and the PDGA?


Kirk, you're missing the point. No one doubts your intentions or your abilities. But no one should doubt the membership's intentions or abilities, either. We have our own perspective(s), we can read, we can judge, and we can vote. I imagine, like the new rulebook, there will be a lot to like in the new constitution. I also imagine there will be one or two things I don't understand or don't agree with. Will those concerns rise to the level of not voting for the whole document? Probably not, if the changes are minor. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility entirely.

And I think you, as the author, ought to be the most concerned about that possibility, however remote, that your constitution will be voted down. You ought to have that in mind as you review your own decisions when re-writing it. Because if you don't consider other perspectives, you increase the chances that you are losing sight of something.

If you truly believe that the Constitution presented to you during the voting process is not overall better than the current one then you have the option to not vote for it. And, if it is not overall better then I would actively encourage you to lobby others not to vote for it as well.


Well, that's what we we're supposed to do, right? I didn't think you were asking for a rubberstamp vote before, or that you were expecting one.

after Scott posted links to 3 disc sport organizations and their by-laws and constitutions, Kirk wrote:

Scott,

I am sorry. I did not mean to send you on a stobor hunt (now there is an obscure literary reference).

I was attempting to get folks thinking about what the possibilities are. All too often I see folks going ballistic on the Discussion Board without doing any research.


Well, Scott actually found some stobors, didn't he? I thought you were saying those other sports organizations wouldn't have what Scott found, but since they do, that takes away the supports to your argument, Kirk, doesn't it, that we don't need a constitution?

Your research on this, Kirk, apparently differs with Scott's. Your written presentation on this to the board -- is that available somewhere? Where can I look at your findings regarding the kind of constitutions we should be emulating?

(I'm also emailing this, since Kirk seems to want emails.)

Regards,
Paul

I should probably point out that I didnt exactly do a bunch of "research" to find those 3 out of about 20 links that I could have posted. Was just a simple google search with a couple of different search words and phrases.***

Btw, I never got an email back from the other orgs that I sent a request to for a link or copy of their constitution and/or bylaws.(unless i didnt catch their response in my junk mail filter or something)


***[i am in no way saying that Kirk has not done enough research...please do not take it that way]

The primary communication mechanisms for access to all members are the DGWN and mail. Not enough members have web access or email to make these the only channels for important member communications.


No one is saying that email and the web are the only methods for important member communications. However, you are using the web to post the current constitution -- I never received it in the mail -- not to mention many other good things on this website. That's a plus, and what jefe is suggesting might be another plus.

The cost and time delays preclude using the DGWN and mail for transparency of all communications and decisions without slowing PDGA business to a snail's pace.


No, it's just an archive, Chuck. Properly implemented, archives get filled at the speed of normal business, they don't slow it down.

[/QUOTE]
That's not to say this information shouldn't ultimately get to members with the slower methods.

[/QUOTE]
And since the slower methods would probably slow things down considerably, that's another reason for moving things to the web!

The difference is the web can be used for output from the PDGA but not for timely full membership input. Polling and voting still has to be done via DGWN and mail in addition to internet options, both of which are too slow for the type of daily operating decisions that need to be made for the org to function. For document output, the web is a member convenience for those who have it. But non-internet members can always get the constitution or any other document with written request by mail or phone.

The difference is the web can be used for output from the PDGA but not for timely full membership input.

this isnt exactly true. Theo claimed that his internet voting initiative has measurably increased Member voting, so it doesnt have to be the "full" Membership that counts. it would be awesome to use the internet (web and email) anytime a BoD member has a question, suggestion, or committs to spend more than a certain amount. send the communication either by email or post to a site or an address that publishes it immediately on the website. awesome and easy. no additional work for anyone, except those who wish to stay up to date with whats going on. and it doesnt have to be two way communication either - just post it with an email address or phone number of the poster.

btw, what if the amount was something like an amount equal to the smallest total of fees collected at any Major over the last 12 months.

well Theo seems to take a fair amount of the credit with this "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."

allright, then what about NTs?

either way, neither point really addresses the idea of making the thinking of the leadership available in something closer to real time.

well Theo seems to take a fair amount of the credit with this "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."



I'm not quite sure what the criticism is here.

I was involved in the board discussion and decision from day one. I have done quite a bit of work in cryptographic software solutions and computer security. I spent time talking about using online voting with a principle from one of the leading companies developing the technology. I worked with the office with selecting the vendor and the contract. Brian did all the important work of setting up the election, testing it, working with the vendor, collecting and publishing the results, etc.

Did I overstate my involvement somehow, or is the issue that we didn't communicate the decision making process in enough detail?

-Theo

you did neither.

my point was that if 50% more members are voting online than in paper only ballots, then online must be considered a very important communicaion channel. not only could it, but it should be developed as such.

you did neither.

my point was that if 50% more members are voting online than in paper only ballots, then online must be considered a very important communicaion channel. not only could it, but it should be developed as such.



Not sure that is a valid correlation Pat. Very few folks voted even with the new option, and it does not mean that suddenly this website became a better means of communication. Just that it helped get more votes.

I�d agree with you that using this website as one of many tools to increase communication between the PDGA BOD and Volunteers is worthwhile, but I would hesitate to say that it would be a significant solution just yet. (Or that the vote is an indicator one way or the other.

"more than doubled"

i dont care how low the number was to start with, doubling is a great thing. maybe not a complete solution, but no voting system will ever achieve, but a very significant step in a positive direction.

"more than doubled"

i dont care how low the number was to start with, doubling is a great thing. maybe not a complete solution, but no voting system will ever achieve, but a very significant step in a positive direction.



Hey! Don't forget communism. Maybe the PDGA should go RED and we'll get 100% turnout.

I know what you're saying, I just don't think it is overly convincing knowing the attitudes of a vast number of disc golfers I know towards the internet and even directly against pdga.com message board.

Honestly, I wish this forum and medium could be the magic wand. I know it isn't as of today though.

Scott,

" http://www.ukultimate.com/About/constitution.aspx

<font color="red"> </font> This one proves my point. It is a very short Constitution. And, according to their own C they are "an unincorporated body".

http://www.afda.com/showcontent.php?page=constitution

<font color="red"> </font> Hmmmmmm, I like this one. Very, very short.

http://freestyledisc.org/docs/bylaws.html

<font color="red"> </font> Proves my point. Bylaws, not a Consititution. "



[/QUOTE]

Cool. Hope they helped. If you need anymore links or anything just let me know .

http://www.afda.com/showcontent.php?page=constitution

<font color="red"> </font> Hmmmmmm, I like this one. Very, very short.


Did you mis-read this, Kirk? The html page is titled the Constitution, but the link to the Constitution is really a Microsoft Word document, about halfway down the page:
http://www.afda.com/resources/afda_constitution20030425.doc

Not all that short after all.


http://freestyledisc.org/docs/bylaws.html

<font color="red"> </font> Proves my point. Bylaws, not a Consititution. "


Proves your point? How? I thought your point is a constitution wasn't necessary. Here, they wrote their bylaws just as anyone else would write a constitution, with "Article I", "Article II", etc., as their subject headers.

If you want to retitle our constitution "bylaws", would that make your job easier? (Go ahead if it does, I say.)