Terry, i tried that aese website, but all the good stuff is for members only.

btw, my 74 year old mother was involved in the Boards of many hospitals throughout her career. She is serves on her local Republican committee board, as the Parliamentarian. she tells me that in every hospital and on the Rep. board all BoD members received a formal, written description of their rights and responsibilities to aid them in fulfilling their duties. additionally, so that members could better understand what their elected leaders where to be doing, each member receieved the same document as part of hteir membership package.

sounds like a best practice to me. you were on the BoD for quite some time, and profess to know and follow best practices for non-profits. if this is not a best practice, please explain why not. if it is, please help me understand why i never received any similar guidance whatsoever.

I wish I would have had this stuff to read when I was in Grad School for Public Administration! My favorite Prof's whole thing was a post-modern approach that brought together all sorts of old school and new school approaches to duke it out, not to identify one great truth, but to appreciate the complexity of things and take positive aspects from each different perspective. Everyone on the BOD should not be like minded, but they obviously should be able to respect their mutual differences. I am not that familar with all the history here, but man people are getting upset, and from the position of a relative outsider, those representing "the old way" are not getting a lot of positive PR here. That being said, I think that conlict and discussion like this draws people into the issue of governance and sparks interest where people would not have otherwise become interested, so it can be a positve thing.

So,

Let me get this straight MP3 and Lisle, you think it is appropriate that Pat takes private e-mails and parts of other communications and posts them here, out of context? I'm not asking if you approve of his agenda, I'm asking if you approve of his methodolgy. Let me repeat, for the most part I approve of Pat's agenda.

I don't know where you work, but I'd be shocked to find that is the excepted norm.

So, if you want to convice me, respond directly to that question. Would this fly in your place of business?



What Pat did would not "fly" unnoticed in my place of business because my place of business is different. It has a mission statement, core values, honor code and an operational excellence model that are available to its membership and employees with the click of a mouse. The "expected norm" is understood and communicated effectively "at my company." But this isn't about my company.

It is embarassing that Terry and others have had to quote other organization's "do's and don'ts" to determine what principles could apply to our organization. If our do's and don'ts were clear, this would be a non-issue.

I had to e-mail Brian Hoeniger four months ago to obtain a copy of the PDGA's mission statement!!! I don't think any association can expect to optimize their growth or meet any of their other goals if the membership is not made privy to their mission statement and key objectives. I also feel that

. . . that a member of the BoD should not have to defend himself on a message board.

"I find it vile that you like to make statements about people, seemingly quite casually, that resemble Republican attack ads."

I'm trying to figure out why one would qualify the term "attack ads" with either Rep or Dem. That's weird. Are the Democrat attack ads somehow not as bad?

Former BOD cronies come crawling out of the woodwork threatening legal action and basically spewing hate at the new BOD members because they are upsetting the good old boys.



Omigosh, such venom, and you don't even know me. ROFL. This is the reason this venue doesn't work for what Pat and others want to make it do. People like you can make loaded, intricate statements like that which are wrong, poorly worded, emotionally loaded, and insupportable.

First, I do nothing with hatred. Don't even feel hate. I'm one of those Liberals who can't even find hatred in his heart for bin Laden or Dubya, either one. If you find hatred on this thread, then it's coming from your heart, based on your own way of coping with the world, not with mine.

Second, I am a former board member, not a former board crony. If anything, I am now for the first time a board crony rather than a former board crony. (It really does help to get your words straight.)

Third, there are two new board members and you will dig in vain to try to find anything I have said negative about Steve Dodge, so much for the plural in "spewing hate at the new BOD members."

I mean, to engage in meaningful discussion you really at least have to try to read what you write and see if it makes even any minimal sense before you post it.

Unless your intent is simple to offload negative emotions?

Lisle, Becky, Discspeed, mp3_, dr evil, 28003, yes Lyle Ross also, and the host of other Members who have posted here and/or PM or emailed me...

thank you for demonstrating that the DISCussion Board can be an place in which informative discussion can occur. the level of your discourse is impressive. i appreciate that while you may believe i erred in some manner with my post you can look into the the situation and understand the fundamental message.

the suggestions that i tone down my sarcasm and personal criticism (not constructive criticism of ideas) is well-made, and i have heard it.

Lyle and Terry: if you wish to impeach me, please refer to the Bylaws Section 3.12. You will need written petition of 10% ofthe Active Members followed by a vote that resuts in 66% of the voting Members agreeing. if i may, i suggest you initiate those proceedings as early as possible in 2007, because much of the Membership will have not renewed at that time and will technically be not "active". So the numbers you need will be more readily achievable. that is the current process, and it is my responsibilty as a BoD member (particualrly one who was elected as Oversight Director) to explain the process and assist you with any procedural issues you encounter, regardless of your goal.

please help me understand why i never received any similar guidance whatsoever.



I think that if you had to miss the face to face summit - due to no fault of your own - some of that would have happened there. At least some trust building and bonding to let you know you're on the same side as the other guys.

My own employer association was about where the PDGA is now 15 years ago and we just in the past three years now have for the first time a good new board member orientation. But it costs dollars and staff time and didn't come easy.

Leadership development would be a wonderful thing for the PDGA to pay attention to, and maybe it will one of these days. As a member, I would find it a good use of PDGA dollars to have a board retreat for a weekend, somewhere nice, with an outside consultant on nonprofit board management leading you all through some educational exercises.

However, that could easily cost $15k or more. Will the board spend it?

Good question board member Pat Brenner. How do you spend $15k for that kind of exercise when you have members out there who think that $50k is a waste of money for an executive director's salary?

Have fun trying to explain a luxury weekend boondoggle to those who see elites and oligarchies where none exist :)

I'm trying to figure out why one would qualify the term "attack ads" with either Rep or Dem. That's weird. Are the Democrat attack ads somehow not as bad?



Yeah, this year the Republican ones had a lot more outright lies.

These are excellent points Lisle and I agree with them, 100%. So, if you're in a company where these things are needed and should be accomplished do you grab a torch and start lighting fires or do you negotiate?

Disagreements and discussion, even arguments are good, but there are certain codes that are part of the human norm that are essential to have a working relationship. Pat is operating outside those norms.

Final point, Getting a response from Brian. Look, I work with Brian on occassion and I volunteer. I know immediate responses are crucial. Yet, often enough I fail on that front. Brian has to meter his resources and think about who and what he is responding to. That is his fiduciary responsibility. Is he perfect? No, find me someone who is.

On a different note: Heaven forbid that a Board Member should have to defend himself on this MB. This is Pat's model, open communication where everyone is answerable in the public domain. He chose it, he supports it, he uses this venue to attack existing policy and non-conformist (by his measure) board members. I'm playing by Pat's rules.

quite frankly Terry, i would vote against such a retreat. While i share your opinion that such retreats CAN be beneficial, i believe 15K is far too much for our organization to spend on this activity. have you seen the budget for the Summit meetings?

i am not aware of any Members who have any opinions about the ED slary, because NONE of the Members i know have any idea what the salary is. i have not discussed it because it is personnel information. perhaps they know about it from the ED Search announcement? for the record, 50K to run a $1M organization seems like a bargain, if you can attract a qualified individual for that money. in the for-profit sector, such a task would be very near impossible.

Lisle, Becky, Discspeed, mp3_, dr evil, 28003, yes Lyle Ross also, and the host of other Members who have posted here and/or PM or emailed me...

thank you for demonstrating that the DISCussion Board can be an place in which informative discussion can occur. the level of your discourse is impressive. i appreciate that while you may believe i erred in some manner with my post you can look into the the situation and understand the fundamental message.

the suggestions that i tone down my sarcasm and personal criticism (not constructive criticism of ideas) is well-made, and i have heard it.

Lyle and Terry: if you wish to impeach me, please refer to the Bylaws Section 3.12. You will need written petition of 10% ofthe Active Members followed by a vote that resuts in 66% of the voting Members agreeing. if i may, i suggest you initiate those proceedings as early as possible in 2007, because much of the Membership will have not renewed at that time and will technically be not "active". So the numbers you need will be more readily achievable. that is the current process, and it is my responsibilty as a BoD member (particualrly one who was elected as Oversight Director) to explain the process and assist you with any procedural issues you encounter, regardless of your goal.



This is awesome, shall I go back and dig out the other posts where Pat has lit it up only to come back and say "O.K., I've heard the message, I'll tone it down and work more friendly," only to light it up again the next time things don't go the way he thinks they should? This is not civilized behaviour, it is manipulation.

Pat is cabable of great politness and great communication. He's also cabable of using this medium very effectively and very unprofessionally. If his responses were emotional, I'm mad and I'm not going to take it, that would be one thing, but his posts are carefully thought and made with a goal in mind. I repeat, his technique is unforgivable.

Lyle, why don't you use PMs so we don't have to read your unconstructive crap. I think now that things have been hashed out, people have stepped up to offer constructive management and BOD operational suggestions and things are moving more toward cohesion.

[It is embarassing that Terry and others have had to quote other organization's "do's and don'ts" to determine what principles could apply to our organization. If our do's and don'ts were clear, this would be a non-issue.



I agree, Lisle. Having until recently been on the "inside" for a while, it's apparent to me that this is entirely due to the immaturity of the organization.

The PDGA has reached the point where if we get a good executive director leadership transition, the organization can be considered stable. This was not the case just a few years ago.

That we are here is a major accomplishment and milestone with kudos to many great volunteers, and especially to our staff, and especially on the staff to the dedication and professionalism of Brian Hoeniger and Lorrie Gibson, who have basically given their lives to the PDGA for the better part of a decade.

Up until now, though, getting organizational structure into sustainable shape, adequate financial reporting, and a whole host of not-to-be-put-off demands have not made it possible to fund things - with staff time or budget dollars - such as serious leadership development.

If this board can coalesce without needless public infighting, it's in a position to do things now like fund a serious strategic planning retreat, work on an annual leadership development process, and a whole lot more. Current and future board members will be able to shine and show lots of cool progress.

Bringing board discussions into this kind of public forum will kill that dead.

Lyle, why don't you use PMs so we don't have to read your unconstructive crap. I think now that things have been hashed out, people have stepped up to offer constructive management and BOD operational suggestions and things are moving more toward cohesion.



So, what you're telling me is that when Pat comes on here and makes attacking posts that you agree with that's good and informative, but if someone comes on here and points out that technique is bad and unproductive they're posting "unconstructive donkey poo."

Let me repeat, Pat's notions of constructive BOD operations have merit, Pat's technique does not.

I would agree with you that PMs would have served Pat much better and if he had chosen to play in that venue, I would have much preferred it!

why don't you use PMs so we don't have to read your unconstructive crap.



I am so glad, Colin, that you agree that these kinds of discussions work best outside of a public forum. Oh, wait, is that not what you meant to say?

question for you folks familiar with best practices in non-profits.... should the budgets and inner communications of the BoD be available to non-BoD Members?

why don't you use PMs so we don't have to read your unconstructive crap.



I am so glad, Colin, that you agree that these kinds of discussions work best outside of a public forum. Oh, wait, is that not what you meant to say?


You are exactly right.....about Lyle. However, I believe Pat is trying to bring change in an organization. How can you bring change without making the problems known to everyone, especially voters. If my congressman would rather argue and yell at people instead of discussing the issues and positively working to defend or promote his POV, then I would want to know about it so I could vote him out.
After hearing the UNBIASED, positive, constructive criticism, I will concede that maybe Pat's method is somewhat flawed, but his motives are true and I don't think he is outside of acceptability for THIS organization, not every ogranization, but this one. In retrospect, Pat has either intentionally or unintentionally brought a big problem to light: LACK OF COMMUNICATION and LACK OF STRUCTURE among the BOD. Just because you know and practice something, Terry, doesn't mean everyone else does. I think you should more effectively communicate that to your post-ecessors (opposite of predessesors?).
It is evident that alot of people are passionate about their ideas for the PDGA, and that doesn't have to be a negative thing. One thing about this thread that has opened my eyes up is that, whether the PDGA likes it or not, the message board is a big part of decision making and discussion. Many issues have been fiercly debated here, (2MR), and that has an impact on the decisions that are made by the BOD. Hopefully everyone reading and participating in the this thread can put their egos aside and learn from what has been said here. I think I understand both sides of this debate, and its hard to say who's right and who's wrong. I think the PDGA is still finding it's IDENTITY, and we all shouldn't be quick to compare ourselves to other NP orgs. I think we can, work together, find what fits best for us, and go from there.

"but his posts are carefully thought and made with a goal in mind."

thank you Lyle for your recognition of my careful thinking. please tell me and everyone else what goal i had in mind. i am impressed, even stunned, with your psychic abilities. i mean, i thought all that alien stuff and aluminum foil headgear stuff was all a joke. now i find out apparently you were serious :)

the DISCussion Board is important, you are correct. my original post was copied to a number of movers and shakers in leadership positions within the organization, so apparantly someone does care.

remember, the ByLaws actually came within a few dozen votes of NOT passing. i suspect the closeness of the vote was due to a large degree to this DISCussion Board. otherwise we likely would have seen the 97% for, and 27 votes for write-in candidates that we see in the other issues.

once more, proff that Members are mature, educated and intelligent enough to handle the content of the message board. (well, except for maybe the girlie pics :) )

i was elected by a wide margin....



You ran unopposed!!


2006 Election Results (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2006/06ElectionResults.pdf)

i think it is amusing that the 2 most opinionated people on this thread hardly even play pdga events! if you don't play events don't you think you might be a little out of touch with what is going on now in the PDGA?

at least 30 people found ways to votes for someone else. there is always to option to not vote for someone. given the visibility of my thoughts on various issues, the vote appears as if its a mandate. (yes, i know.. not a mandate to act like a prick, but a mandate to pursue the platform i described)

I'm glad I didn't vote for you.

i am glad you voted and that you voted your conscience.

Someone asked me how much money I make. With all due respect, that's not something I'd share. If I were getting paid by the PDGA, on the other hand, then I'd want the members to know.



Well then don't go spouting off what someone else makes if they like to keep it quiet. I understand you don't work for the PDGA, but YOU are not respecting their privacy as you want yours respected???? Most people don�t like to tell what they make, be it small or large. Personally I am not like that, but I respect those that are. As a business owner, I only discuss how much each employee makes with that employee. This is the way it is in any organization. It is wrong for you to be able to find out and the one who told you should be stripped of his position.

All I see here is someone who is #$*&$! off he can't let golfers get drunk during the rounds of a PDGA tournament. I also see someone who is #$*&$! off he had to tell a touring pro that they were suspended.

You still have a personal vendetta against those that we pay to run the PDGA.

I am sure you are a great guy, anyone who is willing and able to run tournaments as respected as yours is can�t be a jerk, however, you present yourself as a major #$*&$! on this board over and over again.

(BTW, if an organization requires you to take continuing education classes, like anger management classes, it is very common for the organization to pay for those classes)

i logged into the research database of my MBA program to check out some current thinking on association management.

these quotes are from the first peer-reviewed article i opened:

"DEMANDS FOR TRANSPARENCY. Generational shifts, especially the need to balance work and home life. Growing ethical concerns. These are just a few of the trends that the medical and health care association community believes will be most influential in the coming years. We learned about the impact of these issues by surveying our colleagues."

"Association leaders felt good about the available opportunities to reach out to special-interest groups within the membership and to provide a forum for members to interact regularly online. As Sherry Budziak, former associate executive director, American Academy of Dermatology, Schaumburg, Illinois, observes, "Previously, our members largely got together once or twice a year to meet, talk, and exchange information. Online forums now permit our members to continue the dialogue between meetings and allow members who can't attend meetings to participate and learn from these discussions. While we still find only a small percentage of members who post and respond to messages online, a very large number of members presumably gain important information from viewing the discussions others are having online in our member communities.""

"Those surveyed continue to believe that addressing the needs of a younger market of non-joiners is the key to their overall success. But finding ways to address those needs is an ongoing process. As the baby-boomer generation is moving into retirement, there is a perception that this large pool of members may wish to remain active and involved. Finding ways for them to stay involved could compound the difficulty of engaging younger members and potentially could widen the gap between two constituent groups with differing needs and interests."

"Keeping an open book

At the time of the survey, ethical issues were in the forefront for medical and health care association leadership. The single most important overall trend reported concerned business ethics. Association executives believe that both their members and government agencies increasingly demand transparency in organizational management. Frequent, clear communication regarding these matters and an open book on association finances were considered the two most important things that executives could provide for their organizations at this time of increased scrutiny. "While I believe we've all tried to be highly ethical, these matters will now need to be more transparent and rigorous and written into policies and procedures than ever before," says Brian Schramm, CAE, director of business affairs, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Des Plaines, Illinois. "Couple this overall trend with new government regulations for nonprofit organizations, such as the new Sarbanes- Oxley-type law now in effect in California, and you will see many organizations in our field making changes to protect their organizational integrity."
"

Reference:

Martin, D., Rosenthal, L. & Hunghai, K. (2005, September). Building Benchmarks for Cooperation. Association Management. 57(9) 50-55.. Retrieved November 17, 2006 from the ProQuest database.



hmmmm.... more use of technology.... more open books.... hmmmm.... has anyone mentioned these before? hmmmm....

question for you folks familiar with best practices in non-profits.... should the budgets and inner communications of the BoD be available to non-BoD Members?



In most states, only much, much larger non-profit organizations are required to disclose any of their financial transations to their membership or the public.

This depends on the what state the pdga was incorporated in, and my guess is that due to size, the BoD probably does not need to disclose this info to the public to be compliant.

I don't see anything in there that applies to your post. I read that as being in favor of an online vehicle to disperse information and at times gather feedback.

Nothing to support the postings of interpersonal communications. Maybe in support of posting the topics that had not yet been decided to gather general comments, but not in support of posting positions that have already been decided against in hopes of overturning the decision by a groundswell response.

Whether or not more transparency is a way to go, Pat is not in a position to unilaterally make the change to more open communications as a Board member regardless of his platform for election. It's still a group and member decision to do so such that other leaders in the org both elected and hired also agree to support those changes. If the changes are approved, the minority that disagrees then have the opportunity resign their positions. Otherwise, if no changes are approved then you have the option to either support it or resign.

With a new constitution, there's no formal position other than the status quo (until any changes in openness if any are approved) which unfortunately has not been properly conveyed to the new Board members. So, there's work ahead in this area for the Board.

As a member who has only partially been assimilated by the "borg collective" I have been disappointed with the lack of communication in some areas particularly the speed. I believe it's unacceptable that the Summit minutes took until yesterday to be posted. I understand why this and other issues are the case such as having 2003 event logos on the archive page for Board minutes. It's primarily lack of resources. However, this has been the mantra of excuses for several years. I'm pleased that the Board has been placing more resources in this direction but it still won't seem fast enough for our tech savvy younger members. Even today's PDGA Major scores are not being posted on the PDGA Tour page as they come rolling in.

Using the Generation grid posted earlier, as a Baby Boomer with a Gen X slant I'll be politically incorrect and point squarely at the group of tech savvy Gen Xers and say they haven't been pulling their weight to provide enough volunteer technical help to the PDGA. We are very fortunate that several have. It's no secret the largest pool of tech talent is younger than Baby Boomers so where are they? Two of the three new Board members are Gen X with the other barely a Boomer. So, that's an advance in this direction already. But the other Board members have to be guided and persuaded towards a transition, not bullied.

Some of our Baby Boomer leaders are frustrated with not being able to provide the communication services all members would like to see but don't have the time nor the skills. Surprise! Some Gen Xers won't do it without getting paid for it. There's some but not enough money in the budget to do it all or do it fast enough.

I'm convinced that much of this acrimony would disappear if the PDGA did a better job with timely communications and still have the Board operate with good non-profit practices which keeps the process and procedures confidential but not the results. It's ultimately more of a customer service issue versus leadership issue other than finding the resources for doing some of our customer service tasks faster and better.

gary, please read my posts carefully. i am extending a lot of olive branches. you seem intent on focusing on my post of wednesday. many of us are attempting to move on. i dont see a lot of peace offerings coming back towards me yet. if you would like my behaviour to change, perhaps you could increase the likelihood of success by noting when an effort is made.

gary, nothing personal but this is the new age. when people do stuff we feel is not right, we post online about it. since there is no confidentiality agreement or rules currently that i have ever seen in the pdga constitution, then pat can post what he wants, when he wants, regardless of whether it is some people's opinions that this is good practice for an association. from what i read, he only posted his general observances, nothing specific, so i think you and several others are taking this way too seriously. maybe you should post on a thread and see if you can get a groundswell of support?

oh wait, you already did that... :o:o

Good summary, Chuck!

I do call BS on this though: "Some of our Baby Boomer leaders are frustrated with not being able to provide the communication services all members would like to see but don't have the time nor the skills."

I am the Secretary for our club (I call myself the InfoGuy since that sounds a tad cooler. ;)) Although the minutes of our meetings are a couple of orders of magnitude simpler than the PDGA's, I do not publish them in a timely manner simply because I hate the task.....and not too many people ever seem bothered that the minutes aren't published. I kinda want to do it in theory, but not so much in reality. The technology is no excuse � MS Word or even a text editor will do. Review them, approve them and slap them up on this site or even on the DISCussion board. Time is not a real excuse either. Sure if someone was holding my feet to the fire, I would say that I do not have the time, but since no one is holding my feet to the fire, I'll confess that I am just lazy in that regard. I imagine that it would take less time than it would take to watch CSI Miami, NY & LA to do a super job of the minutes of a 4 hour meeting.

But the real thing I'm proud to have accomplished on a club level is having a discussion forum implemented that has multi-level permissions. We have an area for "Club Matters" that only members can read and post in. It has served well in opening up a dialog between leadership and membership on the occasion that membership cares about an issue enough to ask. There is also a smack talk area for members (that registered users can read, but guests can�s) and a �Participate� area that members can post in to suggest where work is needed (all can read that area, but only members can post�.to limit potential griping to those that have bought the right to gripe!).

Another thing is weekly announcement/news emails. These actually take the functional place of �minutes�, since the important decisions get disseminated out as needed in this medium.

IMO, the hero's of the local DG scene are those who provide things behind the scenes and on the course on a regular basis: work, planning, camaraderie, friendship and fun. Having communications in place to highlight the heroes� contributions serves to magnify them and make things even more successful than they would have been without that communication.

I imagine that what happens on the local level translates up to a higher level pretty easily��.probably using other communication methods.

Dave, that's a great idea! unfortunately i have suggested similar stuff multiple times with no response as usual from the BOD. and i'm a SC!!!

apparently they are too busy trying to run servers and software that they have no clue about and getting hacked. wonder whose idea that was???

if they would just outsource the web stuff, they could allow full time pros to handle the security and server stuff, and spend more time on content and keeping things up to date. IMO another example of the pdga being penny wise and pound foolish


again the phrase "Good is the enemy of great" springs to mind!


BTW, Pat hang in there. you're doing a great job not letting the discontent few upset you.

I do call BS on this though: "Some of our Baby Boomer leaders are frustrated with not being able to provide the communication services all members would like to see but don't have the time nor the skills."



What I mean by this is specifically the PDGA website which is complex and can be screwed up if you don't know what you're doing. In addition, I help update other websites like Pro Worlds. When I have ratings calc updates, I can't do it. When I have any kind of documentation updates for downloadable docs for courses, ratings, tournaments, world rankings, I can't do it. When members ask for new types of sorts for ranking the GMs in Florida by ratings, I can't do it. All of these things have to go thru a webmaster or even someone more knowledgeable because database access and linkage is involved. I'm just one of several PDGA leaders who would like and have asked for this help. I would do it myself if I knew how. But too many folks with access can really mess things up. Even doing clean up items like removing the 2003 logo links is apparently scary because of intertwined file linkages.

some folks think i can only see one side, what can i say?

here's a nice article:

Question: I sit on a board that conducts all its business behind closed doors, and I'm too chicken to speak up against it.

We enter into contracts based on nepotism and vendor incentives to board members. We even hired a vendor who has been fired from other associations and who sues individual homeowners.

Owners cannot sit in on hiring discussions and are barred from knowing what contracts are entered into because voting takes place in executive session.

The association attorney sent the board a letter advising us to hold meetings in executive sessions and shut owners out. It said: "The Civil Code clearly states that members may attend board meetings except when the board adjourns to executive session. The California State Constitution provides an inalienable right of privacy, which applies to homeowner association vendors. After a board openly solicits bids from vendors such as management companies, roofers, plumbers and the like, it is appropriate to discuss the specific vendor's proposed contract price, vendor selection debates, negotiation and contract approval in a closed executive session. These are protected discussions and if held publicly might be disparaging to the vendor."

The letter continued: "The board did not violate the Open Meeting Act by not discussing and voting on the contracts in open session. Executive session meeting attendance is limited only to association board members, management company personnel and agents, designated committee members and volunteers appointed at the board's discretion."

Why do vendors have more rights than the owners who pay the bills? Why is it that a management company, volunteers and committee members can attend but a titleholder can't? Is the attorney's advice wrong?

Answer: The constitutional provision is not for a vendor to invoke; it belongs to the association board. When applied to a homeowners association, the "inalienable right to privacy" refers to the board members' right to be able to discuss matters among themselves, including comparing one vendor with another. It does not mean the vendor attends the session.

Vendors have no right of privacy in discussions or negotiations with the board. A board's contract decisions must be voted on at an open meeting, and boards cannot adjourn to executive session as a means of evading the Open Meetings Act.

Courts reason that association boards have broad powers, and their actions affect a number of individuals. The Legislature mandated that boards hold open meetings. In Damon vs. Ocean Hills (2000), the court recognized that California's Davis-Stirling Act parallels the Brown Act. Both contain sunshine provisions "construed liberally in favor of openness."

In Attorney General Opinion Letters (2002), it is established that open meeting and records disclosure "requirements" apply to private, nonprofit corporations and to meetings of governing boards of such corporations, and that even "evaluation of performance, discipline, dismissal, and employee salaries" must be discussed in the open. Together, these laws mandate open governance meetings -- with notice, agenda and the requirements of minutes -- while strictly limiting closed executive sessions.

The privacy provision was added to California's Constitution in 1972. In 1975, California's Supreme Court stated that the privacy provision is directed at four principal areas of conduct: government snooping and secret gathering of personal information; collection and retention of unnecessary personal information; the improper use of properly obtained information for a specific purpose; and lack of a reasonable check on the accuracy of existing records.

As vendors are competing in an open marketplace for the same work as others in their field, they should expect competition and have no "right" to deal privately with the board.

Once volunteers, management company personnel, committee members and the like are allowed into executive sessions, any privacy right, if one existed at all, is waived. It is inappropriate to hold vendor interviews and voting behind closed doors.

Reference:

Meetings of the board are no place for secrecy; [HOME EDITION]
Stephen Glassman and Donie Vanitzian. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 26, 2003. pg. K.12

''The current financial disclosure forms that unions file provide little of value to rank-and-file members about their union's finances and operations, and they have failed as an effective deterrent against financial misconduct,'' said Elaine L. Chao, the secretary of labor. ''Too many workers are being hurt by the wrongdoing of a few.''

''The [Bush] administration's rules are craftily designed to weaken unions -- the strongest advocates for American workers -- as our nation prepares for the 2004 elections,'' said the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s president, John J. Sweeney.

''There are good reasons and bad reasons that labor is opposed to these rules,'' said Carl Biers, executive director of the Association for Union Democracy, a New York-based group that advocates for union members' rights. ''The good reason they oppose it is the administration's intent is clearly to undermine unions' increasing political activities. The unsavory reason for opposing it is these rules will make it easier for union members to discover corruption by union leaders. Unfortunately there is a bureaucratic mentality even in honest unions that they should avoid giving information to their members.''

"Under the new rules -- which require more disclosure than the old rules -- local, regional and national unions with annual income of $250,000 or more must report expenditures of $5,000 or more. Unions will also be required to detail how much they spend on political activities and lobbying, on union administration and on strike benefits."


the PDGA is about $1M and does not need to report any expenditure at all.


reference:


Unions See Politics in New Disclosure Rules
Steven Greenhouse. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 5, 2003. pg. 1.21

In most cases, workers are required to join the union, pay the dues and their livelihood depends on it. Quite different from an option to join the PDGA which doesn't necessarily provide larger payouts at their events versus say non-sanctioned events like the MSDGC.

What I mean by this is specifically the PDGA website which is complex and can be screwed up if you don't know what you're doing. <snip> I would do it myself if I knew how. But too many folks with access can really mess things up. Even doing clean up items like removing the 2003 logo links is apparently scary because of intertwined file linkages.



Thanks for the clarification. I did not appreciate that lack of robustness.

Maybe a simple summary of topics discussed and decisions made at leadership meetings and conference calls could be posted or included in Steven's emails (I just got mine - thanks!).

I am sure a lawyer could craft an adequate disclaimer that would go along with the messages to protect the interests of the PDGA. I know that I personally do not appreciate the trouble the PDGA could get ourselves in leadership runs things too loosey-goosey. But there is a difference between responsible communication and inadequate communication.

Even if the membership is not interested in the actual content of the emails, the membership is interested in knowing that the leadership is interested in them. I'm sure that they are, otherwise they would not be volunteering gobs of their time and $$, but it is important to show the membership - not just leave it up to their intuition. Communicating an active and sincere interest is probably even more important than the actual details.

Afterall, we are all in this for fun. Mutual trust and respect adds to the fun. Distrust and disrespect can sap the fun right out of things.

In most cases, workers are required to join the union, pay the dues and their livelihood depends on it. Quite different from an option to join the PDGA which doesn't necessarily provide larger payouts at their events versus say non-sanctioned events like the MSDGC.

in some ways serious disc golfers are like workers who are required to join unions. for example, one of the most cited member benefits of the pdga is its rating system. that rating system is available only through a membership in the pdga (ie, no other organizations use it), and no comparable and competitive offerings exist in the market. therefore, if tournament players want ratings they must join the pdga. same goes for participation in "world" championships.

all of which is good for the pdga. arguments could be made for both sides of whether or not it is good for for disc golf.

a monopoly on player services would not be completely unlike a union. it would affect recreational activities rather than livelihood issues, as you noted. the requirement for players to join and pay dues would be functionally the same as the union's forced membership if the maximization of their playing_experience/livelihood is the player's/workers goal.

the US government, which we the People elected, decided that it would be responsible to require that unions of a certain size report expenditures of a certain size. given the economic similarities between unions and player service monopolies it is not hard to wonder if a net benefit would occur were the requirements extended to the monopolies.

ok, that my explanation of my post. i didnt understand your comparison of the PDGA and the MSDGC though. i'd like to learn what you mean by it.

oh, just for fun think about the implications for each of the three entities should the monopoly transform into a competitive market. there are several ways for this to happen. the existing service provider could decide to offer its services through additional channels. a new service provider could spring up. all kinds of combinations of providers and service organizations would result. it's difficult to predict if the player services organization would gain or loss from such a change. the service provider might be more likely to win, but it could also lose. about the only party who would certainly win at least in the short term is the player, due to the wider product choice.

Thanks for the clarification. I did not appreciate that lack of robustness.

i hope no one sues me for laughin', but that was funny :D

Rich, I have no agenda here. I like Pat's concepts, and would like to see most of it implemented. I just think he's going about it the wrong way.

I also strongly hold onto the concept that the board acts as one voice when a decision has been made. You are supposed to defend your position with all of your conviction until a decision is reached, then you should support that decision with equal vigor (at least in public).

Pat, the olive branches I see you extending seem to have a lot of thorns. I do believe in what you are trying to accomplish, I'm just worried that you are making the job tougher and more costly than it really needs to be.

interesting. i have talked to, learned about, and gained from a lot more people in the pdga in the last few days than in quite a while. i suspect others have had similar experiences. trust is springing up even in the most surprising places. thats a pretty big benefit.

ok, that my explanation of my post. i didnt understand your comparison of the PDGA and the MSDGC though. i'd like to learn what you mean by it.




MSDGC is just an example of a non-PDGA event that has payouts that meet or exceed PDGA events indicating that the PDGA didn't have a lock on player's financial fortunes as players.

DGU offers a subscription service that calculates your handicap based on the same set of formulas as PDGA ratings. In addition, there are several other services and leagues I've found on the internet that track your scores for handicaps and even some provide a form of rating.

one event doesnt really compete with the quantity or combined payout of PDGA events. the DGU reference was nice. so far though, only the pdga has been able to package a group of services together that makes sense. for example, some TDs value the availability of pdga's insurance services so highly enough that it becomes the primary consideration for sanctioning. offering a combination keeps the attraction high for a wide range of customers.

again gary, while that is your opinion, that doesn't make it neccesarily correct or the only way to look at it. just because congess votes on something doesn't mean the losers can't talk about why they think it was wrong or what went on or weas said. this is the american way. freedom of speech is what this country was founded on. or doesn't dubya allow that in TX? :D

question for you folks familiar with best practices in non-profits.... should the budgets and inner communications of the BoD be available to non-BoD Members?


In most states, only much, much larger non-profit organizations are required to disclose any of their financial transations to their membership or the public.

This depends on the what state the pdga was incorporated in, and my guess is that due to size, the BoD probably does not need to disclose this info to the public to be compliant.

The Pdga was not incorporated in most states. It was incorporated in Colorado. This information is available to members of non-profit corporations under Colorado law.