I have heard from people that have already voted in the PDGA elections that the new constitution is on the ballot. Who decided to put the constitution change on the ballot without disclosing the new constitution? Does this person think that the PDGA members are so clueless that we will approve a constitution that none of us have read? Was this somekind of amazing oversite that the new constitution wasn't released for review before the election? What's going on with this?

While I understand your concern, I don't think it is necessary. First, the rewrite and the general direction it was going to take have been the topic of much discussion here. Second, as has been pointed out in those discussions the rewrite is badly overdue and needed. Third, if you read the rewrite you will see why the Board did not put it up for discussion. That is because it is a fairly standard presentation of the articles of incorporation for a Corporation with some exceptions to point out that the Corporation isn't in the business of making money for it's Board. The entire read is approximately 3 minutes leaving you plenty of time to step away from the proposal and think about it. With the limitations on the time of the Board and Executive Director, I think they felt the clarity of the document would suffice.

I was not privy to the rewrite or all of it's goals but I can say that after reading it I'm in complete agreement. The proposed document protects both the PDGA and the Board the same as the bylaws of any Corporation should.

On the other hand, some selling would have been a good thing. Many good ideas have come crashing down around their proposers' heads because they weren't well presented. Furthermore, many stupid ideas have come to fruition because they were well sold.

makes one wonder. the documents were formally requested two months ago, and if i remember correctly were promised, in accordance with the existing constitution. it is far better to vote no to the new wording and let the new board discuss it openly.

there is no rush to vote. i hope most of us will wait until we've heard both sides.

Considering that access to PDGA internal communications in the old constitution was a contentious issue on here a while back, I'm surprised that the new Articles appear to be completely silent on how members can get access to or have any rights to either general Board communications or PDGA financial statements. It didn't even appear that minutes of Board meetings needed to be produced for members. Did I miss it?

The new documents and our introduction to the changes can be found here:

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=553684&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

This was a challenging process that we have been pushing to complete for a few years now. If the timing had been different, we could have provided drafts for comments to the membership. We also could have decided to put it off for another year to allow that, but we felt it was important to get the changes approved sooner rather than later.

The board feels that the revised documents are more standard (from a legal perspective) and consistent than the previous ones, and they will allow the organization to continue its growth without hinderance due to outdated bylaws. The board appreciates your support and recommends that you approve the proposed changes.

If you want to contact me with individual comments, send me a note (http://www.pdga.com/contact.php?a=sf&contact=Commissioner).

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

Could someone write this out in more plain english? the legal talk always confuses me and its hard to actually tell what was meant by specific passages.
This definitly should have been brought up and discussed before going to a vote. Its just suicide to slap something like this on there.

Could someone write this out in more plain english? the legal talk always confuses me and its hard to actually tell what was meant by specific passages.
This definitly should have been brought up and discussed before going to a vote. Its just suicide to slap something like this on there.



I agree that the constitutional and related docs should have been available for review and comment long before the election. For this reason I am voting no on the constitution change but I would still like to hear from Bruce on his take on the changes if he can pull himself from "real" legal work to take a look at it.

I spent some time reading the new Constitution last night and this morning, which is called the Bylaws, consistant with Colorado corporations law under which we are organized. It is nothing more than an absolute power grab by the directors. Because the Bylaws can be amended by a majority vote of the Board, once elected a majority of the Board has absolute power.

Recently whenever I draft a post with absolutes in it, I revise it to soften the tone. No revision is necessary here. The only right supposedly conferred on the membership here is the right to vote. However, a simple majority of the Board could strip you of that right at the first meeting after they are elected. Moreover, that right is conferred on "active members." Who has the right to become active members? No one. How do you become an active member? Not by paying your dues, but by the grace of the Board of Directors.

This is not a player's constitution. This is a bad joke.

While this may be the case, what does the Board actually own if they make this feared "power grab?" Nothing. If no one pays dues or runs sanctioned events, the Board owns absolutely nothing, but is still responsible for a variety of financial obligations.

All of this fear mongering might make sense if you're worried about the way your town or country is governed, but it's just disc golf people. Do you worry about your 'rights' in the bylaws of the companies who produce the products and services you buy? No. You don't even have a vote unless you're a stock holder.

The vote you do have with the current or proposed bylaws is useful but only 10% or so of members use that particular power. The real powers are: renewing or not, running sanctioned events or not, participating in sanctioned events or not, and volunteering or not. Those powers are immediately available to every player and are outside the control of any Board and Constitution no matter how it's written, with or without a 'bill of rights.'

The current Board has said the old Constitution cannot be followed well and is not actually being followed in several ways. They indicate the proposed bylaws can be followed and provides a viable structure for being followed in the future. I'd like to see more added to the document regarding communications between the Board and members. I also have trust that these tweaks will be done as the Board eases into the new proposed bylaws if approved.

If we don't like where the new Board takes us, we simply can not pay any more money to support the PDGA. We can withdraw any volunteer support. That's way more power than any vote or bill of rights the document contains. It's not perfect yet, but this organization has always been a "work in progress" among people dedicated to moving the sport forward. Give them the structure to help this process by voting for the new bylaws. If you reject the proposal, you just make more less productive work for the next volunteer Board who still won't be operating under bylaws that can be followed.

Having worked very closely with the PDGA staff and the past two BOD's on several high profile disc golf projects, I find Bruce's "power grab" assertion both ridiculous and laughable.

I agree with Chuck's statements above and I plan on voting yes on the constitutional changes in order to untie the hands of the BOD and allow them the flexibility to do what is necessary to move our organization forward. I would encourage the members to do a little research, talk to the current BOD members and then make a wise informed decision on this issue.

Nothing personal Bruce....I actually agree with you on a few issues unrelated to the constitution, I just find your inflammatory approach very unappealing and unproductive to the organization.

Regards,
Brian Graham, #5861

the problem is that on the ballot the PDGA has a link to a document that supposedly list the important changes to the Constituution.

NOWHERE does it say anything about the changes to the Member's rights.

this oversight, whether deliberate or not, lends a LOT of credibility to the argument that the PDGA is trying to change a lot more than what it put into its change description.

very poor form on the part of the PDGA.

To the BOD, the problem is introducing the changes without prior notice to the voting membership. I am not so concerned with a "power grab" at this point as to the fact that we have a town hall type of discussion here and the BOD failed to avail itself of it. I suspect that the ammendments will be voted down, not due to anything being inherently wrong with them, but due to the fact that very few members are even aware of what those changes maybe. If only 10% of the membership even vote, I am willing to bet that that 10% pays attention to the board and will not respond favorable to the changes without a discussion.

The point made earlier that most of the items had been discussed in different threads is simply not sufficient. We have discussed a variety of issues are all of them part of the proposed changes? I know the answer to that and it is no. Let me suggest that you put these items up for discussion and try again next year.

If the changes do pass it will not be due to an understanding by the disc golfing population, it will be due to a lack of care.

I'm not responding to anyone who is naive enough to vote for the Bylaws. I'm just telling you what is in there.

A. The power of amendment is granted to a simple majority of the Board, so the Bylaws are meaningless. They are a carte blanche for this Board or any future Board to do anything they want, including abolishing the members' right to vote, or their right to be members.

B. The proposed Bylaws don't give anyone other than a Board member the right to vote on anything anyway. "Active members" are given the right to vote. The document does not define dues paying members as active members. All it says about that is that the Board may decide issues relating to memership categories and whoare members.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent this Board or some future Board from simply resolving, "The term 'active members' is defined as 'the Board of Directors.'"

Whether by intention or by happenstance, the Bylaws strip the membership of all remaining rights whatsoever. I defy anyone who is not on the Board to find any right that is conferred on them by this document.

It is not a set of Bylaws that would govern the manner in which the Board of Directors conducts the affairs of the PDGA. To the contrary it removes all governance whatsoever.

Please vote NO.

Since Bruce said NOT to vote for it, that is a good enough reason for me to vote YES

There is a list of people that no matter what they say, they are continuously right, Brian Graham, Theo, Yeti, and a few others

Then there is that list of people that is Wrong 99.9999999275% of the time, Bruce, Nickoli, Bin Laden

:D

just playing the role of the antagonist in the cube farm ;)



:D

I suspect that the ammendments will be voted down, not due to anything being inherently wrong with them, but due to the fact that very few members are even aware of what those changes maybe. If only 10% of the membership even vote, I am willing to bet that that 10% pays attention to the board and will not respond favorable to the changes without a discussion.




A little side action. :p

I'm predicting substantial approval. The fact is that very few members have a clue about the distinctions between the old and the new governing laws. I for one, have read some of the discussion and still cannot provide a reader's digest version of the changes. IMO, the majority will assume the BOD thought it out and will bless it.

It'll pass.

If the BoD had been responsive to the concerns posted here that the recommendations should be published openly prior to any final draft would appear on a ballot -- the membership could have voiced concerns and recommended improvements to the changes before a final draft was arrived at. Even if noone voiced concerns or felt the changes could be improved upon, at least the membership would have been given reasonable time to review the changes before having to vote yea or nay on a ballot. The response i have gotten regarding my concerns about that is that there is not enough time, the changes are needed asap. If that's the case, why was there a failure to bring this up long ago and does it mean the crafting of the changes was hurried?

our credibility as a sport is on the line, and while i doubt this makes or breaks us -- it is worth doing it right...

btw, did anyone notice whether the clause requiring openness was changed or expunged?

do me a favor: strike that line out of my post and read my concerns. The changes the BoD is recommending may be the best thing since sliced bread, but putting them on a ballot before first publishing them is not only poor form, it's a bit outrageous.

perhaps i was being overly rhetorical but our credibility as a sport is on the line every day. you and i are sold on it completely of course -- it's the public at large which we must win over /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

dThe changes the BoD is recommending may be the best thing since sliced bread, but putting them on a ballot before first publishing them is not only poor form, it's a bit outrageous.


The polls are open for how long, a month? It's not like you have to vote today. I consider the last day to vote the deadline for voting. Therefore, I believe that I have a month to review and discuss the proposed changes before I have to vote on them. Considering that the PDGA BOD is comprised of volunteers, I consider one month enough time to consider these changes before voting on them. More time is usually better, but there is, IMHO, plenty of time for this issue.

And if you have any specific questions, you can email them to the Commissioner Theo Pozzy using the contacts page.

why should we ask the Commish? i formally asked the current Oversight Director for a copy of the new document and was promised i would receive it. still havent gotten it, except for the copy in my ballot. why should we trust the board now when they have blatantly disregarded the Membership's requests to date???

"The changes the BoD is recommending may be the best thing since sliced bread, but putting them on a ballot before first publishing them is not only poor form, it's a bit outrageous."

Well they may be sliced bread and they may not be. Im not an expert so I'll defer on judgement. Its also "poor form," in your opinion, but in reality, getting the prep work done at the last minute on a fairly intensive project is in fact not untypical of non profits and other growing orgs who rely heavily on volunteers in key roles.

Beyond that, is the expectation that these docs should have been disseminated a while ago valid? Is this the norm among membership affinity non profits (501c6s)? Do you belong to any other non-profits? Did they ask their membership for input on by-laws/Constitution or is this task seen as assigned to the elected/appointed leadership (as their job to do) and their legal reps? If you can prove statistically that it is the case with forward thinking non-profits similar in size to PDGA then I will agree with your opinion that PDGA coulda shoulda done better here.

BDH



i am going by the responsibility i would place upon my self if i held an office in such an organization and by no means do i think it matters if other organizations do or do not live up to such ethics. it would also be self-interest in that i would not want the finger pointed at me if the changes backfired due to feeling too crunched for time to vett them before a diverse membership by publishing them before putting them on a ballot and requesting feedback for improvements.

i see little downside to waiting till there would be time to publish them ahead of time and i see a lot of downside to rushing them in on the basis that they are long overdue. if they are long overdue so is the proposal to change them ...

of course i am an outsider and you have been involved for a long time and have done boatloads more work on behalf of disc golf than i -- so help me understand the downside to waiting till next year to make these changes (especially considering the mathematical possibility that they won't pass)

Looks like we're well on our way to a productive, harmonious new Board. Kumbaya�s, anyone?

Not meant as a reply to anyone in particular, just hate it when our limited volunteer resources get wasted by fighting with each other.

btw, did anyone notice whether the clause requiring openness was changed or expunged?



You mean, "The PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open."

Gone. As inconvenient as it must seem at times, this sentence for me embodies the spirit of a great frisbee organization. I do not agree that circumstances have changed so much that openness and transparency are no longer feasible.

Also gone, this very imporant paragraph:

Section 3. Should the Board decide to take action, a hearing date shall be established and the accused and accusers
notified. The charges will be discussed with all parties having equal opportunity to plead their case.

I think the PDGA does not always invite both parties to their hearings already, much the pity; if there were no rules for executing discipline, how exactly would it work? It seems like a pertinent question.

The current PDGA Constitution has some protections for players and some limitations on our leaders. The proposed new bylaws don't seem to have much in them that limit or balance power, or provide for a genuine democratic process.

So I, too, say please vote NO. There's a crop of fair-minded gentlemen ascending to the BoD this year, and we can hope that they will turn around the PDGA Leadership's recent trends.

Plus, after carefully reviewing the full field of Oversight Director candidates, and voting for Pat Brenner, I wonder what an Oversight Director would do without his position defined in the current PDGA Constitution:

Section 8. 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 Board 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.

You'd have to make up your position. I'm not sure if that's silly or brilliant. If you proved to be difficult you could be relegated to doing nothing, which -- who knows? -- might fit into your schedule perfectly.

When I was on the Board I was not much interested in stripping the members of EVERY SINGLE MEMBERSHIP RIGHT POSSIBLE, so I did not have much interest in writing Theo's new Constitution for him. If Theo had told me that was what he wanted up front, i never would have accepted the appointment.

The new constitution can be amended by a simple majority of the board so it offers no rights whatsoever. It is whatever a future Board says it is after they are done amending it by a majority vote.

The new constitution does not even offer dues paying members the right to vote on board elections. That right is granted to "active members" while the rest of the document leaves it to the board to define who are the active members.

All it takes is, "Resolved: 'Active members' shall be defined as the members of the Board," and there you go.

The new Constitution does not even include the terms required by Colorado law. [The PDGA is a Colorado non-profit, in case you were wondering what Colorado has to do with it.]

Kevin should vote for it because he is incapable of reading it and making up his own mind. He is just going to vote by personalities. The rest of you ought to read it and see for yourself.

The polls are open for how long, a month? It's not like you have to vote today. I consider the last day to vote the deadline for voting. Therefore, I believe that I have a month to review and discuss the proposed changes before I have to vote on them. Considering that the PDGA BOD is comprised of volunteers, I consider one month enough time to consider these changes before voting on them. More time is usually better, but there is, IMHO, plenty of time for this issue.



Rhett, explain to me how there is time for the BoD to field -- let alone implement -- suggested improvements to the changes given that the changes were put on the ballot prior to providing a time period for membership review? :confused:

Rhett, explain to me how there is time for the BoD to field -- let alone implement -- suggested improvements to the changes given that the changes were put on the ballot prior to providing a time period for membership review? :confused:


There isn't. You have ultimate "Yes/No" authority over the proposed changes. The current BOD was voted in by the membership to do jobs like re-write the bylaws, and other business of the PDGA.

To try and accomplish such a task as re-write the bylwas/constitution by a committee of thousands is a fools errand.

My point is that you have plenty of time to review the proposed changes and vote for or against them.

and i am not suggesting writing the bylaws via a committee of thousands -- just that the changes be published and there be a period of time for member review -- in order to take advantage of the talents of the membership at large and to help ensure unforeseen problems with the changes get looked at critically before being put up for an up or down vote... (for example it seems Bruce has already eyed many problems with the changes that evidently went unnoticed until after they were placed on the ballot. had there been a review period Bruce could have suggested changes to help make the revision better written and less subject to controversy)

i know if i came up with changes i'd want several people to look it over, critically examine it, and even tear the proposal to pieces in order to improve it. since the internet allows for easy review by many -- why not take advantage of it? (if noone sees anything to suggest for improvement so much the better that the opportunity was provided -- in terms of demonstrating an interest in involving the membership in decisions which affect them)

Pat,

Actually, you have been shown the documents as soon as they were ready. They were ready not long before we put them on the ballot.

You have plenty of time to discuss the changes before you vote.

Kirk

btw, did anyone notice whether the clause requiring openness was changed or expunged?



You mean, "The PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open."

Gone. As inconvenient as it must seem at times, this sentence for me embodies the spirit of a great frisbee organization. I do not agree that circumstances have changed so much that openness and transparency are no longer feasible.



that's strange because on March 9th, Kirk, in his position as Oversight Director, assured me via email that was not going to be changed... :confused:

I just read it, and it looks ok to me. I'm interested in hearing about specific challenges other members have with it.

I may have missed something; I'm no lawyer. (thank God)

I just read it, and it looks ok to me. I'm interested in hearing about specific challenges other members have with it.

I may have missed something; I'm no lawyer. (thank God)



Nick, I think you missed every member right that was taken out of the constitution. Don't be for the new constitution just because Bruce is against it. Think for yourself!

I've managed to read the old and new and I haven't been around as long as most of you to really know what it used to be and is now. But I noticed alot of what was important in the old and what seems to be important for the current. The current seems to have become very business-minded, "inward thinking," and more concerned about themselves. To me thats negative but good. To grow you definitly have to be more concerned with "stability and order." But you have to remember those who are here now and the entire pdga (including due-paying members). Without members what are you?

I voted No and I think everyone should. Like Bruce was pointing out the appears to be a "power grab" tone underlining the new constitution. If your gonna vote read both of the constitutions, take your time and read carefully, hop on here see what others think and then vote. The BoD should remember that due-paying,voting members also don't always have the free time to read over and discuss the documents.

Things like this have happened time and time again. For example one that most do not think of is the constitution for the USA (Yes the government is a corparation/ BOD). At first it was the "stability and order" side (BOD) and the "masses" side (Due-paying members who care). They came to a compromise but over time, and one side losing interest in the issues of the day (the masses) and the other side forgeting their roots (BoD), look at what the US government is today, to them all a voting citizens are, are obstacles to getting who the want into power, your concerns are mere campaign startegies not agenda, aand the gov slips change after change underneath your radar that gives more power and you less but they don't let you know about it but blind-siding you with other issues. Hey look at the Unions, started out great but quickly corprutted.

By the way aside from the constitution, Thank You for working hard to help our sport. And please, although change is good and necessary it shouldn't be rushed and outside opinion and suggestions should always be considered.

And if you have any specific questions, you can email them to the Commissioner Theo Pozzy using the contacts page.

why should we ask the Commish? i formally asked the current Oversight Director for a copy of the new document and was promised i would receive it. still havent gotten it, except for the copy in my ballot. why should we trust the board now when they have blatantly disregarded the Membership's requests to date???



Pat,

We didn't send you the draft that Kirk was working on because it hadn't been reviewed by all the board members at the time. After further research, we ended up abandoning that draft. I take full responsibility for the decision not to release that draft to you.

-Theo

I hope all of you voting 'No' are doing it because you've decided to become activists in your community and get all of your local businesses and non-profits that you patronize to rewrite their bylaws so you have the additional rights you feel the PDGA needs to add to what appears to be boiler plate bylaws for Colorado non-profits. It's certainly much more important for the local services you use every day for them to provide you as a customer the rights you expect from the PDGA. One thing good coming out of this even if our new bylaws don't pass will be all of you participating in your communities much more so you and your neighbors will have more of a voice with those you do business with.

The most important vote for any non-profit, income generating org is your $$ and volunteer time. The ballot is much less important on a daily basis. We've obviously functioned just fine with only 10% voting. We go under with 10% renewing.

and i am not suggesting writing the bylaws via a committee of thousands -- just that the changes be published and there be a period of time for member review -- in order to take advantage of the talents of the membership at large and to help ensure unforeseen problems with the changes get looked at critically before being put up for an up or down vote... (for example it seems Bruce has already eyed many problems with the changes that evidently went unnoticed until after they were placed on the ballot. had there been a review period Bruce could have suggested changes to help make the revision better written and less subject to controversy)

i know if i came up with changes i'd want several people to look it over, critically examine it, and even tear the proposal to pieces in order to improve it. since the internet allows for easy review by many -- why not take advantage of it? (if noone sees anything to suggest for improvement so much the better that the opportunity was provided -- in terms of demonstrating an interest in involving the membership in decisions which affect them)



The current Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws were drafted under the leadership of Jim Challas, with a lot of input from Pat Govang, back in 2000. Those documents were prepared in order to incorporate the organization as a non-profit, partially in order to protect the board members from personal liability. Those Articles and Bylaws were not reviewed by or voted on by the membership (I was a member at the time, and can confirm that).

A couple of months ago (I'll search for the post, if you're interested), we expressed our desire to try to allow time for review by the members, but we were skeptical if we were going to be able to pull it off. We weren't. However, we have taken a big step towards reconciling the current legal documents with what the organization needs today and in the future.

I would say that if you're unhappy with the current board and the process we went through, then you should consider electing other board members that you think will better server your needs. However, that's not going to be much of an issue, as the majority of the current board members aren't running again (myself included). And you'll have to ask yourself, why would we push for a set of changes that gave us, as outgoing board members, more power? Why would we do something that would affect us negatively as future regular members? Come on, give us some credit...

-Theo

I ask that the membership vote NO to the changes.

These changes have been requested repeatedly for the purpose of review, and each and everytime the members have been glad-handed.

DO NOT vote yes because the board highly recommends it. Read, participate, and discuss all of the changes before you push the button.

Chuck's comments about becomming local watchdogs for non-profits is laughable. ANY organization that I belong to gets this type of attention from me. I'm not knocking on the United Way's door, because I participate with UW. I am asking questions from the PDGA because I'm a member, and I participate with the PDGA.

Every member should be concerned about the proposed changes.

Unike others, I do not believe the intent of the BOD was to grab power. It is a ludicrous concept. However I do believe that some of the BOD have made blanket decisions that at times appeared to be at odds with the membership and of TD's. As an example the "required" fee schedule for tournaments which was published and subsequently withdrawn. I believe this was not done with maliciousness in mind, but as an attempt to help. I also believe that it was wrong. The BOD are elected officials and as such the membership has stated that they believe the BOD should make decisions for the direction of the PDGA. Guys and Gals, as much as you may want to disagree about it, as elected officials, we ARE giving them the right and responsibility to make decisions for us.

Now as for the BOD, while we expect you to make some decisions for us, public discussion is the ONLY way that we as the membership can contribute, besides being active volunteers. I realize that if the BOD flipped a coin and asked the membership to call it that there would be four responses, heads, tails, I meant on the bottom of the coin and who gave the BOD the right to flip the coin? Well I am willing to give the BOD the right, but I am asking that before you rewrite a major piece of the PDGA governing docuements that you at least ask us heads or tails. I realize that you will also hear that you are power hungry and that you must be right because so-and-so said otherwise.

Brian and Theo, I understand the "Just in Time" concept. Being an engineer, a lot of what I do must meet this concept and I wish that you had had more time to complete your write ups, but I also would have liked more time to review and discuss the changes.

It does not matter what the Board's intent was. All that matters is the content of the document.

The Bylaws can be amended by a simple majority of the Board so they have no content whatsoever. Anything that is in the Bylaws could be amended to anything else, at the whim of the Board.

The Bylaws do not guarantee that a dues paying member has the right to vote in future elections. The Bylaws grant this right to "active members" and leave it to the Board to define who are the active members.

The Bylaws do not guarantee anything. They can be amended by a simple majority of the Board.

I've listened to the arguments on both sides. Then I went and read the new proposed bylaws. I then compared them to the old bylaws.

Then I reminded myself --- that all politics aside --- I can believe the very worst about our BOD and their intentions, or I can believe that they have acted in the best interest of our sport and our organization.

I'm not that much of a cynic.

I looked at Bruce's "power-grab" theory. And it assumes the very worst about our BOD. His conspiracy theory, while possible, is not plausible. It just doesn't pass my own internal BS-litmus test.

After carefully reading the proposed bylaws I've come to my own decision to vote YES on the changes. I'd encourage all members who feel inclined to vote to do the same. Not vote YES, rather consider both sides and then vote based on your own conclusions.

It is not about conspiracy theories, the intent of the board, or their good faith. It is about the document itself.

It can be amended at any time by a simple majority of the Board.

It does not guarantee your right to vote in future elections.

It eliminates your right to be heard at your own disciplinary hearing.

It eliminates every right you ever had as a PDGA member.

The Bylaws do not guarantee anything. They can be amended by a simple majority of the Board.



Of course, McDonalds could stop serving burgers and chicken and switch to liver and tofu. You don't have a vote but you can refuse to buy anything. The ultimate power.

You are fear mongering about nothing. Not listening and poor decisions in the future by the Board will penalize the org whether it's run by a dictator or a 100-member congress with interactive internet meetings for all members.

Well said Rooster.

We elect the BOD to make decisions don't we? What other sporting group / non-profit group's BOD don't make decisions for the benefit of the people and the sport. If you believe in Bruce's conspiracy theory go watch a movie. If you love the sport of Disc Golf and appreciate the hard work of the "volunteers" that make it all happen, Vote YES.

As Theo also said many of the existing BOD that helped re-write this document are not even going to be on the BOD anyway. Nice conspiracy theory Bruce?

While you are voting, vote for Kirk Yoo. I have known Kirk for many years and is someone I can trust to make decisions and not get caught up in the politics of everything. A player and promoter that loves the sport and wants to help, not antagonise.

Funny thing is everyone complains but year after year only 10% or so people actually vote. Typical! I don't see any other the conspiracy theory boys (except maybe Pat :D) volunteering to be on the BOD?

I think Chuck was the one that said very well that vote YES on the change and support the people that volunteer to make this sport grow. If you don't like what they do in the next year or so then vote with your dollars and don't play. That seems the best power a player has, since they don't vote in elections.

Thanks
Chris

Maybe I should use my power as a "foreign visitor" and fight my escort to the airport in October! Oh that's right I don't speak Mexican. :eek:



Plenty of non-Mexicans overstay their visas. Shove it!

Just kidding Lou :D

Read this slowly:

It is not about conspiracy theories. It is about the contents of the document.

The document gives you no right to vote in future elections, nor any other rights whatsoever.

Try to separate yourself from the personality aspects of any PDGA election and consider the language of the document.

It can be amended by a simple majority vote of this Board or any other Board. It provides nothing. It guarantees nothing.

The 1st time you posted something like that I let it go as a joke.
After that, I'm thinking you mean it.

Not all illegals are from Mexico. By framing the debate that way, it's set up to be a very devisive issue. That's too bad. It should really be an immigration issue.

Now back to the constitution bickering.

Check your PM's Lou :)

I understand your point Bruce but I am still going to vote YES and still going to vote for Kirk. I believe in the good nature of people to do the right thing.

Back to work.

Chris

Go ahead and play out the conspiracy. One day the Board meets in secret, amends the Bylaws to take over as they hunker down in the new (fortified?) HQ building near the backwaters of Georgia. They've secretly stocked up food and water for a year. The $100,000 reserve in the PDGA accounts was swept into their individual accounts for a whole $10K apiece (after paying for food). Theo set up a microwave satellite link to maintain internet connections. They revel in their stash of Hall of Fame memorabilia as they cackle, "Ours, it's all ours!" Now what?

I know these guys and some of those running. While they generally like each other and get along well, a 3 maybe 4-day Summit meeting is about as much close contact as they'd like to handle. :)

chuck, thats silly. we all know some members of the BoD have a high degree of disdain for the current constitution. it is regularly disregarded. it is not a conspiracy theory to caution voters that the proposed bylaws retains NO rights for the Members whatsoever.

it is FAR better to vote NO now, get the new BoD installed, then revisit this topic. if it doesnt even meet the legal minimum requirements for our state of incorporation, then we are in BIG trouble if this passes. haste makes waste!

Or we can vote yes now, Elect a new BOD and let them amend whatever guarantees they want into by-laws. Until they decide they need to change them again.

Members have the same rights as the legal system provides which is perfectly fine for most all of the transactions people deal with on a day-to-day basis. Why not the PDGA? I think most members would rather the PDGA Board be working on tasks more relevant to the well being of the members and the sport rather than messing around spending more unproductive time with arcane bylaws issues.

the Bylaws speak to how the organization will interact with its
Members.

this new bylaws does a less-than-acceptable job in this. and that is being kind.

Because it's unnecessary. Company articles of incorporation say nothing about customer service, communications with them, or being nice to them. Corporate mission statements sometimes do. Companies do things on the behalf of their customers/members because it's in their best interest. The PDGA communicates in a variety of ways with its members because it makes sense, not because it's written anywhere.

Go ahead and play out the conspiracy. One day the Board meets in secret, amends the Bylaws to take over as they hunker down in the new (fortified?) HQ building near the backwaters of Georgia. They've secretly stocked up food and water for a year. The $100,000 reserve in the PDGA accounts was swept into their individual accounts for a whole $10K apiece (after paying for food). Theo set up a microwave satellite link to maintain internet connections. They revel in their stash of Hall of Fame memorabilia as they cackle, "Ours, it's all ours!" Now what?




Chuck, keeping in mind that the current PDGA constitution is in effect, how much are you getting paid for your volunteer work on the Player Ratings?

chuck,. you are missing the point but that is probably because i am not being very direct.

how is removing Member rights going to make the PDGA better and turn disc golf into an ESPN sport?

the new Bylaws are flawed, and will not do anything to help the Members.

Chuck - You seem to be comparing the local mom & pop hardware store with the PDGA. I don't see them as comparable.

If ma & pa make business decisions that I don't like, I can go to the dad & lad hardware store. Besides, unless I am an investor in their business, it's really none of mine.

On the other hand, you have the PDGA, which is supported financially by its members, among other sources. Those members expect to have a say in how the business is run. If you disagree with how it's run, you can always withdraw support, as has been suggested. But in the case of disc golf, where do you go? There's only one sanctioning body in this sport, as it should be.

I'm not quite as paranoid as the esteemed Mr. Brakel, Esq. seems to be, but I agree that eliminating member scrutiny is a bad idea.

Because it's unnecessary. Company articles of incorporation say nothing about customer service, communications with them, or being nice to them. Corporate mission statements sometimes do. Companies do things on the behalf of their customers/members because it's in their best interest. The PDGA communicates in a variety of ways with its members because it makes sense, not because it's written anywhere.



I think your analogy is flawed. We as members are more analogous to stockholders and the fans are the customers.

I voted "yes" as a trusting show of support to the organization and those who serve in big ways. But.....if the PDGA leadership wants to grow towards substantial sponsorship, they need to operate in a way that is beneficial to the stock holders and that is accomplished by serving its customers well.

the new Bylaws are flawed, and will not do anything to help the Members.



The old bylaws cannot be followed and I'm guessing are not ideally in compliance with the Colorado laws. The proposed Bylaws are in compliance and are neutral on helping or hurting members since wording along those lines is not legally a part of these types of documents. If the Bylaws pass, any modification desired by the new BOD members like yourself would likely not be added to these bylaws but would be something like a separate Member Bill of Rights. The benefit of the new Bylaws is being able to allow the Board to move forward with issues more important to members. So, in that sense, voting for the new bylaws is in the members best interests.

Jason, contact the PDGA office for that info. It's been their call. We've indicated that maybe half of the ratings work is now volunteer such as the new World Rankings which Matt is preparing for web display soon.

Read this slowly:

It is not about conspiracy theories. It is about the contents of the document.

Try to separate yourself from the personality aspects of any PDGA election and consider the language of the document.

The document gives you no right to vote in future elections, nor any other rights whatsoever.

It can be amended by a simple majority vote of this Board or any other Board. It provides nothing. It guarantees nothing.



Bruce, everyone seems to want to give Kirk, Theo, etc. the benefit of the doubt as our friends who are working on what they think is best for us rather than looking critically at these changes to the PDGA's defining document for potential problems that these changes could bring into play. Sometimes friends (or even ourselves) make well-intentioned bad decisions. You are suggesting the crafting of the changes is very problematic and creates a lot of unnecessary potential problems which a more thoughtful crafting would not have.

i want to error on the side of safety and so i feel no change is better than a bad one that was rushed through. what do you think the consultant used was thinking and what would you guess is the reason they under concerned themselves with membership rights?

also, run us through some of the bad case scenarios the new set of by-laws could land us in even with well-meaning BoD members. why do you suppose the rights of members have been disregarded?

finally -- and perhaps most importantly -- Bruce, if this were a review period: what recommendations would you make for improving the changes? (the short and sweet version since as a lawyer your time is too expensive for me)...

I would say that if you're unhappy with the current board and the process we went through, then you should consider electing other board members that you think will better server your needs. However, that's not going to be much of an issue, as the majority of the current board members aren't running again (myself included). And you'll have to ask yourself, why would we push for a set of changes that gave us, as outgoing board members, more power? Why would we do something that would affect us negatively as future regular members? Come on, give us some credit...

-Theo




Go ahead and play out the conspiracy. One day the Board meets in secret, amends the Bylaws to take over as they hunker down in the new (fortified?) HQ building near the backwaters of Georgia. They've secretly stocked up food and water for a year. The $100,000 reserve in the PDGA accounts was swept into their individual accounts for a whole $10K apiece (after paying for food). Theo set up a microwave satellite link to maintain internet connections. They revel in their stash of Hall of Fame memorabilia as they cackle, "Ours, it's all ours!" Now what?



Have any of you ever met the people that make up the BoD or paid positions at the PDGA? Have you ever spent any time with them? During Pro Worlds 2005 I spent nearly the whole week with Guru, Theo, Dave Gentry, Chuck Kennedy, John Duesler, Jon Lyksett, etc. They were an egoless bunch and nearly every decision was made by group consensus and on what was best for the tournament players.

These are the kind of people you meet out on the course. They are 920-955 rated golfers who have a love of the game and a desire to see it grow. I, too am interested as to whether "removing member rights" was intentional or something accidentally left out. But even in the worst case scenario, as Chuck pointed out, I think the "power grab" and conspiracy theories are ludicrous.

The old constituion and bylaws were flawed and portions were disregarded. I'm not sure this new document is the best possible one - perhaps there should be a little extra time for feedback and a possible re-wording of some sections. But at least give people some credit and respect.

That's a great post. I'll answer it later.

what do you think the consultant used was thinking and what would you guess is the reason they under concerned themselves with membership rights?



membership rights? what are these in the area of the governance of the sport? As a member, I have the right to vote on the BOD. Other than that, how many more rights do I need?

Sure, I think it is smart for the BOD to operate in the open, listen, and more importantly, lead; but I also think it is stupid to have the membership vote on every issue the BOD addresses. If that is one of the rights I will be losing, then good riddance. Nothing gets done that way.

Pat et al, what specific rights do I currently exercise, that I will lose under the new governing laws?

Basically, my feeling is that this is much ado bout nothing. The quality of an organization resides in the quality of the leadership, not the quality of the governing laws.

Beyond that, is the expectation that these docs should have been disseminated a while ago valid? Is this the norm among membership affinity non profits (501c6s)? Do you belong to any other non-profits? Did they ask their membership for input on by-laws/Constitution or is this task seen as assigned to the elected/appointed leadership (as their job to do) and their legal reps? If you can prove statistically that it is the case with forward thinking non-profits similar in size to PDGA then I will agree with your opinion that PDGA coulda shoulda done better here.



I work for a well-established nonprofit. Have done so for 13+ years. Its members are higher education planners, very smart people, mostly with advanced degrees. Our senior staff all belong to the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE).

We put out bylaws amendments at the time of balloting, and we give members - who do understand representative leadership - far less time to review the documents and vote than the PDGA does.

james, just because you choose not to exercise your current rights does not mean those rights are worthless to all. i agree we dont need/want all Members voting on every issue. however, we do want the ability for Members to require the PDGA to conduct its affairs in the open. that requirement is gone from the new Bylaws.

unfortunately, it probably will not be missed, because the BoD has ignored it so completely most Members are not aware of what they have now.

I think your analogy is flawed. We as members are more analogous to stockholders and the fans are the customers.




Of course stockholders don't have any rights in the daily operations of the business either unless they are also officers or employees. If the fans are our customers, how are we still in business? :)

terry, just as disc golf sets the sports standard for accessibility, open courses, etc, so should the PDGA take the lead in establishing flat and open structures for the sports governing body. what some other organziation does is up to them. doing/believing/saying what everyone else does leads to lots of bad stuff.

If the fans are our customers, how are we still in business? :)



by paying for and volunteering our own administrative expenses and also by playing for each others entry fees :p

membership rights? what are these in the area of the governance of the sport? As a member, I have the right to vote on the BOD. Other than that, how many more rights do I need?

You don't have that right under the Bylaws. There is nothing in the Bylaws requiring the Board to ever allow you to vote again. "Active members" get to vote and the Board gets to define that term later.

So, the gist of this discussion is the preservation of a "right" that the BOD does things in the open? I'm not sure how that is a right anyway. How on earth would I exercise it? Would I take the BOD to court?

Y'all presently argue that the constitution is not being followed........AND...........nothing comes of that. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that this document is only as worthy as the people entrusted to follow it.

Once again, leaders are important, documents don't mean much at all.

So, you are saying that there is nothing about regular elections?

Active members? I'm no lawyer, but I suspect their latitude is pretty limited in this regard. In other words, I don't even begin to envision them being able to exclude anyone except a few outliers who are in bad standing, or forgot to pay something they owe.

Oh, and I am on the executive committee of the board for a nonprofit smaller than the PDGA is, but growing really fast(!) and the procedure for bylaws changes is the same there as for my employer-organization: published with the ballot and a briefer-than-the-pdga time time for review and voting.

what some other organization does is up to them. doing/believing/saying what everyone else does leads to lots of bad stuff.



My replies were in direct response to another poster's request for information about how other associations do it.

So, you are saying that there is nothing about regular elections?

Active members? I'm no lawyer, but I suspect their latitude is pretty limited in this regard. In other words, I don't even begin to envision them being able to exclude anyone except a few outliers who are in bad standing, or forgot to pay something they owe.

Again, not true at all. I'm a lawyer and I worked on this issue before I left the Board. Nothing in the Colorado non-profit corporation code would require that the Board ever hold elections in which the general dues paying membership can vote, if that is not laid out in the Bylaws. If they want to form a self-sustaining Board where only Board members vote, many non-profits are run that way.

I was once a member of the World Wildlife Fund and some other environmental organizations. Members did not vote on anything. Members got a nice canvas tote bag and a newsletter.

Nothing in the proposed Bylaws requires that dues paying members have a vote. The proposed Bylaws provide that active members have a right to vote. The Bylaws provide that the Board gets to decide who are active members.

Unlike our Constitution which provides that dues paying members have the right to vote, the proposed Bylaws do not. The proposed Bylaws do not even specify the length of terms for Directors or the next time when we will have a vote. All of that is in our current Constitution. All of that is excluded from the proposed Bylaws.

If anything I was telling you about the Bylaws was not true, you know Theo or Terry would be posting here telling you otherwise and quoting the document.

If you are fine with a PDGA where the Board has absolute authority, where there are no rights of membership, where there are no elections, this document is fine. If you vote for this document that is the kind of PDGA you may get.

Nez posted this to a semi-public forum today, so I don't think he would mind it being posted to a public forum. It sounds like he has limited access to a computer:


I don't often chime in on this group, and stay often as a lurker, but I have to agree with Bruce, this is a dangerous document. It is difficult enough to keep board members following the constitution in how they proceed. I have often chided past and present commissioners and the ED privately on following the boundaries of the constitution.

This document provides way too much power to the board to dictate policy without oversight by its members. As an example, this board could take the PDGA private without a vote of the members by a change to the constitution they make and approve themselves. If this is a players organization, then this document must be defeated and done so resoundingly. If there is as much apathy amongst the majority of the players as I believe there is, then the PDGA will in all likelyhood be given essentially dictatorial powers, and be run like a corporate board and not as a member organization. Perhaps this is what is needed at this cross-roads in our organization.

I would look to the UPA to see how this document differs from theirs in the balance of responsibilities between the players and the board. Unfortunately, I write this from overseas, and I am not able to review this

This is a very slippery slope we tread upon here. This is a competitive business world we live in, and the strong survive and the weak get overtaken by competition. Which will the PDGA be?

Nez

While it is reasonable to assume that every single person that had anything to do with the rewrite has the best intentions....

What happens in as little as 2-3 years when possibly not one single person on the current BoD, BH and Lorrie are no longer in their current positions? Stuff happens sometimes and the membership should have some rights to be able to protect the org. May be a little far fetched but crazier things have happened.

The Bylaws do not guarantee anything. They can be amended by a simple majority of the Board.



Of course, McDonalds could stop serving burgers and chicken and switch to liver and tofu. You don't have a vote but you can refuse to buy anything. The ultimate power.

You are fear mongering about nothing. Not listening and poor decisions in the future by the Board will penalize the org whether it's run by a dictator or a 100-member congress with interactive internet meetings for all members.



What does McD's or any other profit organization have to do with a non-profit org. NOTHING!

Its pretty simple to see that the people who have a problem with the document only want their rights as due-paying members carried over from the old document. Whats the big problem with that. If the bylaws are needed so badly then why not remove them for the ballot rewrite in the due-paying members' rights and then hold a special vote for the rewritten proposed constitution.

You should judge less on the personality of the writers and more on the document. That person who is a great guy and really unselfish can write a document that is potential bad. He may not abuse it but someone down the line could abuse it. Scott has a great point in that lesson.

What does McD's or any other profit organization have to do with a non-profit org. NOTHING!



Not so. They both have stakeholders which include customers, members, shareholders, community leaders, etc. It makes no difference what's on the articles of organization or bylaws or how the org is organized, the stakeholders must be served properly to be successful. What seems to be missed on this whole escapade is that there are several documents that guide how an organization operates. It's no big deal if the member aspects are in the bylaws. The org's mission statement is typically where you'll find some of this. We also have our rules, tech standards and tour guidelines, all which provide guidance for how various stakeholders in our organization interact with each other.

Who here has taken the time to understand the organization's current Bylaws? If you have, tell me, what power does the Board have right now with regards to changing them? And what power does the membership have? If you're not sure, go back and check them (I posted the link in the PDGA Announcements forum).

I'll have more to post on this, based on some continued dialog with our attorney Brian Murphy, tomorrow.

-Theo Pozzy
Commissioner
PDGA Board of Directors

I have.

Our Constitution is our current bylaws. When I was oversight director I mentioned that the Colorado Corporate Code required that the things we have in our Constitution are supposed to be in our Bylaws. You said our articles of incorporation provided that our Constitution was our bylaws.

Currently the Board cannot change the Constitution without putting it on a ballot and getting 2/3rds approval. Under your proposal the Board will be able to change the Constitution by a simple majority of the Board voting for a change.

Your proposal also eliminates any procedure for having a future election. What's up with that?

I just read through the By-Laws and will be voting YES.

That is all I am going to say.

Regardless of whether the new Bylaws are good or bad for the organization, the PDGA Board has not done a good job in public relations with regard to this matter. I don't think any of them did this intentionally or with malice, but the fact is that they have not presented the matter in a way that will inspire the membership to give them what they want - passage of the new bylaws.

When we started installing sewer systems 12 years ago, we just did it, without input from the citizens. We found out that was a bad move. Once we started having meetings with them and opportunities to review the system design were provided, we had much more cooperation from the citizens, and I didn't have to condemn as much land.

The point here is that showing respect and consideration for the people you serve goes a long way in promoting your agenda. Yes, it takes more time to show people what's going on and ask questions and make suggestions, but it's what you have to do.

I am going to repeat what I have said before, I believe that the membership should have had more time to review the changes.

However, Bruce while I understand your arguement, I don't see that the BOD has done WORSE than the existing constitution. The exsiting constitution does not even define what members are, while the new write up does. As a matter of fact the exsiting constitution already gives the BOD the right to define what members are. True of false? As best I can tell the exsisting consitution states the BOD may in its discretion, issue certificates of membership to those persons elected or appointed membership status. There is no further definition of membership in the existing by laws. Whereas in the new write up there is a clear definition that I believe would hold in a court of law. You are of course a lawyer and I am not, but under 2.3.1 Active members, is this not a much clearer defintion of a member than what exists under the old constitution?

I am opening up the dabate that I requested earlier. I am not disagreeing with you for the sake of doing so and I would like to read what you have to say. I can tell you that at this point I am leaning towards YES though.

Theo,

Do juniors have the right to vote? I ask this because I did pay membership for my two boys and neither of them has received an e-mail. Thanks.

jerry, i understand the things you bring up, but ask yourself if replacing something defective with something else that is equally defective is really progress.

lets say we do approve this document. then the new BoD gets in and realizes the new wording is horribly inadequate. so they call for a new Bylaws or Constitution. not gonna happen! most people will say "hey we just did that, no need to do it again... just live with it for now" and we will never get a decent document.

it is FAR better to pay the price in time now rather than adopt a document that is obviously deficient. it is always better to do things right when you have the chance... it is always far worse to accept something you know is not what you really need simply because of an imaginary time constraint

These new bylaws should be seen as the first step in a long process, not something being forced on the membership.


The rewrite is to modernize the governing documents, to bring the bylaws/constitution into compliance with Colorado law, and to make it so the BOD can work within the bounds of the bylaws instead of in a hap-hazard manner as under the current governing documents.

We can dissect the new bylaws for all the flaws, but in reality, they are an improvement. They are not perfect nor do they need to be to pass. If Bruce is correct in that any future BOD can modify these new bylaws with a majority vote of the BOD, why couldn't the new BOD simply vote to rectify all the potential problems he has cited here?


First, the BOD could propose an amendment to the Bylaws so that "active member" rights could be "restored", "solidified" or more properly defined.

Next, they propose changes to the bylaws that better define the BOD duties and clarifying the BOD election procedures.

Then they could suggest more amendments to correct any other flaws Bruce and the membership find in the bylaws. The BOD could do this through open discussions with all the members. (Which seems to be one of the major problems the handful of antagonists have with this rewrite.)

Finally, the BOD could amend the bylaws to prevent any future BOD from making changes to the bylaws without successful vote of approval from the membership. They could even submit all these proposed changes to the bylaws to a vote of the membership instead of doing it themselves. That way the "conspiracy guys" wouldn't have any ammo about the amendment process.

Instead of voting down the new bylaws because of omissions and flaws, a yes vote could allow the incoming BOD to continue the much needed work of improving our governing documents over the next year instead of having to start over.


REVIEW:

1) Vote Yes to new bylaws.
2) Encourage new BOD to propose amendments to the bylaws through an open and thorough discussion with the membership.
3) Have BOD make amendments themselves or put proposed changes on a future ballot asking for approval of the membership.


Again, please look at the new bylaws as the first step in improving our governing documents. This way next BOD does not have to start from scratch, but can hit the ground running in the important process of improving our governing documents.

all of those actions could have been taken before the election.

why reward the BoD for the action they chose? better to set the standard now and expect that future BoDs will get the message. the only message we are sending by approving these docs is that its ok to do whatever you want with the pdga.

and that aint the right message!

ps - should the bylaws pass and i am elected, i will work towards the goals you list. late is not ideal, but it is better than never.

I still think it's unclear whether the member rights and election clauses some seem to feel are needed can even go in the Bylaws doc? Perhaps Theo or Kirk can comment?

if they cant go into the bylaws, then they should go in the appropriate place. the problem is that under the current proposal (which was not reviewed by any member other than BoDs) those rights do not exist.

if thats a casual oversight, then we need more focus from the people doing this work.

if its deliberate, then we need new people!

i've tried to review all the posts and perhaps missed the answers to my following question:

has anyone from the board, especially Brian, answered or addressed the questions and points raised by jason southwick and bruce brakel? bruce made the same statements over and over and i haven't seen a response from the board. are bruce's statements valid or not?

do the new by-laws strip or limit the rights of members as stated by jason and bruce? have clauses about voting rights and issues being conducted in the open been eliminated? if so, why?

the changes in the by-laws should be debated based on facts, not on what we THINK the motivation of the Board is. i'm not a believer in the notion that the current board members are interested in some kind of personal or collective power trip. i'm not that cynical. but if member's rights are being reduced, i'd like a board member to tell us what the reasoning is.

i also really don't care about what communities do; what other non-profits do; what corporations do; or any other analogies. i'm not certain to what degree what others do is analagous to what the pdga does. however, i do care about what the pdga does and how it impacts me and the sport and other members.

dan doyle
warwick, ny

As a rookie member ( PDGA 28114 ) I would like to extend by gratitude to the BOD, all the administration, the volunteers and players. It truly takes passion to debate a topic such as this. I do think that we all have lost contact with why we do, what we do....... ITS DISC GOLF!
Greatist thing ever!
As a volunteer, active member, and TD. It is inspiring to see this much heated debate . If we could generate this much emotion and direct it towards course improvement and civic mindedness, our ESPN reality would be here sooner rather than later..
For any NPO or Corporation to journey headfirst into the future, there has to be change. I would place my faith in those elected to govern our fair organization. Change is not always accepted by all, it is the open minded that make the transition easier, and possibly more accomidating for all. Change is never embraced by the masses, but it is always accepted.
We ALL must remember that we are the PDGA. We pay to be affiliated. We pay to play. There are so many contemptious remarks on this thread, rather than throw the proverbial stones, lets gather them all together and build a national headquarters.
Please let me extend my warmest regards and appreciation for all of those whom contribute. Without you, we are all playing fetch with ourselves !

Lets not lose sight of that!

DONT HATE, APPRECIATE!

Other than the possibility of not having regaular elections, I'm having trouble understanding the real issues. So I will start a list.

Identified concerns
1) Regular elections. Bruce mentioned that elections could theoretically not be held. I have no idea if he is right, but this seems like an important issue to address.

2) Member voting rights. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but I get the feeling that some members feel that they should vote on everything, and the new document has the ability for this "right" to be limited.

I personally see little change from what occurs now: The BOD doesn't seek a vote if time is an issue or they might not like the results. I have no problem with this; it's normal for all decision-making bodies. Just as a TD doesn't ask for every player's vote on how the tourney will be run, the BOD should have the same power. The member's check and balance should be the election.

3) Openness in governance. I am a strong advocate of this, because it is a way for leaders to sell their ideas, but in the abscense of that, it is also a way for luddites to thwart progress. Once again, I refer to item one: not a big deal if the leaders are competent.

4) Other member rights will be eliminated. What are these other rights?


Pluses
1) It apparently provides a sounder legal underpinning for the organization. I have no idea if this is true.

2) Provides greater flexibility for the BOD. This is probably true, especially in ways that may be very important.

This is the way I try to make sense of this issue, if I am way off base, or am missing important stuff, please help me.

"If anything I was telling you about the Bylaws was not true, you know Theo or Terry would be posting here telling you otherwise and quoting the document."

Actually, that's not true, Bruce, although I am sure that, given my outspoken nature, you thought it was. :D

I am not arguing because I am too busy to get involved with this particular thread and I think it's a mistake to spend too much time on this in this forum. I disagree with much of what you have written, but my attention is on other matters right now, and when I have time to focus on the bylaws it will be on persuading larger groups of members than are active in this thread.

The board of directors recommended accepting the changes to the bylaws and I support that recommendation. I am an advocate of these bylaws. They're better than what we had and, despite any details we could argue about but I don't have time for, I think this document is good for the PDGA.

The vote is in the members' hands and will, obviously, be determined by them. I have voted for the bylaws.

Regardless of whether the bylaws are passed or not, I think the primary task for the new board is the staff leadership transition coming in the fall of 2007. The job description, qualifications, and where we're going to look, and so forth, need to be being worked on now.

P.S. I queried the executive discussion list of the American Society of Associations Executives yesterday and all of the responses I received indicate that the associations answering pretty much have a post-review-vote period with a total time of about 60 days. That's what we have here.

except that there was no post or review phases. we just got the vote phase.

giving us 60 days to vote does not make up for the lack of review time!!!

I am not arguing because I am too busy to get involved with this particular thread and I think it's a mistake to spend too much time on this in this forum. I disagree with much of what you have written, but my attention is on other matters right now, and when I have time to focus on the bylaws it will be on persuading larger groups of members than are active in this thread.


I'm active in this thread, although this my first post. There have been 1309 views for this thread before now.

Why don't you go ahead and comment, because I think the numbers are here.

except that there was no post or review phases. we just got the vote phase.

giving us 60 days to vote does not make up for the lack of review time!!!



There's two kinds of review time:

(a) Time to review and see if you will vote for or against it; and

(b) Time to review and make suggestions for change.

The board and other volunteers did the (b) review, rather than the whole membership. That's typical and what we have time with. I can't resist it . . . if Donald Rumsfield were on our bord, he might say that "You go to ballot with the bylaws proposal that you have." :D

To have the (b) type of review here would mean, essentially, that anyone here on DISCussion who cares about this is an ad hoc member of the Bylaws Committee, which is just not so and, in my belief unworkable. Among other reasons, folks who do the (b) review need to be in some sort of a position where they are accountable: like they can get thrown off a committee or unelected by the members.

Sixty days for a type-(a) review is absolutely mainstream procedurally.

If you want to do the (b) review next time, be on the board, or get asked by the board to be on a Bylaws Committee.

"If you want to do the (b) review next time, be on the board, or get asked by the board to be on a Bylaws Committee."

I forgot, Pat and Steve are running unopposed and will certainly be able to move the new board in the direction of correcting any bylaws issues that are still see, after they've been passed, to be problematic.

Minimally 2 out of 7 ain't bad, and you'll find that when discussion things *as board* members with the responsibility and accountability that implies, the other members will be very willing to engage.

If Donald Rumsfeld were on the board, he would say "cram these bylaws down the member's throats because I don't give a rat's patootie what they think, I like the way they're written."

so donald got in? :eek:

so donald got in? :eek:



If he did, my membership card is gonna melt /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

So what about the PDGA Constitution? Let's say the new bylaws pass. Pretty soon the powers that be are going to realize that they need to define their roles and responsibilities.

I think we still need a PDGA Constitution. Something clear and concise, devoid of legalese. It should begin with an introductory sentence, saying what it is, move to the mission statement, define the mission statement in some detail, then lay out who's in charge of what.

A few separate things must also be addressed, such as how elections are run and how proposals are formally introduced and decisions made.

It should also be inspirational: The PDGA's goal is to promote the sport of disc golf. Hmm...

The overriding goal of the PDGA is to promote the great sport of disc golf...not quite...

The driving force behind the PDGA is to grow disc golf. No.

The PDGA exists to promote disc golf. Maybe.

The first sentence is the hardest.

Using these might have been a great start. (http://www4.upa.org/upa/bylaws)

Y'all might think this is thread drift, but I think not.

As of today, the PDGA has more active members - 9,636 current members - than it has ever had. Early in June 2006 we've already surpassed all of 2005. The latest new member number, issued today, is PDGA #30428.

Just think what we can do with a constitution that is readable, makes sense, and works. Vote for the new bylaws!

wow, that is awesome. too bad they didnt find it while doing that long difficult research into the constitutions of similar organizations! who would have thought to look at another frisbee organization!

and gosh, its even got stuff about members voting, how to run elections, term lengths... all that stuff we could use. imagine that.

well, something that complete must have taken like 15 or 20 years.

Any new members and renewals since the ballots went out up until the voting deadline are automatically 'Yes' votes on the Bylaws, right? ;)

Just think what we can do with a constitution that is readable, makes sense, and works. Vote for the new bylaws!



i agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. We need to vote NO to the bylaws so the BoD will learn that they've handled this poorly and should and can do better. If the changes are sound a 60 day review period prior to a ballot should be no problem. defining documents should not be rushed. it's not like our competition will beat us to the market. Since the BoD hasn't been following the Constitution for some time, what's the worry about getting a change passed so fast? the changes seem incomplete and forced and i think create at least as many problems as they solve. focusing only on the problems the new bylaws solve misses the new problems that they will create. is the attorney being consulted looking at what is best for the BoD in terms of its having disregarded the Constitution or is the advice based on what is best for the membership interests the BoD is responsible to serve? (hopefully the relationship between BoD and the membership is not being viewed adverserially...)

Create a Constitution that outlines the duties and responsibilities of the BoD and the mission statement of the PDGA. Add a Bill of Member Rights. release it for review...
sound like a winning formula?

Maybe :) but maybe not; one person on another email list said that he might have to join again this year just to vote against the bylaws.

If we can get another 200+ members out of that movement, maybe I could handle waiting on the bylaws changes :cool:

Consider this: http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/060706/loc_2006060702.shtml

Under the Constitution that the membership rashly threw out a few years ago, we had the right to be heard at the annual meeting, as is common in all corporations. Under these bylaws not only do we have no right to be heard, we don't even have the right to be informed of when the meeting is. The notice provisions were [cleverly? unintentionally?] written in the passive tense so that some unspecified person has to give notice of the meeting, but they don't have to give notice to anyone in particular.

WTF? :confused:

finally these new bylaws and the procedure used to introduce them is making sense. outrage the membership into actively voting and caring about the future of the PDGA by getting them to organize a NO to the new bylaws. well done! :D

rob, you are making sense! be careful, there are some around here for whom that is a foreign experience. try not to scare anyone :cool:

If you read the first few paragraphs of that article:

I like the idea of cumulative voting. It would ensure that minority groups in our membership, like top pros or women, could get a representative on the Board, if they also had a right to vote. Since this document strips top pros and women of their right to vote, I guess that is neither here nor there.

I am fairly certain that I sent that link to Kirk when he challenged the board readers to find documents for the rewrite.

i've tried to review all the posts and perhaps missed the answers to my following question:

has anyone from the board, especially Brian, answered or addressed the questions and points raised by jason southwick and bruce brakel? bruce made the same statements over and over and i haven't seen a response from the board. are bruce's statements valid or not?

dan doyle
warwick, ny



Here is the response from our attorney, Brian Murphy, after reviewing Bruce Brakel's comments:


<ul type="square"> Firstly, the Board is elected by the members, who will presumably elect people to represent their interests. Corporate law in general (and Colorado law in particular) require all Directors to act in the best interests of the members; to do otherwise could expose Directors to legal liability. Secondly, the new Bylaws provide for a member �check� by permitting members the right to petition for a change to the Bylaws or the recall of a Board member (see, Section 3.12 and Article X). Note that this is a change from the existing Bylaws, which currently permit the Bylaws to be amended by the Board only, and which include no recall provisions. Finally (and most importantly), I think it is important to keep in mind that the PDGA is a member organization; without the members the organization simply ceases to exist. Surely, this Board understands this, as will all future Boards. What is this �power� that the Board is seeking to grab? As with any similar organization, if you don�t like what the Board is doing, you can always simply vote with your feet. If enough members choose to do that, then surely a new organization will take its place.
[/list]
Corporate Bylaws are generally just a procedural document; it is most unusual for corporate Bylaws to seek to do more than that. These proposed changes are about giving the Board the flexibility to efficiently and effectively operate the organization for the benefit of its members. Periodic changes in procedure are a normal and natural part of an organization�s development, and are rarely of any particular concern to the members in general. In this instance, if any such changes are of concern to the members, then the members can require a change.



I am very busy at work today and tomorrow, but I have additional dialog with Brian Murphy and comments that I will share, but I can't type them up right now.

-Theo

Y'all might think this is thread drift, but I think not.

As of today, the PDGA has more active members - 9,636 current members - than it has ever had. Early in June 2006 we've already surpassed all of 2005. The latest new member number, issued today, is PDGA #30428.



I'm as big a PDGA supporter as any, but I think these statistics can be misleading.

The sport of disc golf could be growing, and the PDGA membership could increase overall every year because of new golfers picking up the game, but in the meantime we could still be losing thousands of golfers each year who don't re-new (some of which may have been valuable volunteers, TDs, etc.) because they grow despondent with the PDGA over the competitive system, membership fee hikes, the consitution / bylaws, etc.

Read this slowly:

It is not about conspiracy theories. It is about the contents of the document.

Try to separate yourself from the personality aspects of any PDGA election and consider the language of the document.

The document gives you no right to vote in future elections, nor any other rights whatsoever.

It can be amended by a simple majority vote of this Board or any other Board. It provides nothing. It guarantees nothing.



Bruce, everyone seems to want to give Kirk, Theo, etc. the benefit of the doubt as our friends who are working on what they think is best for us rather than looking critically at these changes to the PDGA's defining document for potential problems that these changes could bring into play. Sometimes friends (or even ourselves) make well-intentioned bad decisions. You are suggesting the crafting of the changes is very problematic and creates a lot of unnecessary potential problems which a more thoughtful crafting would not have.

i want to error on the side of safety and so i feel no change is better than a bad one that was rushed through. what do you think the consultant used was thinking and what would you guess is the reason they under concerned themselves with membership rights?

also, run us through some of the bad case scenarios the new set of by-laws could land us in even with well-meaning BoD members. why do you suppose the rights of members have been disregarded?

finally -- and perhaps most importantly -- Bruce, if this were a review period: what recommendations would you make for improving the changes? (the short and sweet version since as a lawyer your time is too expensive for me)...



That's a great post. I'll answer it later.



Bruce http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/images/wave.gif did you ever respond and i missed it or shall we still look forward to seeing it?

Y'all might think this is thread drift, but I think not.

As of today, the PDGA has more active members - 9,636 current members - than it has ever had. Early in June 2006 we've already surpassed all of 2005. The latest new member number, issued today, is PDGA #30428.



The sport of disc golf could be growing, and the PDGA membership could increase overall every year because of new golfers picking up the game, but in the meantime we could still be losing thousands of golfers each year who don't re-new (some of which may have been valuable volunteers, TDs, etc.) because they grow despondent with the PDGA over the competitive system, membership fee hikes, the consitution / bylaws, etc.



Whether they are misleading or not depends upon what they are being used for. My purpose is a celebration of well-managed growth. Whether or not we can keep up with the rate of overall disc golfer growth, we are handling the growth we have - that's association management!

And the PDGA (certainly its members) brings about that growth - as do the manufacturers - so it's all really a feedback cycle. At the moment, PDGA core members tend to be competitive players (Am or Pro), tournament directors and other organizers, manufacturers, retail and wholesale vendors, and casual golfers with enough money and big enough hearts that they join to support the rules, the technical standards, the tour, the website, the course directory, course evaluations, and so on, and so on.

I think among that group - difficult to quantify, for sure - we do pretty well. It's been recently discussed elsewhere that our annual renewal rate is right smack in the middle of published association norms.

one thing to look at though has our growth kept pace with the growth of available disc golf courses? the growth of courses will naturally help our sport sell itself, are the new-to-disc-golf crowds getting interested in the PDGA?

Someone has those stats, maybe they'll show up here. Maybe I can dig them out. But, like I said, the PDGA has something to do with the courses getting into the ground, too. Not just the board and office staff, but the TDs and local clubs (most of the hard-working organizers are PDGA members) that work on that - and big events like Worlds, which spur new course development wherever they happen.

Hey what a great document the UPA Constitution is. It's early focus on the spirit of the game is inspirational. It's a little smacked with some legalese, but of the good, clear variety. It functions, it seems, as both the constitution and bylaws?

This was also interesting:

1. Executive Director. There shall be an Executive Director who shall function with the direction and consent of the President on behalf of the Board. The Executive Director shall be selected by the Board of Directors for a term to be set by the Board and may be paid financial compensation in a reasonable amount set by the Board. The Executive Director may be removed at any time by a majority vote of the Board, without prejudice to contract rights, if any.

No matter how one interprets growth data, it has nothing to do with the proposed bylaws.

I also think Theo's attorney response needs to be addressed by the anti-crowd. It appears that members have additional rights under these bylaws: namely the right to petition change to the laws, and the right to recall BOD members. The attorney's third point, also discussed by Chuck earlier, seems to counter the radical conspiracy themes, assuming one buys into those sort of things anyway.

So, if we have the right to recall members, the right to petition for change of bylaws, and the "right" to moon the organization on our way out, what is this battle about?

As a former Ultimate teammate of Brian Murphy's when we were members of the multi-times world champion Masters team "Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove" during the 1980's and 1990's, i'd be very wary of any advice he offers.

boy do i have stories for you about Mr Murphy.....

I remember a time when we were....well.....uh.....we were....you see, there was this.....

never mind....

i'll let brian tell the story.....

but nevertheless i can vouch for Brian Murphy's intellect and his interest in what is best for the average plastic fondler....

Brian Murphy is just being a lawyer representing the interest of his a client. A lawyer who is being paid to have an opinion is not entitled to publicly have an honest opinion. That's one of the reasons why y'all hate lawyers.

Show me the ABCs of your right to vote in the Constitution. This is how i read it:

A. The right to vote is reserved for Active members
B. The Board defines who are the active members.
C. The Board can change that definition by a simple majority vote, at a meeting where you have no right to appear or be heard.

Read the document for yourself. It's all there. Do you see Mr. Murphy quoting the document? Do you see him refuting any of this with document language?

Lawyers deserve the reputation they have. He's not your lawyer. He does not give two cents about your interests. He's a lawyer. He does the bidding of whoever pays him.

Read this slowly:

It is not about conspiracy theories. It is about the contents of the document.

Try to separate yourself from the personality aspects of any PDGA election and consider the language of the document.

The document gives you no right to vote in future elections, nor any other rights whatsoever.

It can be amended by a simple majority vote of this Board or any other Board. It provides nothing. It guarantees nothing.



Bruce, everyone seems to want to give Kirk, Theo, etc. the benefit of the doubt as our friends who are working on what they think is best for us rather than looking critically at these changes to the PDGA's defining document for potential problems that these changes could bring into play. Sometimes friends (or even ourselves) make well-intentioned bad decisions. You are suggesting the crafting of the changes is very problematic and creates a lot of unnecessary potential problems which a more thoughtful crafting would not have.

i want to error on the side of safety and so i feel no change is better than a bad one that was rushed through. what do you think the consultant used was thinking and what would you guess is the reason they under concerned themselves with membership rights?

also, run us through some of the bad case scenarios the new set of by-laws could land us in even with well-meaning BoD members. why do you suppose the rights of members have been disregarded?

finally -- and perhaps most importantly -- Bruce, if this were a review period: what recommendations would you make for improving the changes? (the short and sweet version since as a lawyer your time is too expensive for me)...



That's a great post. I'll answer it later.



Bruce http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/images/wave.gif did you ever respond and i missed it or shall we still look forward to seeing it?




Edited by Terry_the_Pirate_Calhoun (06/07/06 04:54 PM)




Hey Terry,

why did you to edit this post of mine? (from the previous page) :confused: was it to create an incorrect spelling in the title of Bylaws?

No matter how one interprets growth data, it has nothing to do with the proposed bylaws.

I also think Theo's attorney response needs to be addressed by the anti-crowd. It appears that members have additional rights under these bylaws: namely the right to petition change to the laws, and the right to recall BOD members. The attorney's third point, also discussed by Chuck earlier, seems to counter the radical conspiracy themes, assuming one buys into those sort of things anyway.

So, if we have the right to recall members, the right to petition for change of bylaws, and the "right" to moon the organization on our way out, what is this battle about?



No, no, no, no... It's an unmitigated grab for power. BTW - you do know the governmint brainwashes us through the T.V. right?

Why is it that something this simple is receiving so much flack? Who is really grabbing for power here and what method is being used? Isn't it bad enough that we have to put up with high levels of fear mongering from our politicians? Why in the world do we have to put up with it here?

Brian Murphy is just being a lawyer representing the interest of his a client. A lawyer who is being paid to have an opinion is not entitled to publicly have an honest opinion. That's one of the reasons why y'all hate lawyers.

Show me the ABCs of your right to vote in the Constitution. This is how i read it:

A. The right to vote is reserved for Active members
B. The Board defines who are the active members.
C. The Board can change that definition by a simple majority vote, at a meeting where you have no right to appear or be heard.

Read the document for yourself. It's all there. Do you see Mr. Murphy quoting the document? Do you see him refuting any of this with document language?

Lawyers deserve the reputation they have. He's not your lawyer. He does not give two cents about your interests. He's a lawyer. He does the bidding of whoever pays him.



Great, one lawyer telling us another lawyer is a bottom feeder. :D

Perhaps, because I'm not a lawyer, I've misread, but I'd swear that the old constitution allows the Board to define an active member also. That is, Active members must meet the requirements as defined by the Constitution and the (Yep, you guessed it) Board of Directors.

The reality is that you can pretty much pull what you want out of a document, frame it to fit your needs and wah-la, the other guys are all evil. BTW - the sloppy nature of the original is part of the reason for the rewrite... isn't it?

A. The right to vote is reserved for Active members
B. The Board defines who are the active members.
C. The Board can change that definition by a simple majority vote, at a meeting where you have no right to appear or be heard.



D. Dumb because there's no benefit for doing so.

Brian Murphy is just being a lawyer representing the interest of his a client. A lawyer who is being paid to have an opinion is not entitled to publicly have an honest opinion. That's one of the reasons why y'all hate lawyers.



Great, one lawyer telling us another lawyer is a bottom feeder. :D



actually, he is making a pretty important point: a lawyer being paid to weigh in on a subject is professionally obligated to be biased in favor of the person who hired him. also note that if the person in question said the proposed Bylaws do entail many of the problems Bruce is citing then wouldn't he be pointing the finger at himself for having given expensive advice about the proper crafting of the new Bylaws that as it turns out wasn't so sound? (iow, a conflict of interests could be present)

I've been very busy the past couple of weeks, both with work and on the tournaments we run.

okay, it's not like i am paying you a lot for your time ;)

it's just that i was so looking forward to your response :D

it doesn't have to be a masterpiece or anything :D

I am fairly certain that I sent that link to Kirk when he challenged the board readers to find documents for the rewrite.


I remember that, you did send that link. I sent an email to Kirk asking further about it, but never got a response from him -- and this was after he requested emails on the subject.

[1]what do you think the consultant used was thinking and [1a] what would you guess is the reason they under concerned themselves with membership rights?

[2]also, run us through some of the bad case scenarios the new set of by-laws could land us in even with well-meaning BoD members. [3]why do you suppose the rights of members have been disregarded?

[4]finally -- and perhaps most importantly -- Bruce, if this were a review period: what recommendations would you make for improving the changes?

Quotation edited to add bullet point numbers.

[1] If a lawyer had a hand in this document I suspect he was faithfully following the instructions of his client.* Those instructions could have been something succinct like, "We need a set of Bylaws that satisfies the requirements of the Colorado Non-profit Corporation laws, but does not hinder the Board in anything it might choose to do on a majority vote." The Bylaws almost satisfy both of those requirements. The first is arguable.

[1a] A good lawyer would not have concerned himself with member rights if his client was not concerned with member rights, except that a great lawyer would have anticipated that three PDGA members would be concerned with member rights and they might try to wake up the sleeping majority.

[2] The obvious bad case scenario is we never have another election. Under our current Constitution I can tell you when the next election is supposed to be. These Bylaws do not provide for a time when any Director must stand for re-election nor do they require that the Board ever hold another election.

The next most obvious bad case scenario is that the PDGA should choose to discipline someone half of us know and like for cheating, unsportsmanlike conduct or willfully violating the rules -- a Cam Todd incident with a more popular violator. These Bylaws have completely discarded all of the discipline procedures, including the former minimal due process rights guaranteed by the former document.

This is what happens in organizations that do not have a discipline procedure. I've seen this happen repeatedly in churches we represented when I was in private practice and in churches and other organizations like a local amateur football league, that have been in our court. When a disciplinary event happens and there is no procedure for dealing with it, it splits the organization. In every case I've seen, it also results in expensive litigation, but I only see cases that result in expensive litigation.

[3] When I was on the Board, member rights were always a headache. The same is true for any governing body, private or public. Member rights issues have arisen in the context of discipline, access to documents, and continuity of Board operations. Elections sometimes are messy and disruptive. Reliable people leave and you get new people who have new ideas. As King George observed a long time ago, "Democracy is a pain in the royal arse."

[4] I would like to see one of two things. Either (a) 2/3rds of you approve these Bylaws thus demonstrating that the PDGA membership is incapable of self-governance. Then if you also for some strange reason put me on the Board, I can help Theo form a self-sustaining Board and we can be done with the expense of holding elections every year. If you don't want rights, why spend money on the illusion of rights? If a super-majority of you wants to throw your rights away, all I can say is that is not the kind of organization Jon and I are likely to send $5,000 - $7,000 to every year. Or, (b) if 1/3rd of you reject these Bylaws, they are still a great start towards a decent document. We just need to add about eight things no one would object to if they weren't generally opposed to member participating organizations.

I need to start a different thread for the rights that should be in the Bylaws of a member run organization. You can see five or six in this response. But right now I need to do some zoning stuff. Can you wait a couple of days?

* I am obligated by the Michigan Code of Professional Conduct to say something like that, so take it with a grain of salt.

Just to ask, i hope im not out of line, why do these new bylaws have to be pushed through now? You already operate outside of the current anyway why couldn't you wait?

And then why are there only a few BOD members pushing so hard for this? (i don't believe in a consipracy) what do the others think?

[2]Secondly, the new Bylaws provide for a member �check� by permitting members the right to petition for a change to the Bylaws or the recall of a Board member (see, Section 3.12 and Article X). Note that this is a change from the existing Bylaws, which currently permit the Bylaws to be amended by the Board only, and which include no recall provisions.


Was Brian Murphy given the current PDGA Constitution as a starting point, as well as the current bylaws?

I ask this because I don't understand why Brian Murphy says the new bylaws are an improvement with regard to amendments, because Section 3.2 of the current bylaws says how members have additional rights as defined in the PDGA Constitution, and the current PDGA Constitution explains how members may make amendments in Article 9, Sections 5 and 6. Looks the same to me.

Just wondering if Brian Murphy used the PDGA Constitution as a starting point or not, and if the elements missing that can be found there are the reasons for concern that some people have.

Brian Murphy is just being a lawyer representing the interest of his a client. A lawyer who is being paid to have an opinion is not entitled to publicly have an honest opinion. That's one of the reasons why y'all hate lawyers.



Great, one lawyer telling us another lawyer is a bottom feeder. :D



actually, he is making a pretty important point: a lawyer being paid to weigh in on a subject is professionally obligated to be biased in favor of the person who hired him. also note that if the person in question said the proposed Bylaws do entail many of the problems Bruce is citing then wouldn't he be pointing the finger at himself for having given expensive advice about the proper crafting of the new Bylaws that as it turns out wasn't so sound? (iow, a conflict of interests could be present)



As opposed to another lawyer, running for the Board, using fear mongering to build a voting base. Come on! The flaws Bruce sees are those he chooses to see and that support his postion.

I think you need to click on a Theo Pozzy post before asking those questions. I'm an ex-Board member pushing hard against this change, not a Board member who wants to turn the constitution into an empty nullity.

When I was on the Board, Theo was very frustrated with the Constitutional limitations on what the Board can accomplish, just like Nez alluded to. He was also very frustrated whenever members asserted their rights, like Underparmikey wanting to see documents or Cam Todd wanting to have a list of the charges against him and an opportunity to respond to his accusers. Even elections made him nervous when certain people were talking about running. So all of that is gone from these Bylaws.

I think Terry is for it because he trusts people and he does not see how anyone could gain anything of significance by abusing the corporate structure of the PDGA. Terry had to trust people to survive from day to day for six years [or four -- I'm not his biographer] when he was a young man and he survived because those people were trustworthy. I think that experience has made him who he is and he is mostly the better for it. But here he is just wrong because he does not understand business.

I'm against it because it is a carte blanche to run amok. I think what we had a few years ago was pretty cool, even if it was an amateur work of draftmanship. But this is nothing. This is an opportunity to alienate a handful of TDs here and there and to produce a new Southern Nationals every year. The PDGA has almost alienated one of the newest big, good things they have going, and they don't even care.

This document simply does not define the type of organization that Jon and I want to run thousand dollar fund raisers for. We spent the winter getting jerked around by mandatory entry fees, mandatory payouts, ridiculously huge zones of exclusion, $8 non-member fees, rules changes which did not follow the Constitutional procedure -- so now they also want to eliminate our right to participate by voting or running for office. Well that makes sense. We were on the other side of those issues.

This is how our last PDGA fund raiser went, more or less; Jon has the exact numbers:

$125 Sanctioning and Insurance
$_80 Pro $2 Fees
$540 Am $3 Fees
$150 Non-member $5 fees
$100 New Memberships sold

$995 Total

Why should we do that over and over for an organization that does not trust us with a right to vote, or a right to be heard at organization meetings, or a right to be informed of when those meetings are, or a right to see the minutes of those meetings a reasonably short time after the minutes are approved, or a right to run for office, or a right to respond in disciplinary proceedings, or a right to vote on future constitutional amendments and important rule changes, or a reasonably qualified right to run good tournaments? You're giving us nothing here for our 5 to 7 thousand dollars a year. We can spend that somewhere else. :mad:

AviarX: There's you're list. :cool:

Why should we do that over and over for an organization that does not trust its us with a right to vote, or a right to be heard at organization meetings, or a right to be informed of when those meetings are, or a right to see the minutes of those meetings a reasonably short time after the minutes are approved, or a right to run for office, or a right to respond in disciplinary proceedings, or a right to vote on future constitutional amendments and important rule changes, or a reasonably qualified right to run good tournaments?



You are not denied these rights by the document either. These are "rights" that are in the best interest of the Board to encourage and support for the best interest of maintaining the organization and being more successful. Why should you not trust the Board to do what's in the best interest of the org? If you take away your $5K-$7K support, you are making the case I've made all along that not paying attention to members and customers will lead to withdrawl of funding and volunteer time from members and TDs. And yet, you're already threatening to do it when those rights won't actually be taken away with the new bylaws.

Just to ask, i hope im not out of line, why do these new bylaws have to be pushed through now? You already operate outside of the current anyway why couldn't you wait?

And then why are there only a few BOD members pushing so hard for this? (i don't believe in a consipracy) what do the others think?



It's not a matter of pushing the changes through, now or ever. The reality is that the Board, and almost everyone associated with the PDGA are volunteers. They work on a limited basis when they can. They put together issues like this one on the fly and they do the best they can. When it has to be done right, they hire someone to do it right (or at least they should). To make it clearer, no this wasn�t fostered at the last minute to sneak it through, in an all volunteer organization things often happen this way.

In answer to your question, yes they could put it off. Let me ask you a few questions now. Would it matter? The reality is that a careful read of the proposal covering all of it's content, and a comparison to the articles of incorporation of other organizations and small businesses would show the end user that the writing and position taken is consistent and normal. Does that mean that time should not be taken to give everyone adequate time to examine the documents? Absolutely! Let's be frank, it takes about 3 minutes to read and - well � two, maybe three days for someone who is mentally deficient to read and understand it. Heck, it took Jon about an hour after the e-mail went out to first post and Bruce not a whole lot longer. What more is needed? For those that really care, there is more than adequate time to read and think about the proposal.

Why then would some make an issue out of the time allowed? Well, take a read of who is having fits here. 1) Past antagonists of the PDGA who have felt their needs weren't met adequately by the PDGA. Remember that the actions these posters don�t like were taken more than a voting season ago and there wasn't some hue and cry to remove the leadership over those decisions. 2) Individuals who are running for PDGA office (the most vocal of whom is running in a contested race) and who are trying to show their value to you, the voter. Yawn.

The reality is that a week, a month, a year won't make any difference in this. The handful that really cares will read it and make an informed decision (that won't take more than a few minutes). The rest will vote based on gut instinct and trust (admittedly a poor path but there you go) or on their predilection to like change, or not to like change.

Now lets give Bruce his due. Bruce is correct in a sense; the Board is taking away some basic rights in this change. As I interpret it (and I could be wrong) what they are doing is moving themselves a step away from having to respond to the carping and whining of a number of members. That is, their job is running the organization, not responding to the approximately 200 requests that UPM and some of these same complainers made for the annual budget. You see, responding to those requests, when the annual budget is regularly published and made available, is a waste of time.

Now some are going to view that as a bad thing and present it as such. And if your view is that the Board should be immediately responsive to every request fired at them by every member, then you should vote these changes down. Remember though, that to get their point across, those opposed to this change are going out of their way to ignore the clause where it says amendments to the bylaws must be approved by Active members, and that 10% of active members can bring a petition to have Board members removed. They are also going out of their way to ignore the fact that we can vote with our wallets. They fact is that their egos are such that they want the Board answering to them, and not going about the job of running the organization with the limited volunteer time they have. They are also working their own agenda of getting voted into office or taking out their personal vendettas on a Board that they see as unresponsive to their needs.

Let me finish by saying that I work for a small company and that these proposals are not draconian by any measure comparatively speaking. The notion that those in leadership are going to USURP ULTIMATE POWER! is ludicrous at best and demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of corporate law and corporate function. It can only be explained by assuming that there is an ulterior motive. Please see above to determine what that might be�

On a side note, of course there is always the possibility that Bruce is right and that the Executive Director and the Board are actually aliens in disguise and are going to write into the Bylaws that all members must submit one family member as feed to the mother ship that is hidden behind the moon. I�ve long supported the position that this is true (I have picture of the rashes on Terry�s neck from when he applied his rubber mask incorrectly). The plain fact is that even though the proposal still gives plenty of power to active members to influence the Board, they can use their long distance brain washing machine (purchased by the way with the 5-7 thousand dollars that Bruce inadvertently raised for the PDGA) to make us all vote for any amendment they want.

There is only one real way to protect you from their insidious plot. Get a large roll of industrial strength tin foil, no not aluminum it has to be tin, and wrap it around your head. My experiments show clearly that this makes you impervious to their devices. Why else do you think I am able to make this post? For your own sake, hop into your car and drive out to the corner store (no not the 7 Eleven, they already control those) and get some tin foil, quick before they delete this post and reassert control.

BTW - Terry's not quiting because he's worn out, he's been recalled to the home world for being... yep you guessed it, too trusting.

wow, that is awesome. too bad they didnt find it while doing that long difficult research into the constitutions of similar organizations! who would have thought to look at another frisbee organization!

and gosh, its even got stuff about members voting, how to run elections, term lengths... all that stuff we could use. imagine that.

well, something that complete must have taken like 15 or 20 years.



I always love these kinds of posts. Actually the Board did; how do I know, well, Theo recommended that we utilize some of the structure that the UPA used, in our disiplinary process. He was quite impressed with their organization.

Brian Murphy is just being a lawyer representing the interest of his a client. A lawyer who is being paid to have an opinion is not entitled to publicly have an honest opinion. That's one of the reasons why y'all hate lawyers.

Show me the ABCs of your right to vote in the Constitution. This is how i read it:

A. The right to vote is reserved for Active members
B. The Board defines who are the active members.
C. The Board can change that definition by a simple majority vote, at a meeting where you have no right to appear or be heard.

Read the document for yourself. It's all there. Do you see Mr. Murphy quoting the document? Do you see him refuting any of this with document language?

Lawyers deserve the reputation they have. He's not your lawyer. He does not give two cents about your interests. He's a lawyer. He does the bidding of whoever pays him.



So why would you want a lawyer on the PDGA Board of Directors. Please vote for Cris Bellinger for Competition Director - someone who doesn't have a track record of antagonistic behavior towards competent and dedicated volunteers.

-Theo

finally these new bylaws and the procedure used to introduce them is making sense. outrage the membership into actively voting and caring about the future of the PDGA by getting them to organize a NO to the new bylaws. well done! :D



Someone finally caught on!

-Theo

theo, you seem to think this is some sort of big joke. there is no need to insult bruce. his intentions are good, he is informed, and he has expertise in this area. just because he does not agree with you does not mean he is "antagonistic" towards volunteers. some people think YOU are sometimes antagonistic towards volunteers! but that doesnt make it true.

unfortunately, this kind of attack is consistant with someone who would deliberately ignore current documents and requirements, and who would proactively eliminate rights and privilege from the new docs.

did you ever think that some people get antagonistic when they are dumped on?

why did you to edit this post of mine? (from the previous page) :confused: was it to create an incorrect spelling in the title of Bylaws?



Ah, I was hoping you wouldn't notice. I had replied and forgotten to play the game of changing the subject line. But when I edited the subject line I hit your button by mistake :(

As soon as I noticed, I put your initial subject line back in yours. Sorry 'bout that.

"(a) 2/3rds of you approve these Bylaws thus demonstrating that the PDGA membership is incapable of self-governance."

Reminds me of the time someone called me a rabble-rouser, and I had to reply, geez, that means you are calling the members rabble.

Members voting to pass (or not) a bylaws change is in fact self-governance by definition, Bruce. You can't change that fact just because you disagree with them.

I would never dream of saying the converse: "If members don't pass the bylaws then they are incapable of self-governance." - in both ways it is offensive to members.

is blindly voting for something without understanding it, simply because our elected officials are infallible, truly "governance"?

no.

Your insistence on relying on ad hominem arguments instead of responding to any point I've made is positively Kightian.

Your insistence on relying on ad hominem arguments instead of responding to any point I've made is positively Kightian.



Positively veracious.

This is a response to PaulM's post on 6/27.

I replied to your email the same day I received it.

Kirk

theo, you seem to think this is some sort of big joke. there is no need to insult bruce. his intentions are good, he is informed, and he has expertise in this area. just because he does not agree with you does not mean he is "antagonistic" towards volunteers. some people think YOU are sometimes antagonistic towards volunteers! but that doesnt make it true.

unfortunately, this kind of attack is consistant with someone who would deliberately ignore current documents and requirements, and who would proactively eliminate rights and privilege from the new docs.

did you ever think that some people get antagonistic when they are dumped on?



Come on Pat. How is Theo supposed to respond? Bruce is being antagonistic. He's pointing out potential problems with the proposal without pointing out the clear safeguards in place that will prevent exactly what he is claiming will happen. He's also ignoring the fact that the same problems exist in our current Constitution, only with fewer safeguards. Not more than a page ago Bruce wrote out what he perceived as shortcomings in Theo's management approach and how those shortcomings have led to the current proposal.

Now Theo could take up the challenge and respond in kind or he can do as he has, politely and with some humor. Bruce appears to be playing a political game; I think Theo is responding appropriately.

is blindly voting for something without understanding it, simply because our elected officials are infallible, truly "governance"?

no.



Or for that matter, blindly voting against something?

In General, read the document, take the time to understand the goal of the document, look for the safeguards in place that address Bruce's concerns and then vote based on your own feelings. If you can't find the safeguards, PM me and I will point them out to you. Please don't buy what is taking place here, read for yourself.

Your insistence on relying on ad hominem arguments instead of responding to any point I've made is positively Kightian.



Man Bruce, couldn't you have just said your insistence on attacking me is positively acting without actual information. Huh? Maybe I need a new dictionary; if you're using terminology (Kightian) that isn't in common usage, perhaps you need to better explain yourself.

BTW - Wouldn't you agree that your assumptions that the Board is setting up the new Bylaws to usurp power is... uncertain?

Quoting Pat Brenner: "is blindly voting for something without understanding it, simply because our elected officials are infallible, truly "governance"?"

Terms without precise or agreed-upon definitions that render this statement impossible to reply to:

"blindly" - with eyes closed, must be actually blind, ?

"without understanding it" - at all? as well as you? as well as me? as well as Bruce? as well as the attorney? as well as god?

"simply because" - does this mean "only because"? or the person doing it is simple? or that there is only a single motivation, thus keeping it simple?

"are infallible" - see below

In fact, that's a straw man argument, if indeed an argument, because probably not one single PDGA member will vote for the new bylaws for the combined reasons stated.

If for no other reason that I don't think there's a single member who thinks any, much less all, of our elected officials are infallible. I certainly don't.

But also because one cannot even parse out the meaning. Thanks for the great example of why some DISCussion posts are mere noise and cannot be usefully replied to. :D

Why should we do that over and over for an organization that does not trust its us with a right to vote, or a right to be heard at organization meetings, or a right to be informed of when those meetings are, or a right to see the minutes of those meetings a reasonably short time after the minutes are approved, or a right to run for office, or a right to respond in disciplinary proceedings, or a right to vote on future constitutional amendments and important rule changes, or a reasonably qualified right to run good tournaments?



You are not denied these rights by the document either. These are "rights" that are in the best interest of the Board to encourage and support for the best interest of maintaining the organization and being more successful. Why should you not trust the Board to do what's in the best interest of the org? If you take away your $5K-$7K support, you are making the case I've made all along that not paying attention to members and customers will lead to withdrawl of funding and volunteer time from members and TDs. And yet, you're already threatening to do it when those rights won't actually be taken away with the new bylaws.



I hope this falls within Kightian boundaries as a post.

Pat Brenner and Bruce Brakel, you guys are among the few here making sense. The responses to your criticisms appear to avoid at all costs an honest answer, seeming to hide the real reasons for this inexplicable move on the part of the BoD.

Theo, with all due respect, I am not interested in what your lawyer has to say.

The PDGA defenders don't make any sense to me. You can't just dump our constitution, and put the new proposed bylaws out for an e-mail vote without prior notice. This treats the entire membership like a bunch of morons who "wouldn't understand anyway."

Maybe the powers that be realize that soon honest people will be ascended to the BoD who will insist that the PDGA leadership follow the very same constitution they've been violating.

Whether you're elected, appointed, self-appointed or sentenced to serve, you have to follow your organization's constituion, charter, bylaws, whatever you want to call it. It's not acceptable to state that the existing Constitution is outdated, that more work gets done without constitutional shackes, or that a new constitution is being written.

You have to follow the constitution period. There is no valid excuse for not doing so.

lyle and terry your disingenuity is setting new standardes even for this board :)

the fact remains, those safeguards do NOT exist in the new document. "good intentions" is NOT a safeguard. not having specific verbage in there is leaving the door open for anyone to walk thru for a host of reasons. it is bad policy.

lyle, send those safegaurds on over! IF you look at them and truly read them you will see they are non-existant.

again, just because i disagree with your viewpoint does not mean i have not read things carefully. to suggest it does is demeaning. it is possible for smart people to disagree and to reach differing conclusions.

Furthermore, this entire thread is an example of the little good that ever comes from ANY discussion here. And a testiment to it's little more than purely entertaining nature

As far as I can tell, there are about 5 active mess bored users adamantly against and 5 users adamantly in favor of the new Bylaws; and not a single one actually thinking through the others significant points of contention. None of these 10 users should be surprised by this situation. Most lurkers could have written each and every one of the posts verbatim without any trouble.

I suspect that the Bylaws will not pass. Not because anyone�s arguments here were so compelling, but because folks in general fear change. Any change. Whatever the final vote you can add around 30% to the �for� vote due to the ever present �chicken little� mindset.

In my work, it has been my duty to size up people and tell who are the ones that are more interested in bickering over minutia than they are willing to actually do what needs to be done, and put my support behind the folks that get things done. All major projects need to have a real and actual starting date, with the full understanding that modifications and updates will be a natural part of their development. I must be careful not to align myself or my efforts with those who too often become paralyzed with the little things and can�t manage to take that all important �first step�.

There are a very few people that ever do more for disc golf than jaw flapping organizationally. On a Worldwide level even fewer. Perhaps it is a fault in me that I tend to trust those who have demonstrated their willingness to step up; more than step up, to work with others; more than work with others, to build something with others. I am wary of people that work in isolation and do little more than buck �the system� (a system they no little about and nothing about how to function within).

And so, in my judgment Pat Brenner and Bruce Brakel, are not the type of people I would want to work with, and certainly not the type of people I would want leading our organization. I think their presence on the Board of Directors would be a constant impediment to any real progress or decision-making.

The bright side in considering that they might well win election is that they will likely self-eliminate themselves, as Bruce has already done once (not even elected), due to the fact that there will be no where for them to hide among the practical and productive folk already on the board. If by some miracle they learn how to become a functioning �part� of the board, great! But I have seen no inkling from either that they have any tendency towards �learning� or �flexibility�, so I am not hopeful of that possible outcome.

I don�t know either of them personally. So I could very well be mistaken; but based on what I do know, this is where I come out on this.

Jason,

The current C has not been followed by any BOD not just his one.

Kirk

There are no safeguards. That's why neither you nor anyone else can simply prove me wrong by quoting them.

There are no member rights. That's why neither you nor anyone else can prove me wrong by quoting them.

There is no provision for any future elections. There is no right to run for any future positions. There is no right to be heard at any meetings. There is no right to vote, except a right granted to "active members" where the term "active members" will later be defined by the board. There is no right to be informed of the charges or offer a defense at a disciplinary proceeding. There is no requirement that future amendments be put to the membership.

This is not a document that governs the relationship between the members and the organization. This is a document which ungoverns a majority of the Board to do whatever they want for as long as they want to.

You may now resume attacking me on a personal level since you have nothing else.

Maybe the powers that be realize that soon honest people will be ascended to the BoD who will insist that the PDGA leadership follow the very same constitution they've been violating.



So who specifically are you accusing of being dishonest and what proof do you have of their dishonesty?

Have you not been paying attention? No Board has ever been able to operate under our current or earlier versions of the constitution, and neither will Pat or Bruce. It has to change to be even possible to follow.

And if you think that the PDGA Board of Directors is ever going to purposefully take any "REAL" rights and benefits away from their TDs and Members, then you need to take a look inside your own heart, because it appears you don't trust yourself or think highly enough of yourself to trust or believe in anyone else.

It is pure idiocy to think that the PDGA would engage "purposefully" in alienating its volunteers and members. That being said we are not governed by "mop rule". We will always be answerable, but we can't sit on our thumbs waiting for popular agreement on every detail of our efforts.

(Lurkers, could you have imagined any other post from Jason or I?)

lyle and terry your disingenuity is setting new standardes even for this board :)




How disineguous is a statement that doesn't make sense, most likely describes something impossible, and cannot be replied to? Like your post, Pat: "is blindly voting for something without understanding it, simply because our elected officials are infallible, truly "governance"?"

What does that mean besides you think that people who are voting for the bylaws are morons, but you don't want to say it in a way that can be refuted?

Theo's posts from the PDGA attorney answered 99 percent of anyone's questions about the substance of the bylaws.

P.S. Oh, wait, I just parsed that statement of yours a little closer. I had assumed that you said that people would be voting blindly because they thought the board was infallible. But you actually stated, that the board *is* infallible: "our elected officials are infallible." Boy, are you wrong on that.

But I appreciate the thought.

Perhaps the confusion here is that the proposed Bylaws alone cannot actually replace the old Constitution but that two documents are needed. I agree with Bruce that there are no member rights, of the kind discussed in the old Constitution, in the proposed Bylaws. Theo admitted that some election items and hopefully some commitment to member rights or ways to interact with the Board would be forthcoming in another document.

It sounds like it doesn't make sense for these election items and member rights elements to be part of the Bylaws per Murphy. In which case, there's a second document for the next Board to draft that covers the items requested and needed (elections) that are typically not part of the legal bylaws. I don't see the Board wanting to dodge the obligations of preparing the second document, just that it hasn't been drafted yet. Perhaps much of this acrimony could have been avoided if this two document plan was indicated prior to the vote.

...to do whatever they want for as long as they want to...



Isn't this precisely your plan for our PDGA Competitive System?

We don't need to undermine your positions Bruce, you do that well enough on your own...

For Ss and Gs: If the new Bylaws pass, will the membership have the "right" to amend these Bylaws?

Here let me turn this on for you (SQUIRM MODE: ON)

Save you the trouble of looking it up:

* Firstly, the Board is elected by the members, who will presumably elect people to represent their interests. Corporate law in general (and Colorado law in particular) require all Directors to act in the best interests of the members; to do otherwise could expose Directors to legal liability.

* Secondly, the new Bylaws provide for a member �check� by permitting members the right to petition for a change to the Bylaws or the recall of a Board member (see, Section 3.12 and Article X). Note that this is a change from the existing Bylaws, which currently permit the Bylaws to be amended by the Board only, and which include no recall provisions.

* Finally (and most importantly), I think it is important to keep in mind that the PDGA is a member organization; without the members the organization simply ceases to exist. Surely, this Board understands this, as will all future Boards. What is this �power� that the Board is seeking to grab? As with any similar organization, if you don�t like what the Board is doing, you can always simply vote with your feet. If enough members choose to do that, then surely a new organization will take its place.

Corporate Bylaws are generally just a procedural document; it is most unusual for corporate Bylaws to seek to do more than that. These proposed changes are about giving the Board the flexibility to efficiently and effectively operate the organization for the benefit of its members. Periodic changes in procedure are a normal and natural part of an organization�s development, and are rarely of any particular concern to the members in general. In this instance, if any such changes are of concern to the members, then the members can require a change."

Jason,

The current C has not been followed by any BOD not just his one.

Kirk



Kirk, how am I supposed to respond to that? This coming from the current Oversight Director, whose responsibility it is to make sure the BoD is following the -- drumroll please -- current PDGA Constitution.

Judging from your brief post, it sounds like you've given up trying to follow or getting others to follow the Constitution. Is this true?

Makes me think this is how I got my PDGA Certified Official's Card stripped without being invited to my own trial. Yes, that's one of the protections that the current PDGA Constitution provides for -- no hearings before both parties have been given a chance to plead their case.

I never got that protection. I never got that because the BoD stopped following the PDGA Constitution. The BoD didn't follow the constution because you weren't doing your job Kirk.

kight, only you would post such a direct assualt on good people who you admittedly do not even know! how classic this thread is becoming. it was actually productive and meaningful for awhile.

Jason,

The current C has not been followed by any BOD not just his one.

Kirk

jesus god Kirk you are the current oversight director. you just publicly stated that you know of cases where the BoD has violated our current documents - and YOU are the one supposed to make sure that does NOT happen! to me you have just shown that you should not be on the Board!

is blindly voting for something without understanding it, simply because our elected officials are infallible, truly "governance"?




again, just because i disagree with your viewpoint does not mean i have not read things carefully. to suggest it does is demeaning. it is possible for smart people to disagree and to reach differing conclusions.



Pat, the two posts of yours that I quote above don't seem to be in agreement with each other. In the first you imply that no one could possibly read the proposed bylaws and vote for them if they understood them. In the second, you want people to not try and change your mind about them.

You should try to stay consistent in your arguments.

Jason,

I was not on the BOD when that happened to you. Please don't make it sound like I had anything to do with that.

I took on the task of the re-write for 2 reasons: the current C was not being followed (and could not be) and no one else wanted to try it.

The current C is in direct conflict with our AOI (for those of you following along at home that is the Articles of Incorporation). The AOI is a legal document. So, should we follow the C and not the AOI?

I can promise you I am not out to "grab power". I am a player that believes I can help make the system work better for all of us. Just like running a tournament you can't please everyone.

Kirk

Perhaps much of this acrimony could have been avoided if this two document plan was indicated prior to the vote.

we agree on that one! apparently forethought was not a strong suit when tis was being prepared.

but wait... i was told the current bod consisted of high quality professinoals with tons of experience in matters such as these. shouldnt such folks be able to steer well clear of such an obvious error?

$125 Sanctioning and Insurance
$_80 Pro $2 Fees
$540 Am $3 Fees
$150 Non-member $5 fees
$100 New Memberships sold

$995 Total


I would like to formally request that confusion-mongerers please stop distorting the facts of what exactly they have to pay to the PDGA.

The fact of the matter is that insurance is not required by the PDGA to run PDGA sanctioned events. It might be required by your park in order to get a permit. If it is in fact required from the park, then you should go out and spend $300+ on your own dang insurance policy and leave that excellently priced $50 out of your biased calculations.

Secondly, the $5 non-member fees and $40-$50 PDGA membership fees did not come out of your tourney account!!! You collected that separately as a service to the members and the PDGA.

Try to use legitimate numbers. PLEASE!

the fact remains, those safeguards do NOT exist in the new document. "good intentions" is NOT a safeguard.



Pat, I actually spent the time to read the tedious language in greater depth, and all it has done is to make me further question your alarmist tone. The safegaurds that you and Bruce claim do not exist, actually do exist.

Article X outlines a process for active members to change the bylaws.

Article III 3.12 outlines a means to recall a member of the Board.

So, the only logical concern left is Bruce's concern that with the ability to define who is an active member, the Board could eliminate "member rights" by eliminating the membership. Not much of an association after they do that. I feel this one remaining concern is not a real possibility.

After further inspection, this whole debate is becoming a whole helluva lot of ado bout nothing.

ps. I did find this language interesting:

Any Board member may be removed, with or without cause, upon the unanimous affirmative vote of the entire
Board of Directors.

It seemed kind of troubling at first, but I guess a lone dissenter would have to vote themselves out for it to actually move forward.

What a wonderful thread, perhaps if we let the process run its course, we'd have something to discuss.

Either vote yes or no, personal attacks do nothing but impede the process. I'd suggest getting your friends (if any of you have any :D) to vote. If only 20% of the members vote, then you get what you get.

Now back to the whine and cheese fest. ;)

rhett, i said IF someone votes blindly without reading or comprehension simply because he believes that the board is infallible in both action and intent THEN it is a mistake. i did not say the only reason to vote yes was a failure to read and/or understand.

my second statement does not say that i believe people should not change their minds. bottom line is that we'll never have 100% agreement. i am extremely used to working with people with whom i disagree, and on projects where i might have done it differently had it been my choice.

this is a time prior to implementation. this is the time to discuss. if and when the time comes that i am on the BoD and the Members have approved these changes, then i will work to implement these changes as the Members desire. i can work hard for that even as i work to reintroduce the rights that have vanished. there is nothing inconsistent about being able to participate in a civil discourse with people with whom you disagree.

Pat,

Have you been paying attention at all?

I will try to put this in terms you can understand:

WE CANNOT FOLLOW THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION. And, as far as I can tell we never have. It has not been followed to the letter by this BOD or many if not all of the previous ones. Have you actually read the current C?

It is in direct conflict with our AOI which is a legally binding document.

Kirk

As someone who is aspiring to get the opportunity to work with many of these current Board Members, wouldn't it be in your best interests and the interests of the BOD in general to consider how you publicly portray those you plan to collaborate with in the future?

Nick, usually I let your historical rewrites pass but this one I've got to call you on.
...The bright side in considering that they might well win election is that they will likely self-eliminate themselves, as Bruce has already done once (not even elected)...


Bruce was appointed as Oversight Director and then ran and won the post in the next election.

As someone who is aspiring to get the opportunity to work with many of these current Board Members, wouldn't it be in your best interests and the interests of the BOD in general to consider how you publicly portray those you plan to collaborate with in the future?

yes, that is a concern that i reflect upon daily.. even hourly it seems in this case. please explain how my comments are more harsh than some of the stuff terry has said recently. or the attitude theo has protrayed. i'd mention Nick, but so far he has not seen fit to step up and run for anything.

in the final analysis, i will continue to state my case. if the bylaws get approved and i get elected i will faithfully help implement the new bylaws. i will faithfully seek to fix their deficiencies also. those two courses of action are compatible.

since we are big on giving the BoD the benefit of the doubt, i have conclluded that the BoD members with whom i will be working are intelligent and professinoal enough to understand that this thread is about the timing and the changes, not about one person or another person.

sincerely though, thanks for reminding me about this. as i said, i am aware of it, and need to remain so.

Jason,

I was not on the BOD when that happened to you. Please don't make it sound like I had anything to do with that.



My apologies Kirk. I didn't know that. I should not have said that without knowing who the Oversight Director was at the time.

$125 Sanctioning and Insurance
$_80 Pro $2 Fees
$540 Am $3 Fees
$150 Non-member $5 fees
$100 New Memberships sold

$995 Total


I would like to formally request that confusion-mongerers please stop distorting the facts of what exactly they have to pay to the PDGA.

The fact of the matter is that insurance is not required by the PDGA to run PDGA sanctioned events. It might be required by your park in order to get a permit. If it is in fact required from the park, then you should go out and spend $300+ on your own dang insurance policy and leave that excellently priced $50 out of your biased calculations.

Secondly, the $5 non-member fees and $40-$50 PDGA membership fees did not come out of your tourney account!!! You collected that separately as a service to the members and the PDGA.

Try to use legitimate numbers. PLEASE!



All Bruce was saying was that was the money that we raised for the PDGA at the tournament. NONE of that money are we REQUIRED to raise for the PDGA. And Bruce and I have never said it comes out of our back pocket. ALL of that money came from the players who paid entry fees. If we didn't run the tournament, the PDGA would not get their money.

Try to use legitimate logic. PLEASE! :D

Nick, usually I let your historical rewrites pass but this one I've got to call you on.
...The bright side in considering that they might well win election is that they will likely self-eliminate themselves, as Bruce has already done once (not even elected)...


Bruce was appointed as Oversight Director and then ran and won the post in the next election.


Feel free to correct my "historical rewrites".

If I were to employ lawyer or politic speak I could say that it wasn't a "historical rewrite" but a minor omission (the part about him running the second time (unopposed?)).

I have nothing against appointments, I've been appointed twice myself...

The question remains Jon, can Bruce work with others as an equal member on a scale larger than local or even regional?

What are his accomplishments while on the BOD? Something to indicate that he did something while there. I figure you'd know if anyone would. I haven't heard anything to this point.

Jason,

Accepted!!!

Kirk

Jason,

I was not on the BOD when that happened to you. Please don't make it sound like I had anything to do with that.



My apologies Kirk. I didn't know that. I should not have said that without knowing who the Oversight Director was at the time.



That would have been Bruce, right?

Ironic.

but Bruce tried to get the PDGA to fix its felony gambling problem, and they choose to do nothing. he has explained this previously. at least he not only recognized something was wrong but he also tried to fix it! perhaps different from the actions our current OD has taken.

the fact remains, those safeguards do NOT exist in the new document. "good intentions" is NOT a safeguard.



Pat, I actually spent the time to read the tedious language in greater depth, and all it has done is to make me further question your alarmist tone. The safegaurds that you and Bruce claim do not exist, actually do ezist.

Article X outlines a process for active members to change the bylaws.

Article III 3.12 outlines a mean to recall a member of the Board.

So, the only logical concern left is Bruce's concern that with the ability to define who is an active member, the Board could eliminate "member rights" by eliminating the membership. Not much of an association after they do that. I feel this one remaining concern is not a real possibility.

After further inspection, this whole debate is becoming a whole helluva lot of ado bout nothing.

ps. I did find this language interesting:

Any Board member may be removed, with or without cause, upon the unanimous affirmative vote of the entire
Board of Directors.

It seemed kind of troubling at first, but I guess a lone dissenter would have to vote themselves out for it to actually move forward.



Actually James,

You left out one point that I am sure is of great concern to Pat and Bruce. That is, the Board could change the rules at a meeting to take away the rights of members to remove them from office. Of course that requires a quorum and that the Board be in cahoots to pull off this power grab (not impossible I admit). It also ignores the possibility that such an action would bother the membership so much that they would refuse to pay up come renewal time.

So Bruce, in response to your earlier post that there are no safeguards in place, well you are in essence right. You are in reality wrong. Common sense, practical governance, and the reality of what would happen if such a power grab occurred makes this abundantly clear.

The problem is that you are operating in a perfect world. One where the membership acts in a perfectly naive fashion; one where the Board acts in a perfectly unscrupulous and self serving fashion. Even in the event that happened, it wouldn't last.

On the other hand, the new Bylaws allow the Board the flexibility that any Corporate Board has, to do their job. Even more than most Corporations, the membership has the right to remove them if they don't do their job (yes with the caveat that if we all fell asleep, and they were all power hungry mad man that they could take over).

This is abundantly clear and my pointing out that you are ignoring it in presenting your argument isn't meant to be a personal attack. It is meant to point out that you might have some small reason for ignoring the reality of the situation and stating impossible scenarios as real possibilities.

As someone who is aspiring to get the opportunity to work with many of these current Board Members, wouldn't it be in your best interests and the interests of the BOD in general to consider how you publicly portray those you plan to collaborate with in the future?



Excellent point!

Jason,

I was not on the BOD when that happened to you. Please don't make it sound like I had anything to do with that.



My apologies Kirk. I didn't know that. I should not have said that without knowing who the Oversight Director was at the time.



That would have been Bruce, right?

Ironic.



You have no idea what you are talking about Nick! You are just guessing. How about you find out first and then post. Well, I'll make my own guess. I think that was after Bruce's resignation and before the next Oversight Director was appointed.

Was that an apology for improperly banning me from this board Pat?

A right to amend that requires a petition signed by a number of members equal to 2/3rds of the membership that last voted is almost no right at all. Even if the vote this time is anemic like previous elections, that would still require you to get a petition signed by about as many members as we have in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana combined. No one has ever exercised this right. It is easier to just go form a Southern Nationals and to tell the PDGA to stick it.

Beyond that, the petition power is not a right protected by the Bylaws. It can be changed by a simple majority of the Board thirty days after the Bylaws are approved. What makes our last few remaining rights actually "rights" is that it take 2/3rds of us to give them up.

Currently a majority of the Board cannot decide not to hold this election. A majority of the Board could not have decided to keep Sandalman off the ballot if he submitted a petition signed by 20 members. A majority of the Board can only accomplish that if first they pull the wool over your eyes regarding these Bylaws.

Not only do these bylaws fail to provide for a time for future elections or a procedure for future elections, the few passages hinting at a future election can be amended by a simple majority of the board. The passage allowing you o petition the Board can be deleted while you are getting your petitions signed.

Good luck with that.

Jason,

I was not on the BOD when that happened to you. Please don't make it sound like I had anything to do with that.



My apologies Kirk. I didn't know that. I should not have said that without knowing who the Oversight Director was at the time.



That would have been Bruce, right?

Ironic.



You have no idea what you are talking about Nick! You are just guessing. How about you find out first and then post. Well, I'll make my own guess. I think that was after Bruce's resignation and before the next Oversight Director was appointed.



Speaking about irony: "How about you find out first and then post."

Bruce was appointed as Oversight Director and then ran and won the post in the next election.


Please don't stop there...

...and then was charged with re-writing the Constitution

...and then accomplished absolutely nothing

...and then QUIT

...and then changed his mind and decided to run again

...and then began attacking the re-write that he was initially responsible for

...and then?

Was Bruce the oversight director when Jason lost his officials card? If so..then maybe he did accomplish something after all! :confused:

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy?

actually lyle, i do not think the biggest risk is from a BoD Gone Wild. altho that potential is there. to me the biggest risk is human nature. we have a roughly a million dollar budget, and no transparency into how it is managed and spent. i am NOT takling about Member input on $2 purchases. i AM talking about those 5,000 to 25,000 dollar deals that get cut with no details provided to the Members. those deals can somehow get routed to a Member or vendor based on something other than actual capabilities.

can this happen? you bet. will it hppen every day? not a chance. will it ever happen? 100% certainty. why do i say this? because when i was made Webmaster i was given a contract for a handful of thousands USD for the year. i was told NOT to reveal the specifics to anyone - because it might make other Members mad!!!

this actually happened. i am not making it up. it is not a stretch that money could be moved to someone who will not deliver real value for the pricetag. and no one will ever know because little ol Members are not entitled to know anything about where their million bucks went. (no, the high level budget in the 5 point text is not sufficient)

now, put transparnecy and openness back into our governing docs and the problem doesnt go away. but it does become discoverable and to a large degree preventable.

i was asked to ban you nick. and it lasted for what, 14 hours? i have no plans to apologize for doing what i was asked and applying the boards ground rules in a fair and unbiased manner.

To be a little more succinct your answer could be summed up as:

YES they have the right to amend the constitution and are NOT WITHOUT RIGHTS as I claimed before.


A right to amend that requires a petition signed by a number of members equal to 2/3rds of the membership that last voted is almost no right at all. Even if the vote this time is anemic like previous elections, that would still require you to get a petition signed by about as many members as we have in Iowa, Illinois and Indiana combined. No one has ever exercised this right. It is easier to just go form a Southern Nationals and to tell the PDGA to stick it.

Beyond that, the petition power is not a right protected by the Bylaws. It can be changed by a simple majority of the Board thirty days after the Bylaws are approved. What makes our last few remaining rights actually "rights" is that it take 2/3rds of us to give them up.

Currently a majority of the Board cannot decide not to hold this election. A majority of the Board could not have decided to keep Sandalman off the ballot if he submitted a petition signed by 20 members. A majority of the Board can only accomplish that if first they pull the wool over your eyes regarding these Bylaws.

Not only do these bylaws fail to provide for a time for future elections or a procedure for future elections, the few passages hinting at a future election can be amended by a simple majority of the board. The passage allowing you o petition the Board can be deleted while you are getting your petitions signed.

Good luck with that.



I really fail to see how you hope to work with these people you feel are so dishonest and untrustworthy. Can you explain your plan of action? You know you can't just rule like a little Caesar, like at home. What are you going to do when someone disagrees with you.

Run away?

Sorry to be so stark, but that is the tenor of this discussion. You've brought it upon yourself.

dude, bruce has gona out of his way to say it is not a particular person or current BoD member he is worried about. he is worried about some person in the future who none may even know at this time.

people, this is not that hard. we are talking about the POTENTIAL for problems. we are not saying that Theo is gonna pocket the money and run. we aretrying to point out that the proposed document leave very wide openings for problems to occur. it is not in the best interests of the organization to allow those gaps to exist.

Bruce was appointed as Oversight Director and then ran and won the post in the next election.


Please don't stop there...

...and then was charged with re-writing the Constitution

...and then accomplished absolutely nothing

...and then QUIT

...and then changed his mind and decided to run again

...and then began attacking the re-write that he was initially responsible for

...and then?

Was Bruce the oversight director when Jason lost his officials card? If so..then maybe he did accomplish something after all!



Bruce started to rewrite the constitution. Was discouraged when he found out that Theo was only interested in Bruce writing a constitution that would take away the rights of the members. Bruce let the board know what they needed to change as far as the big stuff that the PDGA was doing illegally. The BoD got a second opinion that concurred with Bruce's opinion. The BoD then decided to ignore the law and continue with business as usual (with Bruce's dissent). That is what led to Bruce resigning. Bruce is not running for Oversight so, if elected, he would not be professionally endangered if something bad happened because of legal matters.

Bruce did NOT resign because he didn't want to do the work. He resigned because the rest of the PDGA BoD wanted to ignore the legal problems instead of deal with them. In another thread Bruce has addressed these issues. If you like what he has to say about that then vote for him. If you don't then there's another guy on the ballot to vote for.

why did you to edit this post of mine? (from the previous page) :confused: was it to create an incorrect spelling in the title of Bylaws?



Ah, I was hoping you wouldn't notice. I had replied and forgotten to play the game of changing the subject line. But when I edited the subject line I hit your button by mistake :(

As soon as I noticed, I put your initial subject line back in yours. Sorry 'bout that.



okay, then please go back right now and fix your misspelling of Bylaws (your: "Vote NO On the Blaws" -- should be : Re: Vote NO On the Bylaws) thanks in advance ;) it's on page 12 (message #554900) and it's too late for me as a non-moderator to edit it. Maybe doing what Pat does and not posting under a moderator id is worth considering to help avoid such mistakes and to differentiate your personal opinions from your opinions as moderator(?)

Where is this explanation Jon?

non-admin accounts are great ideas for admins. keeps things seperate.

Wouldn't you agree that your assumptions that the Board is setting up the new Bylaws to usurp power is... uncertain?



that isn't a fair reading of Bruce's concern. He is stating that the proposed Bylaws are written in such a manner that it leaves the door open for the Board to potentially usurp power. Why would we as members pass such language when it clearly could be better written?

ALL of that money came from the players who paid entry fees. If we didn't run the tournament, the PDGA would not get their money.



Jon, I agree with Rhett. Although your above reasoning seems objectively logical, the numbers should NOT be lumped together as Bruce had done. That's mixing apples and oranges.

Bruce was appointed as Oversight Director and then ran and won the post in the next election.


Please don't stop there...

...and then was charged with re-writing the Constitution

...and then accomplished absolutely nothing

...and then QUIT

...and then changed his mind and decided to run again

...and then began attacking the re-write that he was initially responsible for



Bruce started to rewrite the constitution. Was discouraged when he found out that Theo was only interested in Bruce writing a constitution that would take away the rights of the members. Bruce let the board know what they needed to change as far as the big stuff that the PDGA was doing illegally. The BoD got a second opinion that concurred with Bruce's opinion. The BoD then decided to ignore the law and continue with business as usual (with Bruce's dissent). That is what led to Bruce resigning. Bruce is not running for Oversight so, if elected, he would not be professionally endangered if something bad happened because of legal matters.

Bruce did NOT resign because he didn't want to do the work. He resigned because the rest of the PDGA wanted to ignore the legal problems instead of deal with them. In another thread Bruce has addressed these issues. If you like what he has to say about that then vote for him. If you don't then there's another guy on the ballot to vote for.



Sounds like Bruce is just the kind of person we need on the BoD at this important juncture when the Constitution is being changed, BOD roles are being revised, election procedures are being left unstated, and the rights of members may be at stake. Bruce can count on my vote...

actually lyle, i do not think the biggest risk is from a BoD Gone Wild. altho that potential is there. to me the biggest risk is human nature. we have a roughly a million dollar budget, and no transparency into how it is managed and spent. i am NOT takling about Member input on $2 purchases. i AM talking about those 5,000 to 25,000 dollar deals that get cut with no details provided to the Members. those deals can somehow get routed to a Member or vendor based on something other than actual capabilities.

can this happen? you bet. will it hppen every day? not a chance. will it ever happen? 100% certainty. why do i say this? because when i was made Webmaster i was given a contract for a handful of thousands USD for the year. i was told NOT to reveal the specifics to anyone - because it might make other Members mad!!!

this actually happened. i am not making it up. it is not a stretch that money could be moved to someone who will not deliver real value for the pricetag. and no one will ever know because little ol Members are not entitled to know anything about where their million bucks went. (no, the high level budget in the 5 point text is not sufficient)

now, put transparnecy and openness back into our governing docs and the problem doesnt go away. but it does become discoverable and to a large degree preventable.



Let me ask you some questions. Did you deliver? Were you overpaid? Would the actions taken by the Board be consistent with actions taken by Boards in other non-profit or small business organizations? Let me answer for you. My guess is you delivered fairly well, that you were underpaid, and that their actions were completely consistent! So, we should be mad because they... did their jobs and got the PDGA a reasonably good deal on your services? Cripes Pat, what you lookin' for boy!

The reality is that the Board is acting in a very normal fashion considering what they and this organization are. Only someone who is naive about small business or non-profits would think otherwise. It is very easy to present their actions in a negative way. Especially given that there have been some mistakes. To think there will be no mistakes is again naive.

To think that the Board should have to report to the membership on the business decisions made, on a one to one basis also implies a lack of knowledge on small business and non-profit matters. You expect them to act to the best of their ability, and if they do an insufficient job you vote them out. That we can do this means we have more power than most stake holders in most organizations!

It should surprise no one that the Board is trying to move themselves, and future Boards, to level that most Boards (in fact the large majority of Boards) act at. The reason why most Boards act at that level is because that is the only way they can be effective! The effectiveness of our current Board and some past Boards has been seriously diminished by their need to deal with issues that no other Board has to deal with.

Either we trust the guys we put in office or we don't. UPM's need to harass them and your need to have input, when you haven't been elected to office, is not a normal part of corporate governance, period.

Corporate law and structure was developed to a) give structure, b) maintain a certain level of control, and c) allow boards and directors adequate power to do their jobs. The Board is moving us to the norm in terms of this and rightly so. That you and Bruce can present this as abnormal, or as a power grab is easy. Your notion that where they are taking us is bad/wrong/unusal/a power grab is simply wrong.

that isn't a fair reading of Bruce's concern. He is stating that the proposed Bylaws are written in such a manner that it leaves the door open for the Board to potentially usurp power. Why would we as members pass such language when it clearly could be better written?



Lyle, I see that this is the one concern I missed, and I can see how someone might find this to be serious.

However, I suspect the language can also be viewed in a positive way. I might give the Board some flexibility and allow them the authority to make important changes without waiting months or years. In other words, even though too much power can be seen as a negative, it is sometimes necessary for progress.

So........ after finally seeing a potential concern, which can also be viewed as a potentital benefit, I am curious. How could this language in Article X be rewritten to meet the vote no crowd's concern, yet still allow the Board the necessary power to effectively lead?

cept for one thing. we are not a corporation at least in the big-business sense of the word. we are a membership organization. Membership has its privileges, right?

[/QUOTE]

That would have been Bruce, right?

Ironic.

[/QUOTE]

That's funny. Hey, doesn't it seem like a consensus is in the air regarding this issue?

We can't have a constitution that conflicts with our bylaws. The new bylaws, if they pass, won't be enough to replace the constitution getting dumped. In this scenario, we'll need a constitution, too.

In the other scenario, the proposed new bylaws don't pass, and the existing constitution and the existing bylaws don't jibe, says a bunch of people.

So in that case rewrite the existing Constitution so it doesn't contradict any legalities laid out in the bylaws, which will also have to be rewritten.

Seems like still nobody has gotten around to rewriting or new writing, but we need a constitution. Hey, I wrote the existing NEFA Charter. You can't link directly to it but it's on the left if you go here: www.nefa.com. (http://www.nefa.com.)

I'm not buying into the "good people will do things" argument. People in power need an explicit code they must live up to, and they need clear job definitions.

Wouldn't you agree that your assumptions that the Board is setting up the new Bylaws to usurp power is... uncertain?



that isn't a fair reading of Bruce's concern. He is stating that the proposed Bylaws are written in such a manner that it leaves the door open for the Board to potentially usurp power. Why would we as members pass such language when it clearly could be better written?



Dude, when Bruce publicly impunes the character of folks he is likely to serve with, then it certainly is far to question precisely that. I strongly suspect that the folks here flying off the handle have never been involved in any such process or follow up; if you had you'd know that no one is trying to screw no one and that the PDGA Board of Directors not following an "unfollowable" constitution is not the same as illegal activity or dishonesty, it is in short working under bad circumstances and getting important things done inspite of untenable procedures.

Again, there are folks that sit around talking about doing things (us), and then there are folks who actually get things done (us, not here). This sort of thing is just undeniable for anyone who has been involved in it. It is unavoidable, well that is unless you quit...

And what the heck is that subject line supposed to mean.

The only disciples I have are the ones of hard knocks, and they don't get any of it from me, but from actually sticking thier necks out and getting pummelled periodically by the "Do Nothings".

Jason,

That is exactly what I tried to do. Unfortunately, once it was finished the new C still had issues and as it turns out we went with my original recommendation. No C. AOI and Bylaws only.

I agree that we need some additional documents that clarify certain situations.

Kirk

that isn't a fair reading of Bruce's concern. He is stating that the proposed Bylaws are written in such a manner that it leaves the door open for the Board to potentially usurp power. Why would we as members pass such language when it clearly could be better written?



Lyle, I see that this is the one concern I missed, and I can see how someone might find this to be serious.

However, I suspect the language can also be viewed in a positive way. I might give the Board some flexibility and allow them the authority to make important changes without waiting months or years. In other words, even though too much power can be seen as a negative, it is sometimes necessary for progress.

So........ after finally seeing a potential concern, which can also be viewed as a potentital benefit, I am curious. How could this language in Article X be rewritten to meet the vote no crowd's concern, yet still allow the Board the necessary power to effectively lead?



Actually James,

I don't think it needs to be. It is standard fair for a Corporation. The real issue here is that we have a handful of members who want to weild an influence on PDGA decisions when they haven't been elected to office. This is not normal and is in fact inappropriate. I don't see why that isn't clear. That the Board is answerable to us is evident in that they can be voted out of office. That they could usurp power goes without saying; that could happen in any company. That we can take our money away if they do so is also clear.

I'm through with argumentative quarrelling.

I think that there is likely need for a document that governs such things as discipline and elections. I don't see any reason that document need be our constitution. In fact, it seems that is where all the trouble arises.

Do any of the current BOD members have anything against forming a committee (or two) to discuss the drafting of documents that provide official procedures for such individual and specific membership concerns? Seems like that would be the proper way to proceed, once we have Bylaws that allow us to work legally.

Bruce, Steve and Pat, would you swear an oath to take up such a plan of action, regardless of whether you are legally working under the new constitution, or affirm to do so if working illegally under the current constitution.

This seems to be the choice when you get down to brass tacs.

The real issue here is that we have a handful of members who want to weild an influence on PDGA decisions when they haven't been elected to office.

in reality lyle (and i know that reality is not in overuse on this thread) that "influence" we want to "weild" [sic] is gauranteed to us in the current C. exercising your rights is normal, even in a coporation.

btw, Sarbanes Oxley makes every publicly traded corporation MORE transparent and provide member input into much much more than the proposed bylaws provide. try taking shareholder rights out of a corporate world. wont happen. even though the coporate directors are great people.

i;ll swear to uphold the obligations of any governing document i am elected to serve under. if that document disappears i swear to honor the intent of the original document as much as possible. i further swear to make sure the Members have as much information about not only the PDGA's finished products but also about the PDGA's thoughts, preliminary plans, musings, and whatever else occurs - just as Members have the right to that information now.

now take us all off of ignore so you can read our responses... i just tried to PM you but found myself on your ignore list! how friendly is that???

cept for one thing. we are not a corporation at least in the big-business sense of the word. we are a membership organization. Membership has its privileges, right?



I think you misunderstand any corporation that has stock or stakeholders. All are membership organizations with varying levels of membership power. In our Corporation, members have way more power than in any corporation I've ever encountered. So much so that UPM could litterally bring the productivity of the PDGA to a halt by being a pain in the donkey. That the leadership should have to stop their work and respond to someone like UPM shows just how weak our bylaws as they exist are. Should anyone wonder why some Board members have hinted they might leave if this isn't passed? They are wasting their very valuable time and effort babysitting...

I will state this clearly, the absolute slanderous commentary suggesting the ill intentions of Board members in this thread is a wonder to me. There isn't even a hint of the cost structure that would be involved in compensating these guys for what they do. The company I work for would assume a multimillion dollar bill for their efforts (if you think this is an exaggeration you need to educate yourself). To think, given this, that these guys are somehow out to garner power over an organization they work for because they love this sport is sad at best!

The real issue here is that we have a handful of members who want to weild an influence on PDGA decisions when they haven't been elected to office.

in reality lyle (and i know that reality is not in overuse on this thread) that "influence" we want to "weild" [sic] is gauranteed to us in the current C. exercising your rights is normal, even in a coporation.

btw, Sarbanes Oxley makes every publicly traded corporation MORE transparent and provide member input into much much more than the proposed bylaws provide. try taking shareholder rights out of a corporate world. wont happen. even though the coporate directors are great people.



At some level you are correct Pat. You are ignoring just how transparant this organization is and the fact that we can still get rid of these guys if they try to make it less so.

BTW - SOX is going to be re-written in the next year to accomidate the fact that the high cost of compliance is killing, you guessed it, small companies and non-profits.

lyle you sound so condescending and i know you are not that type. whatsup? no one is saying any current BoD person will do anything bad. from what i know of the current BoD, i doubt such nefarious activity would be undertaken by any of them. no one has blasphemed or slandered anyone.

lyle, UPM caused some grief no doubt. that doesnt mean the rights should be abolished. far from it. it means that propoer, manageable processes should be establ;ished so that Members can enjoy their rights without completely shutting everything down.

and for the record, i have owned a C corporation for quite some time. complete with shareholders. i have also worked for companies traded on the NYSe and NASDAQ. i have led SOX compliance projects, both in IT and in business departments. i hold stock in anywhere from six to 30 different coporations, and as a shareholder regularly vote on corporate issues for those companies. did you know that corporations regularly conduct analyst meetings where analysts and shareholders can ask any question they want? guess what - law requires that the officers answer truthfully and completely.

pdga Members have very little power compared to participants in publicly traded corporations.

I'm through with argumentative quarrelling.

I think that there is likely need for a document that governs such things as discipline and elections. I don't see any reason that document need be our constitution. In fact, it seems that is where all the trouble arises.

Do any of the current BOD members have anything against forming a committee (or two) to discuss the drafting of documents that provide official procedures for such individual and specific membership concerns? Seems like that would be the proper way to proceed, once we have Bylaws that allow us to work legally.

Bruce, Steve and Pat, would you swear an oath to take up such a plan of action, regardless of whether you are legally working under the new constitution, or affirm to do so if working illegally under the current constitution.

This seems to be the choice when you get down to brass tacs.



If they do Neon, I will consider canceling my membership and will withdraw from my volunteer role for the PDGA. What's happening here is wrong. What's being asked for is simple and being presented in a horrible light. In good conscience I could not continue.

Actually, I think I was on the Board at that time. I recall that someone was told that they could no longer act as a tournament official but I did not know the guy or the tournament. I think it was MSDGC. I recall questioning the other Board members whether the Board had the authority, since that would seem to be a disciplinary matter. Theo or Jon L. said that it was already done, and that the E.D. had done it. Terry said it was not a board level issue. Someone made the argument that the punishment being imposed was not the punishment of discipline as defined by the discipline section of the constitution. I think we discussed that the right to become an official is one of the Constitutionally enumerated rights, but also considered that the Constitution was silent as to the right to remain an official or the grounds and procedures for removing that status. In which case, I would have agreed that it was a matter within the Board's purvuiew that the Board could delegate to the E.D. I think we then voted and did delegate the issue to the E.D.

The whole thing went down as if there had been a meeting before the meeting where certain board members were informed and reached a consensus. But it may have been that they were chatting about the issue while they were waiting for everyone to connect to the teleconference.
I remember thinking, "Ahhh, the meeting before the meeting trick." That approach to corporate governance had led to the unraveling of the law firm I was with in private practice years ago. But just because I thought it does not mean it was so.

It is possible that this happened more than once, and Jason was not the victim when I was on the Board. But I suspect it is the same incident.

This is one of many grey areas in the Constitution that the Bylaws address by giving the board unfettered authority in almost all matters, and the authority to confer on themselves any further authority by a majority vote.

These are the enumerated rights contained in the current Constitution which only 2/3rds of the membership can abolish, and which have been deleted from the Bylaws:


� To vote and hold office
� To receive a membership package and official PDGA communications
� To earn points in PDGA sanctioned events
� To obtain a player rating
� To qualify for and participate in championship events
� To become Certified Officials and Tournament Directors
� To have comments to committees duly considered and acted upon



There are other rights scattered in the current Constitution which will be abolished by the Bylaws, and these include

The right to request and receve any available information about the PDGA,

Elections by closed vote,

A date certain for elections,

A right to present your case in any disciplinary proceeding,

An implied right to vote on serious rule changes.

You will waive all those rights by voting for a set of Bylaws that can later be amended by a simple majority of the Board.

There were other rights that you surrendered when Pat Govang asked you to give up half your rights. These included the right to be heard at the annual meeting and a right that the Board hold an annual meeting after notice to the membership. There may have been a right to vote on rule changes then also.

One thing that distinguishes the PDGA from the Society of University Regents, or whoever that Terry writes newsletters for, is that the PDGA is necessarily comprised of a lot of competitive people and more than our fair share of hyper-competitive people. We need rules more than University people do, and look for loopholes more too. They are mostly scholars. We are mostly players. If we create an organization that has no internal rules, wow, that is going to be some wild ride! :D

and how will SOX be rewritten? i bet they hold all kinds of public hearings and solicit the input from the coporations over which SOX exerts control. what a concept!

when i was made Webmaster i was given a contract for a handful of thousands USD for the year. i was told NOT to reveal the specifics to anyone - because it might make other Members mad!!!



Give us our money back Pat! I can't believe the PDGA is actually paying qualified, dedicated volunteers! I'm kidding. I agree with you that stuff like that should be out in the open, way out in the open. When you tell the truth it's easier to remember what you did, AND then people know and can judge you honestly.

Openness, honestly. It ain't brain surgery people. Show me where my 55 bucks is going. Thanks Pat for sharing, and good job whatever you do. Seems to be working.

Pat, I sound condescending because I'm "#$*&$!. Where does it say that we can't come to Board meetings and participate? It appears that you guys keep digging for some reason to find fault and every time it gets pointed out that you might not be correct you go find another point which then gets refuted. If you're digging to make points then you are looking for the sake of looking. That means that your approach appears to be "O.K. we need to shoot this down, now lets see how we can do that."

My gut instinct is that is true and is based in the feeling that this should have been vetted first and since it wasn't it should be killed.

While I agree that it should have been vetted and in fact am dismayed that it wasn't, I'm not willing to shoot it down simply for that reason.

and how will SOX be rewritten? i bet they hold all kinds of public hearings and solicit the input from the coporations over which SOX exerts control. what a concept!



Not sure, and in fact, given the number of bills and legislations that get passed without public vetting, I would doubt it. On the other hand, all Board meetings are open to members.

geez you can watch the congressional proceedings on c-span or read the congressional record the following day. that IS the public vetting. most of the time corporations are heavily consulted before legislation that effects them is passed.

borad meetings may be open, but that doesnt make it easy for members to participate. or even find out what happened at meetings thatthey couldnt get to.

i am fairly certain that board meetings have been held and minutes never published. maybe we need a P-span to help us

Thanks for the synopsis Bruce. It was exactly as bad as I suspected, but never knew, till now. Holy cow.

Boy are things gonna change.

geez you can watch the congressional proceedings on c-span or read the congressional record the following day. that IS the public vetting. most of the time corporations are heavily consulted before legislation that effects them is passed.

borad meetings may be open, but that doesnt make it easy for members to participate. or even find out what happened at meetings thatthey couldnt get to.

i am fairly certain that board meetings have been held and minutes never published. maybe we need a P-span to help us



Good point, and every time I'm watching CSPAN and I raise my hand with an objection nothing happens. :D

On the other hand, if I went to a Board meeting and they ignored me I could spill my coffee in Brian's lap. Youch!

I'm guessing the reason the minutes were never published is because they were too busy defending their actions here and didn't have the time... :o

This is a response to PaulM's post on 6/27.

I replied to your email the same day I received it.

Kirk


Kirk, I sent my email to you on 3/19, copied my email to you in this thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Other%20PDGA%20Topics&Number=523760&Searchpage=0&Main=518470&Search=true&#Post523761), and received no response from you either by email or in that thread.

Tell me again why anyone would run for PDGA BOD...

when i was made Webmaster i was given a contract for a handful of thousands USD for the year. i was told NOT to reveal the specifics to anyone - because it might make other Members mad!!!



Give us our money back Pat! I can't believe the PDGA is actually paying qualified, dedicated volunteers! I'm kidding. I agree with you that stuff like that should be out in the open, way out in the open. When you tell the truth it's easier to remember what you did, AND then people know and can judge you honestly.

Openness, honestly. It ain't brain surgery people. Show me where my 55 bucks is going. Thanks Pat for sharing, and good job whatever you do. Seems to be working.

well, now i get to finish the story...

shortly after i accepted the webmaster position i created some code that displayed the poster's player rating under his avatar on this board. i put the code on this board without running it by certain people first.

ya know what happened when i made this un-vetted change. one BoD member got really mad that "his" private data was being shown so publicly. another BoD member got mad because i published an enhancement that had not been vetted to the users and hadd not been sanctioned by the BoD. yes, these very same BoD members are now trying to get an unvetted Bylaws passed! (talk about inconsistency , Lyle)

well when this happened i admitted that i was wrong to publish the feature without vetting it first. i should have done so. i admit i was wrong on that. i took a bunch more flack.

due to the nature of my flacking, and the fact that i was still a bit disillusioned about the requirement to keep secret that i was to get paid for being the Webmaster, i decided to resign the webmaster position immediately. i made it clear that i was available to help in any capacity just like before, but i was refusing to take any money for my servies. the office has contacted me since then on several tasks, and i have gladly assisted. and will continue to do so.

so, you've got a BoD that wants to control the details of what is displayed where on the website, and requires at least some select circle of Members to approve any changes. but the same BoD will not release proposed revisions to the heart and soul of the legal entity to which we all belong. isnt that the classic definiteion of micro-management? refuse input on the big things and demand consultation on the little.

i have not accepted a single nickel for any work i have done on the website. i did accept a gratis membership in 2005. i accepted one in 006, but when all this went down i wrote a check for $150 for the membership (ace club) so that i would have a clean slate.

btw, jason , part of your $55 went to get me business cards saying Webmaster and a bunch of other stuff like that that i would nerver have used even had i stayed in the position. if i get elected, i will try to account for some more of those $55's.

My answer to you for jumping on Bruce for being the Oversight dude when Jason had his problem with the E.D. was flippant and I was being a jerk.

Tell me again why anyone would run for PDGA BOD...


Well, to make it a better BoD than it currently is. To do things right, so these series of miscommunications don't happen in the future.

There's a couple good reasons.

Pat, I sound condescending because I'm "#$*&amp;$!. Where does it say that we can't come to Board meetings and participate? It appears that you guys keep digging for some reason to find fault and every time it gets pointed out that you might not be correct you go find another point which then gets refuted. If you're digging to make points then you are looking for the sake of looking. That means that your approach appears to be "O.K. we need to shoot this down, now lets see how we can do that."

My gut instinct is that is true and is based in the feeling that this should have been vetted first and since it wasn't it should be killed.

While I agree that it should have been vetted and in fact am dismayed that it wasn't, I'm not willing to shoot it down simply for that reason.



Lyle, I'm not sure why you keep asking "Where does it say that we can't do" this or that? In order for it to be a right of membership it has to say something like "Members have the right to attend and be heard at all PDGA meetings." It doesn't have to spell out everything that we can't do. The BoD probably will allow you to talk at the next public meeting, but you don't have the RIGHT to do so.

Pat,

Have you been paying attention at all?

I will try to put this in terms you can understand:

WE CANNOT FOLLOW THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION. And, as far as I can tell we never have. It has not been followed to the letter by this BOD or many if not all of the previous ones. Have you actually read the current C?

It is in direct conflict with our AOI which is a legally binding document.

Kirk


This is the closest I've seen to a statement explaining what the problem with the current C is -- but still, no one has specifically said what the conflict actually is between the current C and the current AOI.

So I'll ask explicitly: what is the conflict between the current Constitution and the current Articles of Incorporation that prevents the BoD from following the current Constitution?

Pat, I'm beginning to doubt your ability to effectively interact with the BOD if you are elected. This is based entirely on your postings here in this thread. I consider you a friend and feel that you are very close to being a qualified candidate, but at the end of the day it is a political position and you aren't demonstrating a lot of political savvy here.

You are running unopposed so you are in, right?

Instead of railing against those you will have to work with for the good of the sport, how about you chill out a little and resolve/swear to push a revision to the new bylaws (if they pass) that spells out a "Member Bill of Rights" that requires a 2/3 majority to amend. You and the BOD can put that in place with a simple majority vote, right?

Pat, I'm beginning to doubt your ability to effectively interact with the BOD if you are elected. This is based entirely on your postings here in this thread. I consider you a friend and feel that you are very close to being a qualified candidate, but at the end of the day it is a political position and you aren't demonstrating a lot of political savvy here.

You are running unopposed so you are in, right?

Instead of railing against those you will have to work with for the good of the sport, how about you chill out a little and resolve/swear to push a revision to the new bylaws (if they pass) that spells out a "Member Bill of Rights" that requires a 2/3 majority to amend. You and the BOD can put that in place with a simple majority vote, right?


Are you equally worried about the responses from the active members of the BoD? I wasn't as concerned about this topic, even after reading Bruce's concerns, until I started reading the responses from Theo and Terry.

An aside -- by the time I'd read Bruce's post, I'd already received the ballot, voted no for the new bylaws (surprised as I was to see them there), and in the comments section, asked for the new bylaws to be put on a separate ballot. It simply makes no sense to me to vote for people to BoD positions that would be made obsolete by the new bylaws. So I vote for this person to Oversight, and in the very next click, I vote for the elimination of the Oversight position? What kind of nonsensical ballot is that? -- end of aside.

Leaders should expect and even welcome strong criticism of their actions, and then they should be able to explain their actions so that maybe not everybody agrees, but at least everybody understands. Acting hurt over any criticism is not the way to lead an organization.

The other thing that makes something a right is that it cannot be easily taken from you lawfully. In this regard the only right I noticed in the document is the right of the Board to ignore the membership. Under the Constitution I think all it took was a petition signed by ten members to force the Board to consider your issue. They could vote it down but they could not ignore it. Now it takes what, 2/3rds of the number who voted in the last election? That is a pretty solid right there, not to be bothered by people who thought they had rights.

Nothing is a right by calling it a right. Something is a right by how it walks and quacks. If four people can hold a meeting you were never invited to and lawfully agree to take something from you, that was never a right. You really need a safe deposit box for that stuff.

So the so-called right to vote or the right to petition the PDGA is not a right at all. Aside from the fact that the Bylaws could be faithfully observed without ever holding another election, those privileges can be amended by four Board members voting at a meeting.

For those of you who think you've read the Bylaws, if they are passed,

1. When is the next election?
2. If a board member resigns and the Board replaces him, how long does that Board member serve?
3. If an election is held under these Bylaws, how many Directors are up for election and how long do they serve?

rhett i did that several posts ago. i also made clear this is not about a person or persons. i see no problem with conducting a discussion in the open. i hope the BoD and office will increase their use of this board doe communications with the Members

I honestly think, having read through this thread, that the new bylaws were placed on this ballot by the current BoD because they knew Bruce and Pat were on the ballot, too, and they wanted to get this passed before they joined the BoD. I think this action was taken by the current BoD with the full knowledge that this would tweak the potential incoming members of the BoD into reacting as they have. I think Bruce and Pat expressed their concerns early enough, in emails and in another thread, that this reaction of theirs should not have been surprising in the least.

And yet the current BoD did it anyway.

So I can see no other explanation for rushing these new bylaws out the door for a vote, except to make it harder for the incoming BoD members to do anything about it.

If I am right, and I think I am, given the responses to Bruce and Pat that I've read here, then making life harder for a couple potential incoming BoD members is not acting in the manner that is in the best interest of PDGA. Is it?

I think it's clear that the new bylaws should be voted down.

rhett i did that several posts ago.


Well, keep doing it! :)

It is a political position.
It is a political position.
It is a political position.

That's where I always get into trouble, by forgetting that. What is politics? It's people. Wherever you have people you have politics. I tend to think that hard work and dedication to the cause is all that's necessary to succeed, but that's about as far from the truth as it gets.

You have to play the political game in order to be effective. A sad fact of life. :(

And by "political", I don't mean "politically correct".

Paul,

I replied to you via email.

There was absolutely no discussion between BOD members about putting this on the ballot because Bruce and Pat were running.

That has to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen posted on the DB.

Kirk

i guess your advice for Pat then (instead of being sincere, open and inclined to public honesty about his concerns regarding the way the BoD has handled the proposed changes) would be to hire Bruce to write him a professional legal opinion on the document outlining all of the potential drawbacks of the proposed Bylaws and then present that legal opinion with an introduction such as:

i was concerned about the proposed changes so i decided to use my personal income to hire an attorney in order to get a professional opinion regarding the proposed Bylaws. Here is what the attorney said: "insert the opinion Bruce would craft if Pat paid him for one" :confused:

one of the reasons i am enthusiastic about Pat being elected to the BoD is that unlike the apparent characteristics of some of our present leaders, Pat is inclined to openess and inviting member feedback even though it may feel inconvenient. Further, he has experience running a company that way and has done so with success.

i vehemently disagreed with Pat's support of the 2 Meter Rule, but i have grown to admire his respect for the true spirit of democracy and his distaste for dictatorships... (disclaimer: Pat nor Bruce have talked to me or offered compensation to me for posting this -- it is merely my present honest opinion)

Kirk,

why did you assure me via email on March 9th that as far as the revisions to the Constitution the clause requiring openess would not be removed or changed?

did your advice to the other Board members go unheeded? :confused: at what point in time did you realize your assurance to me would turn out to be false?

Paul,

I replied to you via email.


Fine. I only said I never got it. And you never responded to my post, either. Or to my post after that on the same thread. So I guess you understand how I said I didn't get a response from you, which was all I've been saying from the beginning.

There was absolutely no discussion between BOD members about putting this on the ballot because Bruce and Pat were running.


You're telling me that the opinions of the 2 strongest critics of how the new bylaws should be written were never even considered when the bylaws were discussed by the BoD? It's hard to believe that the BoD can be so careless and insulting to potential incoming BoD members. I'd rather believe their actions were intentional -- and I have a hard time believing that the 2 loudest voices outside of the current BoD regarding the new bylaws were not heard or remembered when the new bylaws were discussed. Do you do all of your discussion in a vacuum?

I can only look at evidence. Bruce and Pat ask for the documents, they're told they're going to get them when they're available, but they don't get them, and in fact on the same ballot that they're on, the new bylaws are also present, making the positions they're running for obsolete, and giving them no chance to contribute their concerns prior to the vote. I see no great leap of logic here to come to the conclusion that I have.

I think the current BoD knew it would be harder to pass the new bylaws in the current form later than now, and so the new bylaws were rushed out now, rather than later. And the difficulty about later was that people running for the BoD, like Bruce and Pat, disagreed with the current BoD on how the new bylaws should be put together. I think that is clear, there are many posts on this forum about that, and I think it has been made even more clear by the recent responses I've read to Bruce and Pat from the BoD. The current BoD has shown them no respect for their opinions by rushing the new bylaws out this way. They feel slapped down because they have been slapped down, told that they would have a chance to review the documents, then given no chance -- and now they find themselves running for a position that they have no idea will still be in place when the votes are counted. I don't see their reactions to this surprising in the least, and I don't think the current BoD should be surprised either. If anything, they were given notice that this would be the reaction -- and they simply chose to ignore it, you say?

That has to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen posted on the DB.


Glad to make you laugh. I'm not laughing. It is the present behavior of the current BoD that makes this all so believable to me. And yes, I realize this is outrageous -- laughable, even, if it weren't for the complementary behavior I've witnessed on this forum from the current BoD members. So I don't know what else to believe, and incidentally, your attitude on this subject has only convinced me further.

Wouldn't you agree that your assumptions that the Board is setting up the new Bylaws to usurp power is... uncertain?



that isn't a fair reading of Bruce's concern. He is stating that the proposed Bylaws are written in such a manner that it leaves the door open for the Board to potentially usurp power. Why would we as members pass such language when it clearly could be better written?



Dude, when Bruce publicly impunes the character of folks he is likely to serve with, then it certainly is far to question precisely that. I strongly suspect that the folks here flying off the handle ...



Nick, my name isn't "dude." i wouldn't characterize expressing concerns about the serious problems with the Bylaws that have been put on the ballot as flying off the handle, and i certainly find no evidence that Bruce has impuned the character of folks he is likely to serve with. Bruce did offer what he sees as Theo's preferred modus operandi. It would be better for both of us to directly quote Bruce but i'll play your way and give you my remembrance of ewhat he said: Theo is generally inclined to make decisions and solve problems behind closed doors rather than out in the open -- and he finds member feedback that is negative not worth his time and has a tendency to view all criticisms of PDGA decisions as being the product of people who don't appreciate the work being done and instead want to attack those who have taken on the responsibility. As an outgrowth of that, Theo prefers to have powers that trump member rights and do not necessitate involving members in the decisions which affect them except as an afterthought to bolster the stance he takes on a given matter.

Bruce didn't impune Theo and he may not have said exactly what i think i remember -- so why don't you quote, and then we can discuss, what Bruce actually [b] did say?

Where to start�

Well, as I stated earlier I�m not going to be argumentative.

I would suggest you read what Bruce has said about the character of the other board members as well as others here.

You accept his hearsay as if it is fact, yet you pay absolutely no attention to the corroborated statements of those who would be in a position to know more than you (or Bruce for that matter).

This discussion is the same sort of idiotic witch-hunt that goes on all the time here. Kangaroo Court is in session. Heck, you can�t even bother to read what folks have written here, let alone consider finding the greater truth beyond this myopic bored mess.

This is precisely why so many folks that actually DO for our sport can�t stand this forum, and why the whiners seem to have completely taken it over�

This board is little more than a mild amusement or annoyance, nothing more.

Fine. I only said I never got it. And you never responded to my post, either. Or to my post after that on the same thread. So I guess you understand how I said I didn't get a response from you, which was all I've been saying from the beginning.



And you can understand then how I said you didn't answer my questions on the OB thread from the beginning. You seem to run away whenever you come up short on your arguments. That is only natural I suppose.

(whispered) What Nick doesn't realize is that we've switched his posting privileges with Folger's Crystals. Let's watch...

Where to start�

Well, as I stated earlier I�m not going to be argumentative.

I would suggest you read what Bruce has said about the character of the other board members as well as others here.

You accept his hearsay as if it is fact, yet you pay absolutely no attention to the corroborated statements of those who would be in a position to know more than you (or Bruce for that matter).

This discussion is the same sort of idiotic witch-hunt that goes on all the time here. Kangaroo Court is in session. Heck, you can�t even bother to read what folks have written here, let alone consider finding the greater truth beyond this myopic bored mess.

This is precisely why so many folks that actually DO for our sport can�t stand this forum, and why the whiners seem to have completely taken it over�

This board is little more than a mild amusement or annoyance, nothing more.



your calling the DISCussion Board itself the problem indicates that you are not listening to the feedback being shared. noone has disparaged anyone or gone on a witchhunt except perhaps you in labeling the people here with real, legitimate concerns about the proposed Bylaws as "witch-hunters." anecdotally describing someones apparent preferred modus operandi is hardly to disparage them. is a disinclination for openess a flaw or simply a preference?

This discussion is the same sort of idiotic witch-hunt that goes on all the time here. Kangaroo Court is in session. Heck, you can’t even bother to read what folks have written here, let alone consider finding the greater truth beyond this myopic bored mess.

This is precisely why so many folks that actually DO for our sport can’t stand this forum, and why the whiners seem to have completely taken it over…

This board is little more than a mild amusement or annoyance, nothing more.



Then stop using the message board if you don't like it.

I'm willing to bet that some of those folks would come back.