there has been not ONE word about the summit, things discussed, possible ideas, nothing....
either before, or now after....

what happened to sandalman's "open policy" :eek: of at least telling us something

hell nick has said more(unfortunately) in the past 3 days
:(



is anyone home?? :D

The Summit last Thurs-Fri was successful in bringing together the new Board members and sorting out responsibilities. Sandalman couldn't attend but was in contact for much of the time by teleconference. I'm sure there's a plan to publish results from the 2-day event so we'll wait to see that. Lorrie both recorded and took notes from the proceedings. Steve Dodge volunteered to continue the regular PDGA email newsletters started by Terry so that's how members will likely see some of the Summit topics.

Nez and Bellinger won the traditional Summit Doubles competition on the North course nipping the homie team of Gentry and Gillis by one with Dodge and Decker snagging last cash. Per tradition, teams are created by pairing players by ratings from top to bottom and the home boys were right in the middle, even with the same rating.

I'm sure there's a plan to publish results from the 2-day event so we'll wait to see that. Lorrie both recorded and took notes from the proceedings. Steve Dodge volunteered to continue the regular PDGA email newsletters started by Terry so that's how members will likely see some of the Summit topics.
<font color="red"> ok thanks....i think...you have not told me anything i didn't already know </font>
Nez and Bellinger won the traditional Summit Doubles competition on the North course nipping the homie team of Gentry and Gillis by one with Dodge and Decker snagging last cash. Per tradition, teams are created by pairing players by ratings from top to bottom and the home boys were right in the middle, even with the same rating.


<font color="red"> glad to see my membership dollars are hard at work :D
i guess i need to attend the summit instead of hoping for someone to fill me in...
i'll be at the next one

keith
</font>

I don't feel it's my place to provide official or unofficial remarks, at least until the official notes are published.

Official notes!? How's about a little insight of what's to come? My goodness Chuck you sound like the secret service! :D

"Official" does sound too formal. "Accurate" is more like it. I wasn't at all sessions since I'm not a Board member. You can see Brian Graham's thread on the IDGC in this topic area for some info presented. Rulebooks are out of stock and need to be reprinted with no changes except for a few typos. Bids for Am Worlds 2010 and 2011 were tentatively awarded pending successful site reviews next year but I'll let each of them announce theirs. Here's one of them: http://mysite.verizon.net/resohppf/ Here's the other one: http://discgolfrochester.com/rdgc/

Much of the meeting was admin stuff like reviewing the committees, firming up their charters and determining which Board member would be on each committee and/or oversee it.

I had the opportunity to attend several sessions of the PDGA summit and witnessed a very hard working Board and staff discussing many issues and making decisions on a variety of topics. I left very impressed with the level of dedication these fine folks have and amazed at what they were able to accomplish in such a short time. Both Steve Dodge and Pat Brenner look to be very good additions to the Board and I am confident that the association remains in very good hands.

I've posted a summary of my IDGC report to the Board on the International Disc Golf Center thread. You can read about it here. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=26934&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=6&o=7&fpart=24&vc=1)

Regards,
Brian Graham

On the topic of World bids is Calif. ever going to get to host one ?

On the topic of World bids is Calif. ever going to get to host one ?


Ever going to "get to" host one?

You'd have to have a team of people willing to give up their time to not play and actually submit a bid before one could be awarded to CA.

Thank you Brian and Chuck for those tid bits. Brian I did read the thread about the IDGC and I was quite impressed in what is going on down there in GA. I'm also glad to hear the new board members are jumping right in the fray. Keep up the good work!! :cool:

[qoute]On the topic of World bids is Calif. ever going to get to host one ?

[/QUOTE]

It'd be interesting to see if any bids have been turned down and if those cities bids were accepted for other years.

No formal bids have been turned down that I'm aware of. However, some have been delayed. BG put in a bid to host the 2005 Am Worlds and lost it to Flagstaff by a thin margin. I suspect they could have hosted in a later year if they wanted. Virginia Beach put in a bid for 2007 Pro Worlds but it wasn't quite ready yet with organizational experience, core team volunteers and enough suitable courses. But they could be a viable venue down the road if they pull together.

my open policy is still there. i didnt feel like it was my role to provide a synopsis of the entire meeting prior to any minutes being published - if for no other reason than i wouldnt want to state something based on pure memory than might turn out to be wrong.

that being said - if anyone has any specific questions, i'll be very happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

all committees have had a BoD member assigned to them who will work with the committee chairs/members. i would like to see those assignments posted asap on the site.... i assume they will be in the minutes.

i recognize the need to get info out. most of the BoD stuck around for a weekend event, and have been back home for barely more than a day.


also, while the previous Director "positions" were abolished by the new by-laws, there was a verbal consensus that BoD members would generally and in principle fulfill the duties to which they were elected. in that spirit, i am available to assist any Member who has a specific question about any aspect of the organization.

The Summit last Thurs-Fri was successful in bringing together the new Board members and sorting out responsibilities. Sandalman couldn't attend but was in contact for much of the time by teleconference. I'm sure there's a plan to publish results from the 2-day event so we'll wait to see that. Lorrie both recorded and took notes from the proceedings. Steve Dodge volunteered to continue the regular PDGA email newsletters started by Terry so that's how members will likely see some of the Summit topics.

Nez and Bellinger won the traditional Summit Doubles competition on the North course nipping the homie team of Gentry and Gillis by one with Dodge and Decker snagging last cash. Per tradition, teams are created by pairing players by ratings from top to bottom and the home boys were right in the middle, even with the same rating.




Hooray for Cris Bellinger! I always knew you'd eventually win something! :D

Here's the other one: http://discgolfrochester.com/rdgc/




Nice to see a Worlds return to the Rochester area. Perhaps this event will allow the Chili Parks and Recreation Master Plan Committee and the Chili Town Board to see the value in keeping Baker Park.

so we've got am worlds in milwaukee ('07), k-zoo ('08), ohio ('10), and rochester ('11). what about '09? i saw that frisco colorado had put in a bid, did they get the nod?

The Kansas City Team is planning to submit their bid for a combined PDGA Pro/Am/Junior Worlds for '09 at the 2007 Spring PDGA BOD Summit.

If anyone else is interested in hosting a PDGA Amateur/Junior Worlds or Pro Worlds for '09 or other years, please let me know and I'll send the official PDGA Bid Requirements letter and other helpful documentation to help submit a successful bid.

I've sent information out recently to a few more clubs that are considering Am Worlds in the future. But we do need clubs interested in showcasing their courses and cities to host Pro Worlds!

Bids may be presented in person at either the Spring or Fall PDGA Board of Directors Summit.

The Frisco proposal to submit a bid at the fall Summit was regretfully withdrawn due to the pine beetle infestation.

Becky Z.
Assistant to Worlds Bids
and PDGA Volunteer!

[qoute]On the topic of World bids is Calif. ever going to get to host one ?



It'd be interesting to see if any bids have been turned down and if those cities bids were accepted for other years.

[/QUOTE]

I don't remember anyone ever turning one down. Sacramento hosted Am Worlds in 1994, and Irvine, CA hosted the first ever Pro Worlds in 1982. I know that NorCal intended to submit a bid for 2006, but backed off before the 2005 spring summit, basically because they didn't have time to see it through I think. I think it's been a while since there were multiple bids for Worlds, so no one's been turned down for a while. If you want to host one in California, submit a bid! :)

Chap

in that spirit, i am available to assist any Member who has a specific question about any aspect of the organization.



now that you have had sufficient time to adjust into your new role and BoD hat [ :p ] --
how long till we can watch Worlds live on ESPN2, and how long till the winner of Worlds will get one million dollars?

Speaking of worlds,


This year there was a problem about a city stepping up to run it. Is there a back up plan if no one wants to host it?

This year there was a problem about a city stepping up to run it. Is there a back up plan if no one wants to host it?



Augusta and Highbridge are both backup options if needed. Augusta will gradually have the courses at the IDGC added to their mix as they become completed. The PDGA Regional Development Center at Highbridge will have 5+ courses for PW2007 next year and several more are planned over the next 5 years. Both places are also backups for other majors that occasionally may try other venues.

what is the "PDGA Regional Development Center at Highbridge" ?

keith wrote in the opening post:

"there has been not ONE word about the summit, things discussed, possible ideas, nothing....
either before, or now after....

what happened to sandalman's "open policy" of at least telling us something"

<font color="blue">
no where in my post did i ask for word for word exact details.... :p
i believe i asked for "something".... which chuck, you, becky, and brian graham supplied in the following posts....
:D:D:D:D(a smiley for each of you!)

thanks and i look forward to seeing how things go!!! </font>

what is the "PDGA Regional Development Center at Highbridge" ?



The meaning is still evolving but this is taken from the Mid-Nationals website:

Highbridge Hills will become the first PDGA Regional Development Center. Among the responsibilities of The Center will be to experiment with new techniques for course development ranging from map making methods using GPS devices to testing different tee pad materials.

One area that�s just getting underway nationally in the past few years is designing and marking courses using the PDGA Course Design Guidelines to design holes from a set of tee pads for a specific player skill level www.PDGAGuides2004.pdf. (http://www.PDGAGuides2004.pdf.) These guidelines have been developed from data and observations gathered over the past several years by the Disc Golf Course Designers (DGCD), a group of 85 course designers with much experience.

what is the "PDGA Regional Development Center at Highbridge" ?



The PDGA Regional Development Center is a concept proposed by Chuck Kennedy at the PDGA summit a few years ago and one supported by myself and others on the IDGC committee. It is a facility that has some of the same purposes and functions of the International Disc Golf Center in developing new ideas and promoting the sport, only on a more regional basis, so as to be accessible to more of our members. Wouldn't it be cool to one day have a multi-course training and competition complex similar to the IDGC in every region of the country?

Basically, it is an agreement between the PDGA and a disc golf facility to share ideas, promote PDGA programs, and to develop guidelines and standards for the sport. The actual definition is still being worked on but the concept is sure to be a win-win situation for everyone involved.

As Chuck alluded to in a previous post, these Regional Centers can also serve the purpose of giving the PDGA a fallback location for our major tournaments in the event that a host cannot be found or an existing facility is temporarily unavailable.

Regards,
Brian Graham

there has been not ONE word about the summit, things discussed, possible ideas, nothing....
either before, or now after....

what happened to sandalman's "open policy" :eek: of at least telling us something

hell nick has said more(unfortunately) in the past 3 days
:(



is anyone home?? :D



As a guest and observer of this years Fall Summitt, I would just interject this point. Being a member since 1991, I had no clue about the amount of hard work and dedication these folks have for the organization. A very welcoming atmosphere and great personalities fill the summitt. Besides hearing all the great ideas and concepts, I think the doubles is one of the highlights. I encourage any current member of the PDGA to contact the office about attending a Summitt near you. Trust me if you have any interest in the heart workings of this great organization, plan on it and attend. You won't be sorry.

My partner and cousin Steve Dodge got elected to the BOD, and went to the Summit. I must have asked him about 200 questions, and his answers were forthcoming. It all seemed like a normal group of idealistic frisbee players deciding how to do stuff and how to spend money. It seems like there was nothing worth keeping secret at all.

It didn't sound dysfunctional, wasteful, or stoopid. Maybe there's a way to communicate that to the entire membership.

A mission statement of sorts has emerged, I think, though I haven't seen it yet. All we need is a newsletter that doesn't read like its from a PDGA spokesperson. That and beer during rounds at C and D Tiers. Don't believe that essential issue was discussed in session, proving once again simultaneously that the PDGA is completely out of touch, and that I must be deranged for saying such a thing.

Out of touch. Touch out of. Touch of out. Of out touch.

:D

Recalling a few of the rounds I played when beer was permitted during the round, I am pretty happy I don't have to worry about rounds like that now.

Maybe it's just me that's out of touch.

All we need is a newsletter that doesn't read like its from a PDGA spokesperson.



it would be nice if we had an archived newsletter that could be accessed right here at www.pdga.com (http://www.pdga.com) rather than receiving the thing via email (i have dialup). ... any chance of that happening Pat?

Recalling a few of the rounds I played when beer was permitted during the round, I am pretty happy I don't have to worry about rounds like that now.

Maybe it's just me that's out of touch.



yes, I too am glad I don't have to deal with those that think they can drink, play discs golf, at the same time in the TEXAS heat. (beer does not quinch your thirst BTW, it makes you thirstier.)

i hope so. the BoD got a notice today of the possible dates for October's conference call. i asked for the minutes from the Summit. they have not yet been published. since the minutes are apparently time consuming, i will propose we develop kind of a "quick release" version of major issues and votes from each meeting. a good objective might be to release a list within 3-4 days of any meeting.

i would tell you who was "in charge" of the newsletter, but while i remember discussing it, i don't remember the details of who was going to handle it. posting it on the website makes sense to me.

jason is correct, an updated mission statement is in the works. it would be really interesting if some Members took a shot at drafting one. there are plenty of online references that provide a template for a well formatted mission statement, and creating a good one is actually pretty fun.



All we need is a newsletter that doesn't read like its from a PDGA spokesperson.



it would be nice if we had an archived newsletter that could be accessed right here at www.pdga.com (http://www.pdga.com) rather than receiving the thing via email (i have dialup). ... any chance of that happening Pat?

All we need is a newsletter that doesn't read like its from a PDGA spokesperson.



it would be nice if we had an archived newsletter that could be accessed right here ... rather than receiving the thing via email (i have dialup). ... any chance of that happening Pat?



Hopefully we can get this going soon. I am waiting for a directory to be created where I can archive them. This shouldn't take more than a month or two. And I wish I was kidding.

could we use one on a different domain until this domain has it set up?

Ok...so I've looked all over the place out here for any information about how much the PDGA renewal fees are gonna be next year...does anyone know where it is posted at?

I'm trying to get a reminder out to our e-mail list about renewing through the club for the Affiliated Club program...

All I've seen is that they are going up, but nothing stating what they will be.

renewal information (http://www.pdga.com/join/07MemberMerchForm.pdf)

Ahhhh Thanks bunch Seewhere!!!

Did the minutes get posted? The one thing the PDGA site could use is a search function for all of the documents that one can only seem to find as links buried in the discussion forums. I can't seem to find where these minutes should be.

Did the minutes get posted? The one thing the PDGA site could use is a search function for all of the documents that one can only seem to find as links buried in the discussion forums. I can't seem to find where these minutes should be.



This is the archive of the meeting minutes of the Board of Directors of the PDGA. (http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php)

Is the 2007 sancitoning agreement posted anywhere? Are there going to be any changes from the 2006 version? It matters now if you are planning a first-quarter tourney.

i believe the new sanctioning agreement is for review at tonight's conference call. i'd post it here, but some BoD members are fairly opposed to sharing anything with members until it is approved. something about members being easily confused... :confused:

something about members being easily confused... :confused:


That's a valid concern.

Please let me know the status of that after your telecon, if you can. Something like "it's approved, but we won't let you see it yet" or "we need to do some more revisions, so it won't be ready for two more weeks" would be nice. :)

You know what I miss?

I miss having a Constitution that at least stated that the PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open. It's disc golf for crying out loud. This kind of secretiveness sounds more like the CIA. Easily confused my butt.

The worst thing I've heard so far is that Hoeniger is going to continue drawing a salary -- something like $1,000 a month -- for some cushy consulting job. Bet not many people know that.

That money would be better off bringing the pro players' incomes up to the salaries of the PDGA's employees. Or maybe I'm just one of the silly little plebians being confused.

You know what I miss?

I miss having a Constitution that at least stated that the PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open. It's disc golf for crying out loud.



well stated.

[melodramatic adaption from <font color="blue"> Rush 2112 </font> engage]

<font color="blue"> Weve taken care of everything
The words you hear the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
Its one for all and all for one
We work together common sons
Never need to wonder how or why

We are the priests of the temples of [the PDGA]
Our great directors fill the hallowed halls
We are the priests of the temples of syrinx
All the gifts of disc golf are held within our walls

Look around this world the PDGA made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the brotherhood of am.s
Oh what a nice contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the PDGA logo proudly high in hand

We are the priests of the temples of the PDGA
Our great computers fill the hallowed halls.
We are the priests of the temples of the PDGA
All the gifts of disc golf are held within our walls. </font>

Weather must be getting colder. The conspiracy theorists are coming back...

thats ridiculous Chuck. there's no conspiracy theory. cant a Member voice a concern without being labelled like that? when did the PDGA become the freakin GOP???

... -- something like $1,000 a month -- ...

That money would be better off bringing the pro players' incomes up to the salaries of the PDGA's employees....



If anybody can pull that off, I want him handling my 401K.

Usual suspects, usual diatribe along the lines of the tired True Am drumbeat. Constitution is a well worn thread.

Don't forget dark early, too, Chuck. Man O man. Good thing tonight is Tuesday table tennis at six in Tom's barn. Got the speed bag, got the foosball. Got an official table tennis ball and an official net and table.

But back to the PDGA and us conspiracy theorists. Here's my beef. I'm the PDGA State Coordinator for Massachusetts and I do nothing. I've received no direction from headquarters. We continue to hold fun and full tournaments at Pyramids -- they're easy after running the MSDGC, where we try to pull out all the stops. But they're great tournaments. People have a lot of fun. We start on time, have free beer and dinner, and finish quickly so people can get home and leave the house open for everyone who stays. Our recipe: for a one day tournament, the tough layout first along with the good keg beer (Magic Hat #9) followed by the easy course and Pabst Blue Ribbon, arguably the king of beers, and definitely better than Bud, especially out of the keg.

We run four tournaments a year, two of them doubles tournaments, all unsanctioned. Cause...why sanction when it's like selling Amway?

The rug got pulled in 2003: No more beer during rounds. Drop a great tradition or knuckle under to the new reality? Or try for an exemption. Okay, I tried for an exemption and got turned down. The rule remains firm, and incredibly stoopid, cause it makes the PDGA a smaller part of disc golf. The PDGA could have it all if they'd just relax and relax the requirements for C and D Tiers, but noooooooooooooo.

People mix up bad drunken behavior with just plain drinking at all. We don't have problems with bad drunks here, we just don't. I can understand that 90 degree weather can be bad beer-drinking weather, but we New Englanders can handle our brew out there on the course. The total ban during rounds at PDGA events creates a fake rule, one that some break with sneaky impunity, and keeps alcoholics away from PDGA events, which make up at least a third of all tournament golfers. Better to just be open and tolerant.

Of course, I'm just talking out my rear end. I've only run about 100 events. Good thing the PDGA got rid of me, buncha goofballs.

I'm the PDGA State Coordinator for Massachusetts and I do nothing.



At the minimum, you should be doing/coordinating PDGA Course Evaluations and perhaps drinking while doing them would help the process...

Don't forget dark early, too, Chuck. Man O man. Good thing tonight is Tuesday table tennis at six in Tom's barn. Got the speed bag, got the foosball. Got an official table tennis ball and an official net and table.

But back to the PDGA and us conspiracy theorists. Here's my beef. I'm the PDGA State Coordinator for Massachusetts and I do nothing. I've received no direction from headquarters. We continue to hold fun and full tournaments at Pyramids -- they're easy after running the MSDGC, where we try to pull out all the stops. But they're great tournaments. People have a lot of fun. We start on time, have free beer and dinner, and finish quickly so people can get home and leave the house open for everyone who stays. Our recipe: for a one day tournament, the tough layout first along with the good keg beer (Magic Hat #9) followed by the easy course and Pabst Blue Ribbon, arguably the king of beers, and definitely better than Bud, especially out of the keg.

We run four tournaments a year, two of them doubles tournaments, all unsanctioned. Cause...why sanction when it's like selling Amway?

The rug got pulled in 2003: No more beer during rounds. Drop a great tradition or knuckle under to the new reality? Or try for an exemption. Okay, I tried for an exemption and got turned down. The rule remains firm, and incredibly stoopid, cause it makes the PDGA a smaller part of disc golf. The PDGA could have it all if they'd just relax and relax the requirements for C and D Tiers, but noooooooooooooo.

People mix up bad drunken behavior with just plain drinking at all. We don't have problems with bad drunks here, we just don't. I can understand that 90 degree weather can be bad beer-drinking weather, but we New Englanders can handle our brew out there on the course. The total ban during rounds at PDGA events creates a fake rule, one that some break with sneaky impunity, and keeps alcoholics away from PDGA events, which make up at least a third of all tournament golfers. Better to just be open and tolerant.

Of course, I'm just talking out my rear end. I've only run about 100 events. Good thing the PDGA got rid of me, buncha goofballs.


What the hell does any of that have to do with this topic?

I miss having a Constitution that at least stated that the PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open. It's disc golf for crying out loud. This kind of secretiveness sounds more like the CIA. Easily confused my butt.


I guess it's all in your perspective and how you choose to look at things.

I've tried to synchronize regional events and even tried to coordinate with nearby regions. It's tough duty, and tough dooty too. Volunteers are hard to come by and things are difficult to do by committee. I understand that things will not happen in the time frame I would like, and that is fine with me. All I want to know right now is where we stand and what the ETA for the tour documents is. If they are ready please let me at them.

Jason, on the other hand, seems to be used to do things his way and his way only. As such, anything coming from "not Jason" seems like it must be a conspiracy of some sort with the sole intention of holding Jason down. I have no idea what it is that Jason does that would make "holding him down" such a high priority of the entire PDGA, but Jason must know that.

So let's recap: the 2007 tour docs aren't out yet. What could the possible causes of that be? Coordinating vounteers and limited staff to get this stuff done takes a long time, or a grand and extensive conspiracy to hole Jason down? Oh yeah, don't forget the millions of dollars that "The PDGA" is wasting instead of giving it to 3 to 12 touring pros.

You know what I miss?

I miss having a Constitution that at least stated that the PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open. It's disc golf for crying out loud. This kind of secretiveness sounds more like the CIA. Easily confused my butt.

The worst thing I've heard so far is that Hoeniger is going to continue drawing a salary -- something like $1,000 a month -- for some cushy consulting job. Bet not many people know that.

That money would be better off bringing the pro players' incomes up to the salaries of the PDGA's employees. Or maybe I'm just one of the silly little plebians being confused.

I'm not a friend of Brian Hoeniger. I think anyone who knows me, like my brother Jon, can confirm that. Nonetheless, it is common and often necessary to pay the outgoing director a little consulting money for some time while the new director gets up to speed. It has nothing to do with where the bodies are buried or when the statute of limitations runs. :D

rhett must be a message board newbie... thinking that threads stay on topic. sheesh :D

Wouldn't it be cool to one day have a multi-course training and competition complex similar to the IDGC in every region of the country?




central texas please! :D

I'm not a friend of Brian Hoeniger. I think anyone who knows me, like my brother Jon, can confirm that. Nonetheless, it is common and often necessary to pay the outgoing director a little consulting money for some time while the new director gets up to speed. It has nothing to do with where the bodies are buried or when the statute of limitations runs.



Yes that is VERY common. $12K per year is also VERY cheap to have a consultant. Remember, this guy has RUN the PDGA for several years now. I, for one, am VERY dissapointed that he is leaving.

(BTW, most consultants I know make $100K+ per year, of course they do several companies. Shoot, the last consultant tried to get $5k

Wouldn't it be cool to one day have a multi-course training and competition complex similar to the IDGC in every region of the country?




central texas please! :D



getting $64,260 for the year from the PDGA might be a challenge for more than one place though.

Usual suspects, usual diatribe along the lines of the tired True Am drumbeat. Constitution is a well worn thread.



voicing concern that the PDGA leadership is far too patriarchal is now dismissed as part of the "true am. drumbeat?"
(not sure what that beat is; feel free to fill me in).

your dismissal of the applicability of the lyrics cited seems to suggest they apply quite well :o

i don't suspect a conspiracy, just a leadership a little too full of itself ;)

Matriarchs and young pups haven't applied lately. Constitution whining is as tired and played out as the True Am whine. Although how to fill in the gaps in the new Constitution would be very helpful.

But back to the PDGA and us conspiracy theorists. Here's my beef. I'm the PDGA State Coordinator for Massachusetts and I do nothing. I've received no direction from headquarters. .



It's easy. Read the description of the position you ran for and follow thru on them.

STATE AND PROVINCE COORDINATORS

Here is the list of responsibilities for the SC position:

- Represent the PDGA in a positive light to members, clubs, agencies, and communities in their state or province.

- Work with Tournament Directors and clubs within their state or province and in adjoining areas to schedule PDGA Tour and other disc golf events. Serve as state/provincial liaison to the PDGA Tour Manager, in setting the Tour schedule and in addressing and resolving Tour event issues.

- Collect information, either personally or by delegating to individuals or clubs, for the PDGA Course Directory and the Course Evaluation system.

- Promote PDGA memberships, and PDGA programs such as the Affiliate Clubs program, tournament sanctioning, Disc Golf Foundation, and EDGE to the members and potential members in their state or province.

- Provide feedback on the annual Tour Standards to the PDGA Tour Manager

- Coordinate state qualification for events such as the USDGC, USADGC, and other qualified-entry tournaments;

- Vote for and recommend candidates for select annual PDGA Awards

- Other duties as determined by the SCs, PDGA Board and staff

Wouldn't it be cool to one day have a multi-course training and competition complex similar to the IDGC in every region of the country?




central texas please! :D



getting $64,260 for the year from the PDGA might be a challenge for more than one place though.




WOW!! why so much??

Matriarchs and young pups haven't applied lately. Constitution whining is as tired and played out as the True Am whine. Although how to fill in the gaps in the new Constitution would be very helpful.



This from a guy being paid an undisclosed sum by the PDGA for work previously designated as volunteer work. How much is it Chuck? How much? Or haven't you received permission yet from your employers to reveal the figure. Here's a gap you could fill in the constitution: provide the membership with some idea of what you're doing with its money.

This from a guy who ran a PDGA "Major" that attracted a whopping 40 players. We get almost as many people at Tuesday night league.

In case Jason didn't see this:




Here is the list of responsibilities for the SC position:

- Represent the PDGA in a positive light to members, clubs, agencies, and communities in their state or province. ...



I believe that says POSITIVE light!!! Coming on the message board and spewing anti-PDGA rhetoric does not sound POSITIVE to me.

Also, how did Jason know about the money being paid to Hoeniger as he leaves the BOD? Could this have anything to do with the fact Jason's business partner is now on the PDGA BOD?

The 2007 tour documents are available here:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/2007tourinfo.php

Personal attacks indicate a lack of rational points - same old, same old. I have no problem if they decide to post the numbers, but it's a line item in a budget category which they do publish. Doing ratings was never "designated" as volunteer work because the PDGA didn't create them. They originally couldn't afford to pay for the ratings we did free and were glad we were volunteering to do it until they could work some compensation into the budget. We still provide some of that work free. I still provide 2-3 hours of other volunteer work for every one I get some compensation for.

I helped but didn't run the Major you speak of because I played. www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=5511 (http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=5511) I think we also had one of the best percentage payouts and set of courses of any major this year. I'd be fine playing in uncrowded events with great payouts and great courses all of the time. It's still the same amount of volunteer preparation work whether the players show or not. Now I'll hopefully have up to 400 players there next year for Pro Worlds. So your point is?

discette, while Jason's topics may be uncomfortable to some, i honestly believe that he has the best interests of Disc Golf in mind. the more uncomfortable a statement makes you feel the more likely it is that there is some element of truth to it.

btw, under the old constitution you could have asked the Oversight Director to get those numbers. under the new Constitution, you have no rights to ask. however, the amounts paid to contractors are discussable information,.according to the BoD discussion last night.

What are my points Chuck?

Point one: You're getting paid by the PDGA. You won't tell how much. Nor will the PDGA. That's just plain wrong.

Point two: You ran a major and no one came. A tournament shouldn't be a major until it's successful. Making a tournament a major before it has proven itself is doing it backwards.

Point three: You're starting to annoy me with your dismissive comments that paint all criticism of the PDGA as the product of conspiracy theorists.

As for the list of State Coordinator duties, I see a lot of "sell the PDGA" points and not many "promote disc golf" points. I'm more into promoting disc golf, and am hesitant to sell overpriced PDGA Amway products to my neighbors and friends.

If I'm going to represent the PDGA I'd first have to like it. If I'm going to like the PDGA I first have to have a clue what it's doing.

I don't accept this poorly written list of State Coordinator duties. It's in that wordy 840 writing rating faux legalese PDGA style that says nothing while implying that we State Coordinators should follow directions first, never take the initiative, and under no circumstances criticize the all-perfect PDGA leadership.

Heck with that. If no one dared criticize the government we'd still have a Rumsfield running the military and a Republican majority in Congress.

there was one!

tour standards were approved, as was the competition manual and minutes from the Summit and the August meeting.

we had some very interesting conversations.

Steve Dodge asked the BoD to establish a place on the Message Baord where BoD members could engage in discussion in view of the Members. i supported that idea. unfortunately, the rest of the board did not, although at least one person might have gone along with it. reasons to not do it ranged from "i dont do the message board so i do not want to be viewed as disinterested" to "our members are too easily confused by stuff that is posted on the board"

not surprisingly, that last one was not reconciled with the other statement frequently heard at BoD meetings, which is "only 10 or 12 troublemakers use the message board" :D

bottom line is that Steve and I want to use the message board to make the PDGA more transparent and accessible to its Members, but the rest of hte BoD does not. unfortunately, it did not come to a vote... it would have been very nice to have people's names on the record on this one.

Steve got yelled at for telling Jason that BDH would have an interim contract thru the end of 07 to help the transition to the new Exec Director. that part was pretty funny because it resulted in BDH threatening to quit for the second BoD meeting in a row. at the height of the bruhaha one person interjected that we sounded like the Southern Nationals BoD.. i wasnt sure if that was a good or bad thing.

oh, btw, Stork supported the idea of using the message board. Stork is one of the most balanced, reasonable and thoughtful people around, so why the BoD failed to agree is perplexing to me... even troubling.

the discussion Hawk started about whether to renew was brought up as a negative. apparently Members should just send in their renewals without question. i disagree, and feel the message board is a great place to have that discussion. at worst case it might provide some insights as to where the PDGA could do better.

i got yelled at for having the Mechandise sales and cost numbers in my signature. i was accused of questioning and criticizing the PDGA. the ironic thing is i actually believe those numbers are very good numbers - numbers we should actually be proud of - and nowhere in my signature is there anything that indicates i disapprove of those numbers. this reinforces the perception that some BoD members have severe prejudices about the new BoD members. we'll have to work through it.

there are some really good ideas out there. but there is also an overwhelming amount of inertia impeding progress, imo. organizational change is difficult.

after two meetings, my assessment is that it is going to be very challenging to modernize the PDGA and make significant changes on either directional or operational issues. it can be done, but the status quo does seem to be firmly entrenched. we will need all the help we can get to make substantive changes. btw, i include the consistant application of policy to be an area in which we could use improvement.

so.. PLEASE keep asking questions and challenging our leadership, myself included, to achieve the very best possible result for disc golf in general and our Membership in particular. one BoD member (i forget who) said that he had gotten 2 emails in his entire tenure (which was rather lengthy if i remember correctly). Steve stated that he received 10 already in two months. I have received three in my two months. so......... keep sending those ideas and questions... maybe copy to more than one BoD member

i'll be happy to answer other questions about the meeting if there are any. if for some reason i know the answer but cannot provide it, i will tell you that, along with the reason (that means no specifics on employee compensation). contract amounts should be knowable though. we do not need a pdga version of Halliburton.

a lot of good stuff happened also. the ED search is on track... budget appears to be in good shape and on track... the amount of contribution to the PDGA were mentioned for Pro Worlds, and Am Worlds made their's but i never did catch the exact amount. i dont want to provide an amount for either, because i would not want to get it wrong.... hopefully it will be in the minutes along with the rest of the actions taken.

i know this is a ramble, but the meeting was close to 4 hours long.

Point one: You're getting paid by the PDGA. You won't tell how much. Nor will the PDGA. That's just plain wrong.

CK: The PDGA writes checks to lots of people, companies and contractors like any business. It's not necessary or efficient for every detail to be published. No one who needs to know the relevant information who has been elected by the members or hired to run the PDGA is denied access to the detailed info where needed.

Point two: You ran a major and no one came. A tournament shouldn't be a major until it's successful. Making a tournament a major before it has proven itself is doing it backwards.

CK: The US Midnationals had 120 people last year which is more than the USDGC had in the beginning and the US Amateur, US Masters, Pro Worlds Doubles, Womens Nationals, European Open and Players Cup Majors had this year. We made a mistake not having exclusive invites this year like we did last year. We did not allow alcohol to be consumed during the rounds of course which is apparently the solution...

Point three: You're starting to annoy me with your dismissive comments that paint all criticism of the PDGA as the product of conspiracy theorists.

CK: Just the rehash of old issues and personal attacks. New issues are more than appropriate and worthwhile.

As for the list of State Coordinator duties, I see a lot of "sell the PDGA" points and not many "promote disc golf" points. I'm more into promoting disc golf, and am hesitant to sell overpriced PDGA Amway products to my neighbors and friends.

CK: Lame excuses. If you weren't sure, you should have not been on the ballot or declined to serve if elected in a write-in.

Thanks Pat. Thats good stuff. It seems you have a true bi-partisan approach to your position. We need more of that.
The message board idea is brilliant. What better way to stay in touch with your ACTIVE members. I emphasise ACTIVE for two reasons.
a. you have to be an active member to be on this MB.
b. most people I encounter with a passion for disc golf, a drive to promote disc golf and respect for all aspects of disc golf are frequently on this MB.

It is a great resource. I hope the PDGA come's to see that!

Is it better to brainstorm with 10 people or 100 ? Logistically 10 is better, 100 is beneficial to the cause!
Are we concerned with logistics, or promoting disc golf and the PDGA?

The PDGA is the tool of Disc Golfers for Disc Golf...or at least it should be.

YMMV :cool:

Pat, who are the board members again?

It's kind of funny, but I was about to ask you about the point of your signature, then I read your post again. I too assumed you were making a critical point, even though I view constructive criticism as healthy. At any rate, what is the point of posting those numbers?

As for using the board for the BOD to discuss their views. Is there some middle ground. Personally, I don't need to hear y'alls discussion (even though it might be enlightening), but it would be helpful to be able to read some synopsis of the issue and the conclusions, views, reasons, etc. of each BOD member. I can respect the fact that there might be many reasons someone did not want to do so, but the positive in my mind is that one can use this vehicle to sell a view, or to float a position out for discussion.

Finally, to give me a sense of their values, what does the BOD view as the important issues on their plate, in your estimation or course.

Steve got yelled at for telling Jason that BDH would have an interim contract thru the end of 07 to help the transition to the new Exec Director. that part was pretty funny because it resulted in BDH threatening to quit for the second BoD meeting in a row.



That is so funny. It's refreshing, Pat, to read a post from a BoD member that is actually enlightening regarding the inner workings of our fine organization.

It is sad that some BoD members refuse to embrace the communication technologies currently available.

It really seems that some BoD members have taken the bad of the board and painted the entire board in that light...which is a real shame. I appreciate the time any BoD member takes in involving him/herself into a discussion. To me, that shows a willingness to communication to the membership. IMO, the best leaders are ones who are willing to mingle with the unwashed. Steve's idea was a great one.

Members are just as easily confused by:
- rule changes which never get discussed prior to approval. (See the OB line is now out discussion, or the Lost Disc discussion)
- a swirling wind which complicates disc selection on the tee.
- the McDonald's value menu - so many choices, so many choices.

I didn't like Hawk's tone of his discussion, but there are some good points in it. When people stop questioning things, the BoD should be concerned because that means people are leaving or not caring.

And a big amen to the consistent application of policy.

(The SN BoD crack was a bad thing, Pat.)

BoD members are: T. Pozzy, J Lyksett, B. Decker, P.May, C. Bellinger, S. Dodge, P. Brenner.

my point in posting those numbers is simply they are facts about our organization... in this particular case, numbers that are pretty good and make sense for the size we are. i deliberately chose those numbers because they are good numbers - i didnt want to start with something contentious.

what are the important issues? well... in my estimation the highest level issues appear to be ...

1. executive director position needs to be filled. this is way critical.

2. membership retention. hence the encouragement to sign up in 2006 before the price increase hits, and also the opportunity for Pros to reclass as Ams (altho that has been exercised only two times to date)

3. IDGC - taking a lot of resources so it is fairly high on the radar.

there's a host of other issues such as some members expressing their preference to not receive the magazine in exchange for lower membership rates, the annual tweaking to the tour guidelines and snactioning agreemetns, increasing international presence and emphasis, increasing the value the PDGA delivers to TDs, figuring out how the single PDGA organization can be effective trying to do what ball golf needs PGA, LPGA, EGU, USGA and several others to do.

these are only some of the topics we have discussed. i honestly do not know what other BoD folks value. there is a lot of "for the good of disc golf" thats gets said... but that is so subjective it becomes meaningless. i hesitate to present my impressions as the full reality.

btw, the benefits you describe of conducting some discussion on the board are exactly what Steve was hoping to deliver... hoping to increase the credibility of the BoD and its actions by providing a look into how decisions are derived and the thought processes that go into them.

I'd have to go along with having a synopsis instead of a running discussion.

For decisions, just give us the decision if one was made and a brief description of what was considered in reaching that decision.

If it is a proposal that could use some input, give us the proposal, the goals, and some of the options being considered and some of the major concerns.

The discussion board is full of people that will find the problem in any approach you put forward. It may bring some things to light that were not noticed at first.

there's a host of other issues such as some members expressing their preference to not receive the magazine in exchange for lower membership rates



:eek: But that would take PROFIT away from Rothstein.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Former Board Member...until about the time that "Conflict of Interest" came around :p

But then thats a REALLY OLD thread...... :o

funny you should mention that. we reviewed the COI statement last night. i think all of us are willing to sign a statement that we read and understand and agree to follow the COI policy. interestingly, only some of us are willing to fully disclose in writing all potential conflicts no matter how small. we'll see how that plays out over the next month.

the general plan was for new BoD members to sign their COI statement when the assume their office... i'm not sure if serving BoD folks will resign yearly.. it was discussed.

As for the list of State Coordinator duties, I see a lot of "sell the PDGA" points and not many "promote disc golf" points. I'm more into promoting disc golf, and am hesitant to sell overpriced PDGA Amway products to my neighbors and friends.

If I'm going to represent the PDGA I'd first have to like it. If I'm going to like the PDGA I first have to have a clue what it's doing.




As a former coordinator, these are my thoughts.. :p

Jason,

If you do not "Like" the PDGA you should RESIGN as Coordinator. While I have NO ISSUE with members "Questioning" what the PDGA does, is, or what ever we will be in the future. As a coordinator your obvious distain is irreprehencable. As coordinator you should be BOUND be what the PDGA asks of a coordinator, IF thats not what you want then resign and let someone who actually wants to WORK with the PDGA have the position.
Im not saying that you dont have the "Right" to express your opinion but as Coordinator, you should at least RESPECT the organization and not BAD MOUTH it at every chance.

You can promote DiscGolf anyway you wish as an "Individual" but as an ELECTED offical, there should be limits and penaltys.

Your actions are not helpful in ANY WAY...only detrimental.

The PDGA WILL change...with the departure of BDH, probably for the worse :( before it gets better. Complaining about who gets what and what goes where, doesnt make ANYTHING better.
Start DOING your JOB that YOU VOLUNTEERED for or give it to someone who will....... :mad:

i'm not sure if serving BoD folks will resign yearly.. it was discussed.



That would be one way to get a new BoD really fast.

i'm not sure if serving BoD folks will resign yearly.. it was discussed.



That would be one way to get a new BoD really fast.



:eek:
I think that was meant to be re-sign.....not "resign".. :o
:D

Hypocritical statement of the Year:

Steve Dodge asked the BoD to establish a place on the Message Baord where BoD members could engage in discussion in view of the Members......reasons to not do it....."our members are too easily confused by stuff that is posted on the board"

i got yelled at for having the Mechandise sales and cost numbers in my signature. i was accused of questioning and criticizing the PDGA.

I am appalled.

This kind of sharing of one board member's perceptions of the details of board meeting discussions - with not just members but the world at large - is an act of governance sabotage.

Whatever your motivation, Pat, you are actively harming the PDGA with this and it violates your fiduciary obligations.

I like too hear whats going on.

Wow, at first I thought that was sarcasm, but you were serious. I guess the problem goes way deeper than I could have imagined.

I think the BOD Summit minutes should be available to MEMBERS along with the Voting Record of the BOD and State Coordinators. Or are dues paying members not allowed to know what goes on with the PDGA? We are directly affected by the BOD Summit and have a right to know what goes on there, and what is said. It's not sabotage, it's called involvement and ACCOUNTABILITY!

Matriarchs and young pups haven't applied lately. Constitution whining is as tired and played out as the True Am whine. Although how to fill in the gaps in the new Constitution would be very helpful.



This from a guy being paid an undisclosed sum by the PDGA for work previously designated as volunteer work. How much is it Chuck? How much? Or haven't you received permission yet from your employers to reveal the figure. Here's a gap you could fill in the constitution: provide the membership with some idea of what you're doing with its money.

This from a guy who ran a PDGA "Major" that attracted a whopping 40 players. We get almost as many people at Tuesday night league.

Hey. Be nice. You try running a disc golf tournament somewhere just a few degrees south of the Arctic Circle. You know they found that piece of property while scouting shortcuts for the Iditarod. :D

Yes, you will notice that I am no longer a PDGA board member, so I have no issues that relate to things I say or do at those meetings.

But I am a very experienced nonprofit association manager with tons of additional experience on some pretty important boards of directors.

If Pat continues to do this, the PDGA will become ungovernable. No well-qualified candidate for executive director will take the position if this kind of sabotage continues.

It's not personal. It's not sarcastic. This is a bad thing.

"I think the BOD Summit minutes should be available to MEMBERS along with the Voting Record of the BOD and State Coordinators. Or are dues paying members not allowed to know what goes on with the PDGA? We are directly affected by the BOD Summit and have a right to know what goes on there, and what is said. It's not sabotage, it's called involvement and ACCOUNTABILITY!"

Minutes are and always have been available to members. They used to be posted in DGWN and now they are on the PDGA website.

What Pat posted were his own personal, subjective, and in many other ways inappropriate notes on the discussion during the meeting. The very fact that you call them "minutes" just points to one of the lesser evils caused by doing this.

The major problem is that he is destroying the trust relationship between board members, other volunteers, and staff.

discette, while Jason's topics may be uncomfortable to some, i honestly believe that he has the best interests of Disc Golf in mind. the more uncomfortable a statement makes you feel the more likely it is that there is some element of truth to it.

btw, under the old constitution you could have asked the Oversight Director to get those numbers. under the new Constitution, you have no rights to ask. however, the amounts paid to contractors are discussable information,.according to the BoD discussion last night.

Just getting caught up on this thread. We might still actually have that right under Colorado law or federal non-profit law. I'd have to look. Or, rather, someone would have to pay me to look! :D

I am appalled.

This kind of sharing of one board member's perceptions of the details of board meeting discussions - with not just members but the world at large - is an act of governance sabotage.

Whatever your motivation, Pat, you are actively harming the PDGA with this and it violates your fiduciary obligations.


sorry you feel that way Terry. but how can i describe the perceptions of other BoD members??? all i have is my own... and that is what i was asked about. i made it clear in several places that this is my perception and i do not speak for the entire BoD.

your assessment is completely subjective and with its absense of defensible reasoning amount to an attack on a BoD member.

but i can take it... given the cry for information that Members have been expressing here, i am quite convinced that i am actively helping the PDGA and fuilfilling my fiduciary obligations.

My opinion is based on professional experience in nonprofit management and knowledge of those principles, Pat. You bet this is an attack on a board member - you.

I did not run for re-election because I am too darned busy. Boy, are you making me feel guilty about that.

I see nearly a decade of great management and functioning board, plus tremendous growth and association maturation, getting shot in the head here.

I cannot construe that Pat rehashing the details of a meeting equates to sabatoge. I fact, I cannot think of one productive idea or topic of discussion that would be hurt be shining a public light on them. I can think of many that might be strengthed though.

"The major problem is that he is destroying the trust relationship between board members, other volunteers, and staff. "

i am? how do you know? did someone tell you? if so, then they need lessons in communication skills, because no one has said anything to me. did i call them minutes? if so, i apologize, as my postings are certainly NOT minutes. they are my personal recollection of the gist of some of the conversations in which i was elected to participate. as i have stated before.

btw, the BoD verbally agreed at the Summit that BoD members would continue to operate in the same general capacity to which they were elected, when appropriate. ie,someone elected as Commissioner would stay in that role, even though the role is now called President.

Yes there are nonprofit association management principles. It's a profession. This is the first article I have found. There will be more.

http://www.asaecenter.org/PublicationsResources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12233

Minutes are to Protect Organization

By: Robert Harris , Harris Management Group
[email protected]
Source: Center Collection
Published: November 2002

When was the last time you were excited about writing meeting minutes? The importance of minutes (including what to include and what to leave out) can not be overemphasized. In this overview, Robert Harris, CAE provides the key issues to be aware of when crafting association meeting minuets.


The purpose of taking minutes is to protect the organization and the people who participate in the meeting. The minutes are not intended to be a record of discussions, nor serve as a newsletter for the organization. Recent court decisions support this.

In the case, Multimedia Publishing of NC v. henderson, the court noted, "the purpose of minutes is to provide a record of the actions taken by a board and evidence that the actions were taken according to proper procedures. If no action is taken, no minutes (other than a record that the meeting occurred) are necessary."

In another case, Maready v. City of Winston-Salem, the court wrote, "generally, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. Their purpose is to reflect matters such as motions made, the movant, points of order, and appeals - not to show discussion or absence of action." This decision highlights what association counsel frequently emphasize when advising association executives regarding minutes - they should be kept as brief as possible, and should only reflect action taken at the meeting.

These guidelines will help volunteers and staff members take minutes that will protect the organization.

* Accurate minutes should be kept for all official meetings, including committee and chapter meetings.

* Minutes should be a record of what was considered and accomplished at a meeting, not a record of conversations, reports and work assignments. They should not include sidebar conversations, if they occur.

* Minutes should indicate the place, date and time of the meeting and the names of all participants at the meeting, including persons arriving late or leaving early, guests and staff.

* The ultimate legal importance of meeting minutes can be substantial if antitrust, tax, advocacy or other legal issues are raised in litigation or some other context. (In several antitrust cases, recollections by those who attended meetings were disregarded in the face of the official minutes.) Include a statement in the minutes about distribution of financial reports and approval or corrections to prior minutes.

* From time to time, minutes may contain self-serving statements to protect the organization, for example, "An antitrust avoidance statement was read and distributed to the board." This is to the advantage of the organization.

* Drafts of minutes, notes and audio or video recordings should NOT be retained in the organization's files once the minutes are approved. The chief elected officer and staff must be sure they are discarded. The organization should have a policy about who may create audio and video recordings.

* Distribute minutes within a reasonable time following the meeting to those who attended, those who were supposed to be at the meeting and then safeguard them in the permanent files of the organization. If you distribute minutes electronically, be sure your bylaws and corporate laws permit this.

* Consider asking legal counsel to review minutes before they are distributed to be certain no liability is created for the association.

"My opinion is based on professional experience in nonprofit management and knowledge of those principles, Pat. You bet this is an attack on a board member - you. "

and mine is based on 25+ years in management in several industries including international ventures. communication, discussion, even knock-down catfights are all components of a healthy organization. i promise i will not threaten to quit because you attacked me. heck, i wont even request to have you banned :D

I cannot construe that Pat rehashing the details of a meeting equates to sabatoge. I fact, I cannot think of one productive idea or topic of discussion that would be hurt be shining a public light on them. I can think of many that might be strengthed though.



Jim, if nothing else, public statements like "Steve got yelled at for telling Jason that BDH would have an interim contract thru the end of 07 to help the transition to the new Exec Director. that part was pretty funny because it resulted in BDH threatening to quit for the second BoD meeting in a row." are of nothing but negative value.

I repeat, if this kind of thing is acceptable to the PDGA, then our qualified candidate pool for executive director just shrank to nothing.

i promise i will not threaten to quit because you attacked me. heck, i wont even request to have you banned :D



I've already begun exploring ways to bring official action, whether for impeachment or something else, Pat. I'm serious about this. The PDGA means a lot to me.

Basically three things.

Steve Dodge asked the BoD to establish a place on the Message Baord where BoD members could engage in discussion in view of the Members. i supported that idea. unfortunately, the rest of the board did not, although at least one person might have gone along with it. reasons to not do it ranged from "i dont do the message board so i do not want to be viewed as disinterested" to "our members are too easily confused by stuff that is posted on the board"

not surprisingly, that last one was not reconciled with the other statement frequently heard at BoD meetings, which is "only 10 or 12 troublemakers use the message board"

bottom line is that Steve and I want to use the message board to make the PDGA more transparent and accessible to its Members, but the rest of hte BoD does not. unfortunately, it did not come to a vote... it would have been very nice to have people's names on the record on this one.



You start by explaining that you and some other members would like to use the discussion board to distribute information. That proposal was not passed, yet you proceed to do what you proposed against the stated wishes of the current BOD.

The second thing is your sig line. While I agree that it is not a bad thing, and even encourages knowledgable members to choose to purchase from the PDGA when possible, it was specifically objected by several BOD members. Would that be enough justification to have a regular member's sig line changed ?

The third is that publishing detailed impressions about specific arguments will supress open discussion in the future.

what part is negative? recounting what actually happened and how i felt, or someone threatening to quit two meetings in a row?

bruce, are you still reading? looks like i might need a lawyer :p

i'm not sure if serving BoD folks will resign yearly.. it was discussed.


That would be one way to get a new BoD really fast.

Unless the Board has amended the governing documents without telling us, the entire Board must be re-elected at the next annual meeting. This is the default provision supplied by Colorado law for the benefit of non-profit corporations which are not competent enough to cover all the basic provisions in their Constitution or By Laws.

I wish we had more people in charge of the PDGA like Pat. The PDGA Summit affects more than just the BOD. If the BOD members don't want to be held accountable for the decisions they make, or don't make, then they need to vacate the position.

Was there an agenda available to the membership prior to this meeting?

You start by explaining that you and some other members would like to use the discussion board to distribute information. That proposal was not passed, yet you proceed to do what you proposed against the stated wishes of the current BOD.

no, the idea to establish a seperate BoD only area was not pursued due to BoD concerns. in fact it was mentioned and understood that Members, including those on the BoD, could discuss anything they wanted to in the "regular" part of the message board.


The second thing is your sig line. While I agree that it is not a bad thing, and even encourages knowledgable members to choose to purchase from the PDGA when possible, it was specifically objected by several BOD members. Would that be enough justification to have a regular member's sig line changed ?

after stating i thought the numbers are mighty fine numbers no one really objected. no one ever asked me to remove the information.


The third is that publishing detailed impressions about specific arguments will supress open discussion in the future.

expressing impressions is exactly what leads to more discussion... readers can begin to understand each other better. when AviarX and i started our online discussions it was all about the 2MR - and we were in very different camps and made no bones about it. by the time topics changed we had learned that we shared lots of other views. we continue to enjoy an excellant relationship. please provide valid research that shows how an honest assessment suppresses open discussion. i'll find just as many sources that show the opposite.

WOW...........

Lot's of passion on this board!

I'll concede the first 2 points based on the additional information, but still disagree on the third.

Open discussion of the topic among the members involved in the discussion is beneficial.

Open discussion of the discussion among those not directly involved in the discussion is not beneficial.

Bring up the topic for discussion among the masses, not the behavior of the members or the tone of the discussion.

tony, the draft of the agenda was emailed to the BoD at 12:52 PM on Nov 13. i doubt it was available to the general Membership.

(NOTE: this is simply a statement of fact with no judgements, perceptions or conspiracies involved.)

WOW...........

Lot's of passion on this board!



There are a lot of people that have dedicated a lot of time and resources to this sport. Pat is among them. This much sacrifice and dedication, is a sure sign of passion for the sport.

Where there is passion, there will be heated debate.

gary, ok, i'll concede a partial on the third... but i maintain that behavior and tone are important and relevant cues.

Yeah, I'm still reading. I'm drafting and deleting inflamatory posts as quickly as I can.

I'm going to go do some work for truth, justice and representative democracy with checks and balances.

Hang in there Pat.

gary, ok, i'll concede a partial on the third... but i maintain that behavior and tone are important and relevant cues.



While I fully agree with that statement, that is the information that makes it suppressive of open discussion among a small group. :cool:

OK. Take your example: "Steve got yelled at for telling Jason that BDH would have an interim contract thru the end of 07 to help the transition to the new Exec Director. that part was pretty funny because it resulted in BDH threatening to quit for the second BoD meeting in a row."

Personally, this went in one ear and out the other when I read it, but for the sake of discussion, I'll agree that unauthorized leaking of this info will discourage potential candidates. How do we deal with this?

I see some options:

1) All members are instructed to keep confidential all details of the BOD meetings, but inevitably, someone leaks this exchange to their buddies. The end result is a rumor mill is created, facts are distorted, affected people never get to air their side of the story, conspiracy theories about back room deals have traction.

2) All members are instructed to keep confidential all details of the BOD meetings, and they actually keep quiet. This also gives traction to conspiracy theories, conflict of interests, but most importantly, it creates the impression of a BOD that does not entertain dissent and is unwilling to work in the daylight. As the Bush administration has demonstrated, this approach either breeds incompetance, or will not allow incompetance to be weeded out. I mean, how the hell can I vote someone out if I don't know how they think or act?

3) The meeting is basically open. Like it was conducted in front of an audience and not behind closed doors. Sure, some things are conducted privately, but they are rare. Just like a City Council meeting. The beauty of this is that it doesn't matter if Pat's recollection is accurate, we can verify it for ourselves. We, the members, can also put everything into context, make informed judgements on the competance and/or character of the BOD. It also allows for the debate to reach a larger audience who might be able to help. Not only with their assenting support, but possibly with new and better ideas.

In sum, I can see that Pat's recollection might be damaging if inaccurate. Maybe that is why a more open style would be beneficial.

gary, maybe true... and that is exactly why we need the discussions... to enable people to discuss openly without taking it personally. failing to make the effort simply reinforces the walls

general note: there were NON-BoD peope in the conf call last night. there was no closed executive session last night. in other words, it was "open" in some way anyway... any restrictions placed on the BoD would need to be placed on all attendees - which doesnt sound very manageable.

I am appalled.

This kind of sharing of one board member's perceptions of the details of board meeting discussions - with not just members but the world at large - is an act of governance sabotage.

Whatever your motivation, Pat, you are actively harming the PDGA with this and it violates your fiduciary obligations.



actually, Pat is opening up a few windows and doors to let some fresh air into that stuffy box.
it may feel scary at first, but you may grow to like it if you give it a chance... consider that many of us voted for Pat because we wished him to bring just such an approach to his role on the BoD.

wow, an informal anecdotal summary of what took place at the meeting posted for members to review. how D A R E he :confused:

never mine, I was going to post something, but don't want to add to this mess that has been created.

Jason, how much do you make a year????

If Pat continues to do this, the PDGA will become ungovernable.



right -- if the membership knows what is going on they won't be confused ... can't have that now can we? :smirk

I think some of the BOD members don't want members to know what they talk about for fear that they might get voted out and the PDGA will lose it's "Good Ole Boy" System.

Note that the moniker "Good ole boy" implies that they are actually "Good" not mediocre, not sinister, not sneaky, not poor...

Oh good, I'll tell the President that when they call out his "good ole boys" that its actually a compliment.

I think some of the BOD members don't want members to know what they talk about for fear that they might get voted out and the PDGA will lose it's "Good Ole Boy" System.



Would you please stop ignoring the FACT that I am the one making the most waves about this and I am NOT a board member, but a very concerned member with expertise in nonprofit association management.

Let me add to that, that I have not had a single email, phone call, IM, snailmail letter, or even psychic - none at all - communication about this from ANY current board member or staff person. Not one.

The argument that this is all because somehow board members want to keep their secrets doesn't work unless you want to continue to ignore that.

Since when did facts have to do with anything? :p

Pat can you please explain your sig?


PDGA 2007 Budget:
Merchandise Income: $116,600
Merchansdise Cost: $68,100

sure... in 2007, we expect to receive about $116,600 in revenue from merchandise sales. the cost of goods sold is about $68,100.

my interpretation of these numbers is as follows:

this represents a healthy but not overly aggressive profit margin and indicates our merch sales are in pretty good shape. further, because this amount is roughly a bit less than 10% of our expected income it also feels like a healthy percentage of total revenue... enough to be significant, but not so much that losing a good chunk would be catastrophic to the organization. this number is commendable.

(this interpretation is based on my business experience, including retail operations, and formal business education)

As a MEMBER, that is great to hear, and know. What else would you like to share? :D

Another: http://www.boarddevelopment.org/display_document.cfm?document_id=17

"Responsibilities of Individual Board Members

You are expected to:

* Understand the organization�s mission and mandate, be aware of issues and keep up to date on trends in the community that might affect these issues

* Ensure that the organization�s legal affairs are in order, know the board�s legal obligations and make sure they are upheld

* To understand and, if necessary, query all financial and budget matters

* Keep board discussions confidential " &lt;-------------------------------------------

great for the United Way of Canada... nothing was ever said about keeping anything confidential.. in fact the position of Oversight Director is specifically tasked with maintaining transparency. besides, there were non-BoD pdga members on the telconf and no one ever said anything about confidentiality. they got to hear the whole thing, including both agreement and dissent.

perhaps i should focus on this one:

* To understand and, if necessary, query all financial and budget matters <---------------------------------------------------------------

"Understand the organization�s mission and mandate, be aware of issues and keep up to date on trends in the community that might affect these issues"

Apparently " for the greater good of disc golf " is the mission as previously stated .

IMO, Pat is keeping " up to date on trends in the community " . That trend being that Joe Blow disc golfer has not a clue as to how these meetings function, and what topics are discussed, what issues arise. Pat merely facilitates that missing link in the community. We as DUE PAYING MEMBERS might be interested in knowing what the heck is going on. That trend will snowball as more and more members decide to become involved in disc golf awarness. Better yet, how are we ( members ) supposed to effectively reflect the current state of disc golf to newcomers and potential sponsors? SHould we not all be on the same page??
Or would certain individuals prefer that independant representatives of the PDGA ( all its members ) tell 10000
diferent stories in regards to the curent state of the PDGA.

10,000 voices telling the same story has the potential to validate what we ( the disc golf community ) are trying to do with our beloved sport.

10,000 voices all telling different stories can get a bit confusing , and in turn , drive away potential investors.

Thread drift : Clever avtar change Pat. A picture is truly worth a thousand posts!

great for the United Way of Canada...



And, from my earlier post from the resource collection of the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE) - anyone can look around in there: www.asaenet.org (http://www.asaenet.org) - that's two, more coming, it's easy to find authority for something so darned basic about nonprofit governance - in both instances giving general good principles and advice, not relying on any one association's rules.

Terry, your argument appears to be: the PDGA is a non-profit, it should therefore act like other non-profits, and treat open governance the way they do.

I maintain that the BOD is an elected governing body, and should act like other governing bodies such as the City Council, and treat open governance the way they do.

Having a scheduled " web meeting " via the MB, could be a highly effective tool for elected council to interact with their public. Plus, you have the benefit of not having to scream over others. My keyboard is no louder than yours.
First post, first served !

Thread drift : Clever avtar change Pat. A picture is truly worth a thousand posts!

wow, someone got the reference :)

Thread drift : Clever avtar change Pat. A picture is truly worth a thousand posts!

wow, someone got the reference :)



You set it up, I drove it home! :D

You know, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would find it disturbing that Terry came out of virtual message board anonymity to openly criticize the man (from his Admin account) who replaced him on the BOD.
My new sig. is in honor of you Terry. Here is part of the song, you should listen to it.

"If we only knew the truth about what really goes on
Maybe all the things i do would make sense just for once
Maybe we could work our way around it
If we only knew the truth about it

If we only knew the truth about what really goes on
And what you said
Behind closed doors
On private Lines

More than just a lie or two about what really goes and what you said
More than just the right thing to do the time has just passed us up instead
Maybe we could work our way around it
If we only knew the truth about it"

"Responsibilities of Individual Board Members

You are expected to:

[...snip...]

* Keep board discussions confidential " <-------------------------------------------



who put this responsibility list in place (and when)? and how soon can it be fixed to read:

make BoD operations as transparent as possible to the membership whose interests it is their responsibility to serve except when extraordinary circumstances clearly make that impractical if not illegal.

I maintain that the BOD is an elected governing body, and should act like other governing bodies such as the City Council, and treat open governance the way they do.



Ah, so you agree with close door meetings.

Most of what City Councils do is behind close doors. If they did it all in public, they would never get anything done.

Now most of the votes are public, however most have already made up there mind by the time of the public meeting.

All you have to do to know this is read an article on the Farmers Branch City Council. On top of this, the Carrollton City council has there close door meeting before the public meeting. (try asking a City Council member what happens behind the closed doors :D)

That's very misleading. Everything they and their staff does is subject to the open records process and they act accordingly. Always aware that they are accountable, not only in their open meetings where they deliberate in full view, but in their day to day activities, where the public can easily follow the paper trail through open record requests.

Besides, what do they gain in their closed door meetings? Suspicion and ridicule. Also, Farmers Branch and their schizophrenic policies are hardly a model for good, or open governance.

I maintain that the BOD is an elected governing body, and should act like other governing bodies such as the City Council, and treat open governance the way they do.



Ah, so you agree with close door meetings.

Most of what City Councils do is behind close doors. If they did it all in public, they would never get anything done.

Now most of the votes are public, however most have already made up there mind by the time of the public meeting.

All you have to do to know this is read an article on the Farmers Branch City Council. On top of this, the Carrollton City council has there close door meeting before the public meeting. (try asking a City Council member what happens behind the closed doors :D)



<font color="blue"> Pizza -- here's some food for thought from a previous thread: </font>


little_erik_wilson wrote:

I work with condominium Boards of Directors and HOA BoDs in my professional life. One of the laws that governs condos and HOAs in my state is the necessity of open meetings before the membership. There are, however, a few exceptions when this can be circumvented by holding an "executive session." There are something like 3-4 specific cases in which you can hold an exec session. They include:


1. Personnel matters
2. Legal strategy (litigation mostly)
3. Accounts Receviable (people in debt)
4. One other that doesn't immediately come to mind.

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

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

Erik

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



[click here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=518470&amp;page=5&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1) to view source thread]

[/QUOTE]

also Erik wrote:

I do think that something along the same lines as the Oregon Open Meeting Laws (which govern many government organizations, not just condo meetings) are a reasonable way to achieve openness, while preserving the idea that not every detail and offhand remark needs to be published to the membership.

Oregon Open Meeting laws merely lay out a set of standards for what is an open meeting (and what needs to be published as a result of that meeting) and what kinds of meetings can be closed.

I think that Executive Session meeting standards for some of the meetings that the BoD has to hold would suit the purposes and goals while not fostering paranoia from the members, simply because decisions cannot be made in executive sessions. This preserves the right of the BoD to have "off the record" (ie non published) discussions and make "on the record" (ie published in minutes that are available to membership) decisions in open session immediately following.

Erik Wilson

Ps. I'll be leaving the condo job in August to begin law school in Oregon, and I'll likely let my PDGA membership lapse as a result of diminished spending money. I'll still lurk on the board, but y'all will have to do without my occassional commentary. ;)


[/QUOTE]

I comend Farmers Branch for taking a stand. I deliver Farmers Branch as part of my delivery area. They have a problem with illegal imagrants. The schools in Farmers Branch have to teach in spanish because the kids don't understand english.

I am #$*&$! off that Carrollton spent money on new signs all around city hall with both english and spanish on them. They should not have to waiste MY tax dollars on that.

if American employers did not exploit illegal imigrants for the superior cheap labor they provide they wouldn't be here. quit blaming the symptom. ;)

i'll bet Native Americans laugh pretty hard when people who speak English call it "American" and say they have an illegal immigration problem...

Clearly Terry believes that the PDGA should operate in secret while Pat and James disagree. Well, guess what. We voted on that a couple months ago and the overwhelming majority of the PDGA members voted with Terry.

I think the vote proves Terry right, too. Any membership body that would overwhelming vote to strip itself of its rights as members is not capable of responsibly exercising those rights. Offering such people an open democratic form of organizational government is likely to be about as successful as President Bush's efforts to bring democracy to Iraq.

Some people are incapable of governing their own affairs. They need someone else to take care of it for them. People who would vote for unaccountability and secrecy, like people who would fight to put themselves back under tyranny, are those kinds of people. They deserve just what they bring upon themselves.

I appreciate Pat's efforts and don't much appreciate where the PDGA is headed, but as far as I'm concerned the vote settled it. The membership of the PDGA don't want an open organization. They want a few people to just get it done.

I think it is ironic that Ed Headrick gave this organization to its members, and they said, "Um, we really don't want it, thank you. Is there someone here who would like this organization?"

I don't remember voting? :confused:

Why should that be a surprise? Bruce, you and small group run your events. A few key people do the bulk of the work to install courses, a few people do the rules, a few people run the clubs. In a short period of time, players know they'll have to volunteer to get their ideas done. Much easier to have others do what's needed and just play.

I don't remember voting? :confused:



We approved the "NEW" constitution........YOU got a ballot...if you didnt vote, then :p
:D

I don't remember voting? :confused:



We approved the "NEW" constitution........YOU got a ballot...if you didnt vote, then :p
:D



Incorrect my father got a ballot and I did not. :confused:

I don't remember voting? :confused:



We approved the "NEW" constitution........YOU got a ballot...if you didnt vote, then :p
:D



Incorrect my father got a ballot and I did not. :confused:



Well as a member you SHOULD have recieved a ballot... :p
BUT now definately is NOT the time to bring up that issue....
there was AMPLE time for that inquiry in the time before the vote....and with your presence on this discussion board, Id say that you were aware of it as well.

Clearly Terry believes that the PDGA should operate in secret while Pat and James disagree.



I find it terribly offensive that you would make such a blanket false statement when you know that I spent more than five years of blood, sweat, tears, time, and money improving the communications between the PDGA and its members.

You are, once again, poking the ants nest merely for the resulting entertainment value. That's not a service to the PDGA or to disc golf. Try to make your entertainment in ways that do not harm things.

One of the better replies I have received from the Executive Director's email list of the American Society of Association Executives:

"You are right it is a problem. First it is a plaintiff' attorney's dream
that may give them the smoking gun they need. Remember the Texaco board
member that taped a meeting regarding personnel issues? The tape was
discovered (something about jellybeans and discrimination) and the
settlement was in excess of $100 million.

Legally a board member's duty is to the organization, to act in the best
interest of the organization. A case can be made that this web site is not
in the best interest of the organization. The member's duty of loyalty
(what's best for the organization not what's best for him or a constituency
he may represent) is the basis of the concept of conflict of interest. The
member also has the duty of care to make sound decisions for the
organization. Also as Daryl stated, it is the board that has the power
within the organization not the individual director. The individual
participates in board decisions but once the decision is made it is the
board's decision and even the people that opposed it must support the action
taken.

According to the American Bar Association in its "Guidebook for Directors of
Nonprofit Corporations" (second edition) - "In the normal course of
business, a director should treat as confidential all matters involving the
corporation until there has been general public disclosure or common
knowledge.". . ."The presumption of confidential treatment should apply to
all current information about legitimate board or corporate activities."
(page 34). So there is the presumption of confidentiality but since few
board members truly understand their duties and responsibilities many
associations have developed confidentiality policies and/or included it in
the organization's conflict of interest.

Last I hope the dissident director has good personal liability insurance for
the possible libelous, defaming or disparaging comments made about others.
To state the obvious - "What was he thinking?"

The risk management suggestion is to have the board instruct the director to
remove the posting and refrain from such postings in the future. Also warn
all directors of the dangers in taking personal notes at a board meeting. In
the event of a claim filed against the board the primary defense is the
official board minutes that document the board's actions. If members have
their own notes that may differ from the final minutes, the plaintiff may
win (remember Texaco). Some organizations prohibit such note-taking and
discourage board members from having computers in the meeting to prevent it."

(a) I have not been able yet to find a single piece of professional literature about boards that does not support my position. If anyone does find such a thing, I would appreciate knowing of it because I do like to be right whenever possible.

(b) Every single reply I have received from the Executive Directors list of the American Society of Associations Executives is firmly in support of my position. The responses typically contain, "Oh, my god . . ." or "What is he thinking?" or something to a similar effect.

(c) I am receiving substantial support in phone calls and emails now from some very thoughtful PDGA members and leaders, although I have not yet heard from any board members, and probably wouldn't tell you if I did.

(d) I recommend to the board or staff that our attorney be consulted as to the liability exposure resulting from the publication of personal, unofficial narratives by board members of the discussions in board meetings. That was not one of my original concerns - I am concerned more about governance - but it is an important issue that has been raised by many of the nonprofit management consultants and professional sending me email messages.

I believe the board can remove members and I have a firm intention to push that process so that either Pat agrees to operate as a board member should or he be removed.

If I were our executive director, I would be giving some thought to filing a complaint about Pat presenting him as having threatened to resign when in fact he did no such thing. He might be able to pocket a few months' extra salary as he leaves next year. Knowing Brian, however, he won't. Sigh.

No conspiracy. Just me. And not for power, but for the health of the PDGA.

Terry. Mountain out of a molehill. A little perspective please.

Bruce. This is not a legal or constitutional problem. Nothing but their own motivations prevents the BOD from acting more openly.

ok Terry, please show us the email or post you sent. it would be clarifying to read how you worded your impression of all this. i say this because the meeting was in the public as evidenced by the presence of people who are non BoD and non Staff.

Bruce has been a pretty close friend, Jim, and I have defended him in many forums. So I do not take it lightly that he misrepresents me as preferring that the PDGA operate in secret.

That doesn't just misrepresent me, it misrepresents my work on the board, and it undermines my point in this thread about the dangers inherent in Pat's post.

I am deadly serious about those dangers and very concerned about the PDGA if Pat doesn't step up to the responsibilities of a director.

ok Terry, please show us the email or post you sent. it would be clarifying to read how you worded your impression of all this. i say this because the meeting was in the public as evidenced by the presence of people who are non BoD and non Staff.



Unedited query in toto:

"A request for a link or two in support; or help in understanding something I don't.

I am recently off a nonprofit board, not my employer, and now just a member of the organization. I declined to run for re-election after more than 5 years.

One of the new board members has decided to post on a public discussion board open not just to members but to anyone, detailed, subjective personal notes of the discussion at the latest board meeting, including criticisms and sarcasm directed at paid staff.

Am I crazy to think that this is wrong and a bad thing for the organization? Can people share with me any "authority" about this that I can send to the staff involved, and to the board, in support of stopping this from continuing?

Thanks."

I thought about linking to DISCussion in this query, so that the folks could actually see the posting, but it was just too embarassing for the PDGA to share in detail.

ok, fair enough, that is less inflammatory than i expected.

however, i do notice two things:

1) the bias in your description of my post. you fail to mention the positive things i said. a less biased description would have included at least my comments about various activites, membership levels and the budget being on track and looking good;

2) your use of subjective terms such as "criticisms" and "sarcastic". that is at least as subjective as anything i wrote, and quite a bit more slanted.

i find it odd that this is the very first time in the history of the PDGA that a BoD member has commented on a BoD meeting to someone other than another BoD member. in fact, that is absolutely amazing to me! i don't quite believe it. in fact it is impossible to gather any input from Members in order to do whats right for the organization without such discussions.

may i again remind you that this meeting was held with non-BoD, non-Staff Members present.

may i again remind you that this meeting was held with non-BoD, non-Staff Members present.



It's kind of like a newscaster who is not supposed to editorialize when giving the news even though those listening can cheer or boo. You can recite the official minutes and Board positions just like the newscaster recites the news but not the discussions that occured in the newsroom to determine what stories and info to include.

Jason......

you have not answered my question (you might have missed it or have not been on the board)


How much do you made a year????

Earlier in the thread Pat, Steve, Chuck & Brian Grahm all give brief overviews of things discussed at the Summit. I thought it was great to hear about things discussed at the summit, since we all know how long it takes before official minutes get posted. Pat took it a little too far with the sarcasm and personal opinion in the recap of the last conferance call.

I think it is equally inappropriate for Terry to conduct his crusade against Pat publicly in this forum. I don't see how all of the banter and the posting of emails from other "professionals in the know" is making the situation better. Seems like alot of time and energy for someone who has said they don't have time to post on the message board.

This is the only thread Terry has posted on in a while. (he also has more free time now)

Yes, Pat and Jason have both stepped way across the line on posts in this thread. But Pat is on the board, this opens himself up to liability for some of the things he posted.

Terry is putting the time in because he cares and wants things done right.
Pat cares and wants to do the right thing to.

If another board member had respected the privacy of normal financial arrangements, Pat's post would not have been as amusing/dangerous and Terry would probably not be so nearly worried.

The new BoD members are still learning their roles/responsibilities. Terry is trying to help them out.

anyone ever watch CSPAN? you know , the show where you get to watch your elected representatives discuss things? or try the british version... the House of Commons can feature some of the nastiest dialog you'll ever hear.

If the BOD Summit was conducted with people that were not on the BOD, then Terry's crusade is out of place and Pat's comment are well within the boundary's of acceptability. You can't have a "classified" conversation with "non-classified" individuals. This is like having a "private" conversation in a public place and telling the guy on the other end that he can't repeat anything cause its private, it makes no sense. Pat, keep doing what you are doing. As of yet, you have done NOTHING wrong or out-of-bounds.

How many folks were on this 'teleconference'...and were all allowed to speak and be heard simultaneously...or did some have a mute option?

If the BOD Summit was conducted with people that were not on the BOD, then Terry's crusade is out of place and Pat's comment are well within the boundary's of acceptability. You can't have a "classified" conversation with "non-classified" individuals. This is like having a "private" conversation in a public place and telling the guy on the other end that he can't repeat anything cause its private, it makes no sense. Pat, keep doing what you are doing. As of yet, you have done NOTHING wrong or out-of-bounds.



I believe that we are not speaking of the Summit, but of the last teleconference?

The analogy to military-type secrecy classifications for things like national security is obviously easy to start making, but it is not pertinent. I was once cleared at the NATO Cosmic Top Secret level and understand a bit about that, too.

Rather than make this personal to you accidentally, let me use myself as an example. Suppose my wife and I were having difficulties (We're not!) and in the course of trying to work things out, we had some hellacious arguments in front of our neighbors.

Now, we had those arguments in "public" and people who were not in our marriage were present.

But, if she or I then felt it okay to detail our own personal versions of the argument later, in a forum public to everyone we know, then any reasonable social worker would tell you that our chances of working things out over time would be nil.

That scales up to board meetings, even though it is only one or several reasons such things should not be allowed. We NEED our board members to be able to work things out together - that is their primary reason for being board members.

Pat, my being "deadly serious" explains why I am taking this time, but it should not concern you with regard to personal danger from me. I was once a pretty deadly member of the US Navy's Underwater Demolition Team Thirteen, but I despise interpersonal violence.

i find it odd that this is the very first time in the history of the PDGA that a BoD member has commented on a BoD meeting to someone other than another BoD member. in fact, that is absolutely amazing to me! i don't quite believe it. in fact it is impossible to gather any input from Members in order to do whats right for the organization without such discussions.

Well don't believe it because it is not. Terry is just busting your balls because he thinks the PDGA BoD should do what it thinks is best and tell us about it four months later on a back page of this website somewhere four clicks away.

And Terry is right. The membership by and large is not competent to be involved in important decisions. That's why they have no rights today. A membership that is not competent enough to protect its right to vote is likewise not competent enough to be involved in any other important issues facing the organization.

"And Terry is right. The membership by and large is not competent to be involved in important decisions." <font color="red"> I did not say this, it is not my perspective, it is a baldfaced lie. How someone who thinks he has high character can lie like this is beyond me.</font>

As smart as you are, Bruce, it's pretty amazing how you don't "get" this. Unless you realize, as I do now, that you really do not have any good will or feelings of stewardship for the PDGA - you just find this entertaining and here you go poking the ants nest with a stick again. Hope you find it tasty.

But, if she or I then felt it okay to detail our own personal versions of the argument later, in a forum public to everyone we know, then any reasonable social worker would tell you that our chances of working things out over time would be nil.

hmmm... as someone who is trained in counseling, and who has - without any reason other than a desire to understand myself more fully - gone through counseling for more than five continuous years, i believe a competent counselor would in no way abandon hope for that couple. instead, when the husband complained, the counselor would seek to help the husband understand why the wife's actions made him feel the way he did. the counselor may also explore the wife's actions with her, helping the wife understand why she felt compelled to make a public statement. once both parties reached that understanding, changes of success would be better, not worse. dissension and strife are frequently necessary for advancements to occur. if you dont believe my sociology and psychology, then ask an iraqi.

I didn't say . . . geez this is hard sometimes . . . that the counselor would abandon the couple.

So, what is your opinion? As a counselor, with such a couple in therapy with you, if they insisted and would not change, in posting their versions of arguments in public forums, what odds would you give on their survival?

How many folks were on this 'teleconference'...and were all allowed to speak and be heard simultaneously...or did some have a mute option?

it was a dial-in, so we called from whatever phone we had... a mute option would be at the individual's phone, so there's no way to know. i know that the BoD, the Staff and at least two other unrelated persons were present.

I wish the BOD and the PDGA could conduct business without the skewed microsope of the message board being focused on the minutia. I don't think it is necessary or a healthy way to operate the organization and apparently the BOD agreed.

I am all for openness, but there is a proper way to provide the membership with details of BOD meetings. The current format of the BOD minutes does provide a breakdown of who voted and how they voted on each issue discussed. BOD members should not post a synopsis of meetings on the message board unless directed by the BOD. We have become spoiled in this information age to want our information instantly. It is not always better to have the information quicker and certainly not if the information is not complete, was posted in opposition to the board or is biased in any way.

You can not have 10,000 people directing operations and making decisions. It is also not right to have ten to twelve very vocal message board posters assuming to know what is best for the rest of the membership. We as message board posters were not elected to make decisions, the BOD members were elected to make decisions.

I think it is commendable that Steven, Pat and Bruce all decided to run for the BOD and attempt to make their voices count. All the rest of us are simply armchair quaterbacks watching from our computer screens. It sure is easy to second guess those making decisions from here.

Assuming the summit minutes were approved a couple of nights ago, when will they be posted?

Assuming the summit minutes were approved a couple of nights ago, when will they be posted?



This is the archive of the meeting minutes of the Board of Directors of the PDGA. (http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php)

I found that. The summit minutes are not yet on that page.

The summit minutes should have been approved at the last board meeting (conf call). Once they are approved I didn't know what the turn around time was for them to be available.

The turn around time on posting board minutes is about three to five months after they are approved or one week after someone comments that it has been five months since the last minutes were posted. Usually that would be me commenting.

Maybe I'm not making it clear. I have no desire for anyone to post every detail of a BOD meeting. I have no desire for anyone but the elected members to make decisions, and I'm not sure how more openness implies such a thing. I simply think it is much healthier for BOTH the BOD and the membership if the BOD was more forthright in their dealings, more proactive in selling us with their positions. Hell, just generally educating us on who the hell they are, what they consider to be important, and why they voted the way they did. IMO, this would be a huge step forward for the organization. I am generally willing to give any of them the benefit of the doubt, as long as I feel they have thought things through.

For example, take the new constitution. I voted yes, not because I understood anything about the content of the past or proposed language, but because one member communicated to the members via the discussion board that there were problems with the existing laws, that he had researched the issues, and that he felt like the new laws were needed. I know nothing about the content of his argument, but he at least had the inclination to promote his stance. That action by him made me conclude that he was much more knowledgeable on the subject than I was, and I assumed that he had disc golf at heart. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and voted yes. If he had not made his case through this vehicle, then who knows how I would have voted.

That is merely an example of a BOD memeber communicating with the membership. I am not advocating that exact mechanism per se, just some vehicle where the BOD members state their positions and rationales for their actions. Furthermore, they can communicate to us what are important issues on the horizon. This type of communication hardly bogs them down or dilutes their power. In fact, it probably increases it.

then ask an iraqi.



They are too busy KILLING EACH OTHER .....

Kidnapping, Torture, Mass Murder....thats a great example :p

:eek:

Regardless of "Personal" thoughts, YOU are still bound by the PDGA Constution AND its By-Laws.
While the "General Membership" would like to see MORE transparency in the PDGA's actions, OPEN discussion and disclosure SHOULD NOT be allowed or encouraged.

As a LONG time promoter, former coordinator, and director of the NorCal Series. Some things are just better NOT being put out front. Even though that everything IS above board.
There are ALWAYS the IDIOTS who "jump the gun" on issues they just dont or cant comprehend. This can be MORE detrimental than helpful in MOST cases.

Its a tough line to walk...I can see Pat's point AND I can see Terry's as well.
:confused:

Assuming the summit minutes were approved a couple of nights ago, when will they be posted?



This is the archive of the meeting minutes of the Board of Directors of the PDGA. (http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php)



Wouldnt that be the job of the "Communications Director"
:confused:

Oh yea, we dont have one of those anymore :p

Michael, point taken. however, since non-BoD, non-Staff MEMBERS were present at the entire meeting, and were invited by someone other than me and could sat in for as much as they wanted, it was an open meeting and discussion already.

ya know what's really sad? there is ONE paragraph in my entire post that might be questionable. every other paragraph is fairly innocuous.

perhaps we could benefit from going back to my original description and evaluate/rank each paragraph on a scale from one to 10 for the following:

harmful
sabotage
financially irresponsible
nothing but negative value
impeachable
critical/criticism
sarcasm

lets see how well the shoe Terry is placing me into really fits.

Maybe I'm not making it clear. I have no desire for anyone to post every detail of a BOD meeting. I have no desire for anyone but the elected members to make decisions, and I'm not sure how more openness implies such a thing. I simply think it is much healthier for BOTH the BOD and the membership if the BOD was more forthright in their dealings, more proactive in selling us with their positions. Hell, just generally educating us on who the hell they are, what they consider to be important, and why they voted the way they did. IMO, this would be a huge step forward for the organization. I am generally willing to give any of them the benefit of the doubt, as long as I feel they have thought things through.

For example, take the new constitution. I voted yes, not because I understood anything about the content of the past or proposed language, but because one member communicated to the members via the discussion board that there were problems with the existing laws, that he had researched the issues, and that he felt like the new laws were needed. I know nothing about the content of his argument, but he at least had the inclination to promote his stance. That action by him made me conclude that he was much more knowledgeable on the subject than I was, and I assumed that he had disc golf at heart. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and voted yes. If he had not made his case through this vehicle, then who knows how I would have voted.

That is merely an example of a BOD memeber communicating with the membership. I am not advocating that exact mechanism per se, just some vehicle where the BOD members state their positions and rationales for their actions. Furthermore, they can communicate to us what are important issues on the horizon. This type of communication hardly bogs them down or dilutes their power. In fact, it probably increases it.



:D:DI agree completely...

BUT before it happens "Guidelines" need to be established.
"Rogue" members of the BoD (in General, NOT this occasion specifically) MUST be held accountable for actions deemed "detrimental"..

I voted for Pat...I like his way of thinking MOST of the time...
I do not agree with him bringing BOARD discussions to this forum. It is NOT HEALTHY for this organization AT THIS TIME. :(

(Good 'ol Boy sarcasim ON) Im quite sure that ANY "non-BoD" members that were involved/allowed in the teleconference KNOW that all discussions are confidential :p (Good 'ol Boy sarcasim OFF)

I am confident that the time will come where we can have this "Openness" that MOST members want, BUT fail to realize what it will take to make it happen, in a POSITIVE way.
Sort of like the "player" who knows AND demands what they want at a tournament BUT have NEVER helped a TD actually RUN one to know what it involves

One of the better replies I have received from the Executive Director's email list of the American Society of Association Executives:



Terry, did you make clear that we are a sports organization and not a corporation with competitors? it's not like we are Heinz ketchup and want to keep our 57 ingredients confidential...

also -- Bruce -- voting for changing the Constitution was more a function of the way the change was presented than of the substance of the changes themselves. and, just because openess isn't required by the Bylaws that in no way precludes the BoD from being open with the membership if it is so inclined. it seems to me more a matter of leadership style and culture when openess is frowned upon...

Terry, did you make clear that we are a sports organization and not a corporation with competitors? it's not like we are Heinz ketchup and want to keep our 57 ingredients confidential... (!)



Not only do I disagree with your statement, it would be irrelevant even if true, so no. I think in fact that if you read Pat's query to me, and my reply, I very emphatically stated that what I posted as my query to the ASAE list was everything I posted.

This whole discussion itself is an example of how you cannot bring any large virtual group, even of the brightest people, up to speed on complex matters fast enough for governance decisions not to suffer.

The minutes and actions of the Board are OPEN. The meeting process by which they get to those resolutions and voicing their individual views outside that environment are not appropriate for Board members. Members may attend the Board meetings so it's also open from that standpoint.

"The major problem is that he is destroying the trust relationship between board members, other volunteers, and staff. "

i am? how do you know? did someone tell you? if so, then they need lessons in communication skills, because no one has said anything to me. did i call them minutes? if so, i apologize, as my postings are certainly NOT minutes. they are my personal recollection of the gist of some of the conversations in which i was elected to participate. as i have stated before.

btw, the BoD verbally agreed at the Summit that BoD members would continue to operate in the same general capacity to which they were elected, when appropriate. ie,someone elected as Commissioner would stay in that role, even though the role is now called President.



Pat, are you really this naive?

As a volunteer for the PDGA, yes, you're damaging my trust of the BOD. How can I do my job and give you guys potentially confidential information that comes from a member if I don't know that you'll come spew it here on a whim? Frankly Pat, I don't trust you any more. Is that clear enough that you're damaging the PDGA and it's relationship to its volunteers?

If my recollection serves me correctly you act as a consultant. Tell you what, next job you're on, ask the company you're working for what they think about your conviction that confidential board meetings should be leaked to stake holders!

The minutes and actions of the Board are OPEN. The meeting process by which they get to those resolutions and voicing their individual views outside that environment are not appropriate for Board members. Members may attend the Board meetings so it's also open from that standpoint.



so then -- based on its actions -- the Board believes in open meetings.

was anything Pat shared here factually inaccurate? if so please correct it. if not -- thank you Pat for keeping the membership informed and everyone can stand down from red alert (also the "how dare you"s directed at Pat can be retracted) ...

This whole discussion itself is an example of how you cannot bring any large virtual group, even of the brightest people, up to speed on complex matters fast enough for governance decisions not to suffer.



virtually simul-casting the meetings would solve that -- wouldn't it? [confused membership mode disengage]

i don't think it is fair to characterize all dissent as a failure to get up to speed with the 'deciders.' for the portion that is due to that, let the chips fall where they may.

was anything Pat shared here factually inaccurate?



Terry's already pointed out several things including the fact that Board members can't provide facts that aren't part of the official minutes which wouldn't have been approved until the next meeting. Pat could say more if he were not a Board member. But Board members have specific restrictions that come with their position regardless whether you think that's good or bad. It's the way it is for the responsibilities of that position.

So the way to get the type of information out that Pat would like to be able disseminate would be to have a PDGA member at large sitting in on the BoD open meetings? They could then function as a member of the PDGA message board press corps.

So the way to get the type of information out that Pat would like to be able disseminate would be to have a PDGA member at large sitting in on the BoD open meetings? They could then function as a member of the PDGA message board press corps.



That is, if regular members are allowed to participate and know when meetings are held.

OK, according to Chuck, the meetings are open to the public.

Presumably, any attending member of the public can legally (for those of you who view this as federal offense) report their impressions to anyone and everyone. Right?

So, the meetings are not really confidential and an outsider can report the preceedings, but it has been deemed improper/wrong/illegal for a fellow BOD member to report the preceedings? I find this hard to beleive, but, if it is true, then Pat's "crime" is merely an arcane requirement which grew out of private meeting protocol. It is hardly some serious offense like many here want to portray it as.

Additionally, the obvious question is that since the meetings are public, why not employ a better method of conveying the preceedings. Minutes are almost always unsatisfactory to curious minds.

I think there is a distinction between "open to the public" and "open to members and invited guests". The PDGA summit meetings are "open to the public". Their times and locations are made known and the doors are open for all that wish to attend. I have never seen the times and conference numbers of the Board meetings published, and since I have never requested to be in attendance, I don't know if the details are freely available.

Minutes are almost always unsatisfactory to curious minds.


Especially if BOD Members are yelling at other BOD Members for suggestions.

Governance for Nonprofits: From Little Leagues to Universities
A Summary of Organizational Governance Principles and Resources for Directors of Nonprofit Organizations
By The Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals and The National Center for Nonprofit Boards

Board of Directors/Trustees


Effective Meetings: Effective use of committees will help make your full board meetings run more smoothly. You should also plan your meeting agendas and allocate appropriate time to each matter on the agenda. Your board's Secretary or Chair should handle this. It will help keep you from getting bogged down or off track. If discussion on a matter runs substantially over schedule, refer it to a committee for a recommendation, or table it until the next meeting.

A controversial matter can be resolved by people discussing their positions informally between meetings. For serious disagreements, look for an advisor, a mediator or elder statesperson on your board to bring the sides together. In all cases, emphasize respect for opposing views.

Don't personalize the debate. Establish a culture of open discussion, respect for all views, free exchange of information, but then public unity behind the collective board decision. Try to support the majority decision, even if you personally disagree with it. Only legal violations should be an exception to this rule. Try to keep policy disagreements among board members. Don't "go public."

If you cannot support the majority decision, work to change the minds of your colleagues. Develop facts to support your position. Take a principled approach. Avoid personal attacks.

The frequency of board meetings will vary according to the needs of your organization. In all cases, however, all directors must receive adequate notice and accurate information so they can participate effectively at meetings.

Meeting etiquette need not be overly formalistic, but good order and decorum should be observed at all times. You may, for example, use an abbreviated form of Robert's Rules of Order designed to suit your group's culture and needs. Decide your meeting rules in advance, with a goal of making your meetings effective, not procedural exercises.

Although board members perform much of their work in board meetings, a great deal of board "work" is also accomplished:

in outside meetings,
in one-on-ones with managers, employees and constituents,
when representing the organization to the public, and
in personal contact between other board members and managers.

I've been one of the more regular "members who is not a Board member" attending most Summit meetings but only a handful of teleconference Board meetings. When certain Board business is being conducted, most if not all non-Board members are excused for a time period while that business is being completed. Discussion and voting on bids to host Worlds and personnel issues are examples of that. I'm pretty sure a similar approach is taken for teleconferences. For some topics, there are no non-Board members included. For other parts, the non-Board members can listen in if they so choose. Regardless, I will only report on the topic(s) that I presented and any official actions voted on, but won't say much if anything about the parts of the process I witnessed.

Lyle, your recollection is inaccurate. I am not a consultant, although i have been in the past. i guess one person's whimsical spew is another person's informed account. so be it. i am sorry you dont trust me anymore. please do not project that onto other BoD members though... that would not be fair to them.

ummm... for the many-ith time, this was NOT a confidential meeting. there were regular ol' Members present for pete's sake. there was nothing closed in any way shape or form about it. i did not disclose any material that has ever been deemed confidential. just to be clear, i have no conviction that confidential conversations should be disclosed. your example is not really the same as what happened here.

My recollection is that the Summit (February was traditionally open) and the Summit (October is relatively new and is developing that way but unlike in February it is not affiliated with a big A-Tier like The Memorial, so there are fewer visitors).

Teleconference board meetings are not open to the public. Staff are often present, but then the ED is an ex officio member of the board anyway. We had call-ins for invited guests on specific topics, but I do not believe that there were ever just simply people joining in for the heck of it. And those who called in on specific topics called in, we dealt with that topic, and they departed the teleconference.

I am sort of smiling at myself here, because I remember when the DISCussion board was at its worst more than a year ago and some people were suggesting that the teleconferences should be open to anyone who wanted to call in. Now, that's transparency! And it lets you see that there train wreck about to happen. :)

was anything Pat shared here factually inaccurate?



Terry's already pointed out several things including the fact that Board members can't provide facts that aren't part of the official minutes which wouldn't have been approved until the next meeting. Pat could say more if he were not a Board member. But Board members have specific restrictions that come with their position regardless whether you think that's good or bad. It's the way it is for the responsibilities of that position.

chuck, Terry didnt provide anything relevant to the PDGA BoD. lets be clear about that. he provided an arms length response that was based on a partial and biased description of my post.

i could say more if i was not a BoD member??? are you serious? that is upside down... volunteer to serve an organization only to find out that as a volunteer leader i cannot discuss the organization??? should i have a Member sit in with me and use him/her as a proxy? sounds like that would be a-ok with you. this gets curiouser and curiouser.

I am no longer amazed at how little the public understands corporate governance, government responsibility, and negotiation. Even that Pat has no concept of these things doesn�t surprise me, when I got my MBA I found that many of our future business leaders, who were enrolled in the program, didn�t get it either (despite being told multiple times by course instructors).

When ever you take a leadership roll in any organization you take on certain responsibilities. Sometimes those responsibilities are written out legally, but often enough they are simply what is the ethical norm. Those obligations are so obvious that most people follow them as a matter of course.

Pat is taking on the roll of �my job is too.� Pat places himself as the ultimate arbiter in deciding what �needs� to go to the membership, what needs to be communicated when, and in what form that should occur. Like many who are religious, Pat thinks he knows what is �best� for us despite being told by a number of highly experienced business and academic leaders (Theo, Terry, etc.) that he is wrong. Pat doesn�t even have the common sense to do a basic Google on corporate and non-profit governance or to ask someone else if what he is doing is correct or even advantageous. He knows!

How arrogant of you Pat, How very conservative of you to know what is best for us and to implement it.

The sad thing is that much of what Pat wants is good, and much of what he wants to accomplish could occur (even if it is unnecessary and irrelevant) but he is doing so much damge with his take no prisoners mentality that he will do more harm than good.

Terry, if you need some help on your articles of impeachment let me know.

And those who called in on specific topics called in, we dealt with that topic, and they departed the teleconference.

that is absolutely NOT what happened on Tuesday. and i was there. non-BoD folks were present for much more than their specific topic. your suggestion that Tuesday was the same as your experience is extremely dangerous because it defames me and by extension the BoD and the PDGA. this is not good for disc golf. (but it will help with the countersuit should it come to that :) )

btw, how's that impeachment coming? i just want you to know that even if i am impeached i will still rejoin for 2007. i really dig the ratings.

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.

Pat, you're doing a great job. You're one of the few in that ivory tower willing to let the rest of us in on what's going on. The mode of thinking favored by recent BoDs was to reveal as little information as possible not just to the general membership, but also to other BoD members who weren't intimately involved in whatever top secret matters that PDGA bigwigs deal with.

Terry you seem like a pretty nice guy, but what frustrated me about your approach to the role of Communications Director was that you'd often refuse to answer the simplest of questions, and when you were willing to share some insight into the inner workings of the BoD, you'd qualify it by swearing me to secrecy: just between you and me.

Like the time on the NEFA page you were tirelessly defending the PDGA against my criticisms and I asked if it was true that the PDGA actually paid for Hoeniger's anger management classes. You would not answer the question either way, except to say that it's normal for large organizations to provide workshops and continuing education for their executives.

It just seemed bizarre to have a Communications Director who spent a lot of his time and energy not answering questions.

Which brings me to my second point...Those anger management classes, don't you think we should get our money back?

If I got elected to the Board or became fulltime staff, I would likely "disappear" from this message board due to my responsibilities. As it is, I've cut back on some topics like Competition due to being on and not heading the committee.

i could say more if i was not a BoD member??? are you serious? that is upside down... volunteer to serve an organization only to find out that as a volunteer leader i cannot discuss the organization??? should i have a Member sit in with me and use him/her as a proxy? sounds like that would be a-ok with you. this gets curiouser and curiouser.



Surprise, surprise . . . things are different when you have the responsibility.

That's right. As a member, you can say what you want. As a board member, you have quite a few very distinct limitations on what you can say - goes with being a board member. Further, you have a fiduciary responsibility to support the actions of the board and to respect the confidentiality of board discussions. That's not one association's rule, it's standard best practice and for very good reasons.

It's clear from your surprise at this concept that that you have not yet wrapped your head around what your responsibilities are and to whom or what. Of course, the PDGA has probably not helped you much with that yet.

I recommend that you poke around the ASAE website, www.asaenet.org (http://www.asaenet.org), and read a couple of the basic primers there on board responsibilities. I'm not making this stuff up because it matches my opinion, it is my opinion because I have been studying it and applying it at work for decades.

These are standards because they work. And because boards which do not follow them do not work. If you plan to still be on the board in February, then I recommend that you get the others to pony up some PDGA money to bring in a consultant for half a day for some basic board responsibilities education. There are lots of good ones in the Tempe area.

Lyle, i appreciate what your experience has taught you. I also appreciate what Theo and Terry's has taught them. My experience and education is on par with both yours and theirs and is significantly different. I did not decide that my way is the best way. in fact, i have already refrained raising important issues because i DO respect confidentiality and sensitivity when called for.

discussing my personal impressions of an open meeting is meant as one man's account of his experience.

PLEASE go back and read the whole post. as i said previously, evaluate each paragraph for all the nasty adjectives that have been applied to me by 2 people so far. see how many paragraphs are even close to suspect. do i need to start a poll? :D

Posted by Sandalman:

#592001 - 09/26/06 11:42 AM




my open policy is still there. i didnt feel like it was my role to provide a synopsis of the entire meeting prior to any minutes being published - if for no other reason than i wouldnt want to state something based on pure memory than might turn out to be wrong.

Tempe? February? is there a BoD meeting there then? now i am really confused, i'll freely admit it.

Everyone has The Memorial Summit on mental cruise control, but I believe it is now part of the Hall of Fame Classic NT and IDGC Grand Opening, April 21st in Georgia.

yes Discette, that was the two day Summit meeting that i particpated in by teleconference while everyone else attended in person. there were about 10 times as many topics discussed at the Summit as the meeting on Tuesday.

after not receiveing minutes from the Summit for close to 2 months i felt it necessary to take notes on tuesday. hence my willingness to provide an account.

i am honestly glad someone is watching for consistancy. we need more of that, imo. thats not a criticism, just an observation.

your suggestion that Tuesday was the same as your experience



??? Get a grip, Pat. Are you channeling Brakel right now, to be making stuff up?

I made no suggestion that last Tuesday's meeting was the same as in my experience. I simply related my experience and understanding. Not a single word in my post had anything to do with describing or even knowing for sure what happened in the last teleconference.

If there were non-board member, non-staff members listening in the whole time, it was nothing like any PDGA BoD teleconference I ever participated in, that's for sure. I suppose that we'll know when the minutes come out, eh? (Except that when I look at some of the ones from last year, they don't make it clear who was joining in for how long/)

And, no, I wasn't there listening in, either, so need for tin hats-time. :) I go to bed at 8:30 and one of my biggest reliefs from not being on the board is not having to *start* sometimes 4-hour-long meetings *at* my bed time! My god, the idea that someone who wasn't responsible to would *want* to sit there trying to stay awake makes me shudder!

Jason, you just violated the agreement under which I let you back into the DISCussion board when your privileges were suspended. I am asking the current moderators to remove them again.

"My god, the idea that someone who wasn't responsible to would *want* to sit there trying to stay awake makes me shudder! "

ouch. that really reflects rather poorly on the BoD at the time. not even interesting enough to stay awake, huh? again, quite a different experience from Tuesday.

i read your post as a comparison between your experience on the BoD and Tuesday's experience. maybe it had something to do with being on the thread in which we were discussing Tuesday's meeting, and on which you are comparing the PDGA to other organizations.

Jason, you just violated the agreement under which I let you back into the DISCussion board when your privileges were suspended. I am asking the current moderators to remove them again.



OK....NOW its turning into a "Circus" :(

Can I get a REFUND of the 4 remaining years Ive already PAID FOR........

Pat, one more before I fold for the day: You keep posting on about the details of whether or not some of your sentences had "bad" (my word) things in them.

That's just not the point, even though I could dissect them and find *lots* of such instances.

It is the effect of knowing that another board member is willing to go on at length with their own narrative - and one that will replace the official narrative, the minutes, which are concise, deliberative, and voted on for many good reasons(!) - with their own, in its absence.

It's the knowledge that a board member can no longer engage in meaningful discussion, where he or she can share thoughts and ideas and be certain that the learning, collaborative experience is respected and is one that lets them sometimes say stupid things without worrying that they'll be reported out on. Or accused of flip-flopping when in fact they are growing and learning.

It's so much more, but then you were surprised that board members have less free speech (I'm still kinda in shock at that revelation, which explains a lot.), so it's not surprising that you're not getting this yet.

Just like Jason: "It just seemed bizarre to have a Communications Director who spent a lot of his time and energy not answering questions." doesn't understand what a communications director's responsibilities are. (Here's a hint, part of them are the responsibility to ensure that as many communications are possible support and do no harm to the organization's capabilities.)

yeah no kidding.

first it was threats of impeachment
then threats of lawsuits
then the use of the word "deadly"
then assurances to not worry about "deadly" because the writer was really only a highly trained killing machine compliments of the US Navy Underwater Demolition Team Thirteen
now efforts to silence someone who agrees with me

these guys sure do play hardball, dont they!

that really reflects rather poorly on the BoD at the time.



This is ludicrous.

I'm a nearly-60-year-old guy who goes to bed most nights, even weekends, at 8:30 pm and gets up close to 5 am.

Those calls were torture for me because I had one heck of a time staying awake, just ask the others in attendance.

One time I fell asleep and dropped my cell phone in the hot tub.

How you can twist this to be something that reflects poorly on the PDGA BoD escapes me, but enough conversation about anything and revealing things do come out.

You too Lyle? You and Terry keep implying that because there is some corporate or non-profit protocol for closed governance, then it is appropriate for the PDGA?

Basically, I view the governance as largely ineffectual. Not because they are incompetant, but because very few people know what they are actually doing. I have always resisted the subtle accusations that they were also an insider club, but judging by the reaction here, I suspect I should have taken those accusations more seriously.

Every time I hear someone imply that closed governance is better for an organization faced with apathy and stasis, I cringe. Y'all are actually advocating that governing is best done in the dark, or at least in the shadows. I'm not advocating complete transparency, but my god, given that the average member either has either limited knowledge, apathy, or disrespect for the PDGA (my opinion only), a closed door style seems like the least effective way to either wake up the members, or gain their support.

actually i can feel some of your pain regarding the length of the meetings. i went thru my cellphone battery, one housephone battery and a half of the other before it ended.

it would be nice to find some way to shorten those meetings. maybe having some discussions via email or on the BoD's Yahoo Group during the months betwen meetings would help. unfrotunately, there was close to none of that this time around.

It's not "closed governance" it's "governance." Period. Basic principles thereof for nonprofit organizations. Because that's what works. Which lets the organizations do what they're intended to do.

Board members are elected to govern. They hire an executive director to manage. Members vote for or against board members and various proposals brought forward to them. How is this so hard?

I'll tell you what I think. Some people think it's exciting to be "in the know" and want to be. But they don't want to do the work to run for election, win, and then shoulder the responsibilities (like a reduction in one's own freedom of speech).

So, they figure, maybe unconsciously, that if the governing can take place via DISCussion board, then they can be part of the governing - without the hard work and without taking on the responsibilities.

It doesn't work that way. As Pat is finding out.

"discussing my personal impressions of an open meeting is meant as one man's account of his experience."
I agree that we want more information.
I agree that it has been too long since the summit for minutes to not be up yet. However, I would venture most don't ever take the time to read them anyway, including myself until recently.
I agree that you meant to give your account of your experience of the teleconference, HOWEVER, I also agree that as a board member you no longer speak for yourself.
From my experience, it is my understanding that everytime you speak, you are representing the board, and therefore you can't give your personal account anymore. It is officially the account of a board member any time you speak for as long as you are a board member. Unfortunately, you cannot take the hat off and on. It stays permanently on as long as you hold the title.
I also feel this is the wrong forum for this discussion. General membership, including myself, should not be saying who should be impeached, how an officer should behave, etc. That is for the other officers. If the general membership does not approve of what is happening, then we need to either contact the other officers to request something be done or contact that officer, or just elect someone else next time. Of couse, I have done none of the above, so who am I to type?

Anyway, there are many of us that just want to impeach someone... our wimpy Congress won't be working on any Articles of Impeachment for the Shrub that we really want impeached. So, I guess you'll have to do. :o
(for all that read this including any government spies there is a big huge smiley face right here for that last paragraph, so I won't get into too much trouble. :D)

ya know what's really sad? there is ONE paragraph in my entire post that might be questionable.

perhaps we could benefit from going back to my original description and evaluate/rank each paragraph on a scale from one to 10 for the following:

harmful
sabotage
financially irresponsible
nothing but negative value
impeachable
critical/criticism
sarcasm

lets see how well the shoe Terry is placing me into really fits.



<font color="blue"> Pat, you really don't seem to be fitting in so well. while some of us find that very healthy, some seem appalled by it. either the honeymoon is over or never started. maybe if you would push your nose in the air and take on an attitude of smug, arrogant, condescension towards the membership and the DISCussion Board while simultaneously giving off airs that your BoD colleagues, yourself, and the PDGA staff are all beyond reproach you will then attain their unqualified approval. i hope that's not true and that you won't try it -- but i wouldn't bet against it working either ;)

if you get impeached i think it would be a badge of honor. we could make a special stamp and get some discs made with all the words on it:

harmful
sabotage
financially irresponsible
nothing but negative value
impeachable
critical/criticism
sarcasm

and then we could name an event after you. The "How Dare You" tournament would be my suggestion.

you seem to have taken on the role of Toto in the Wizard of Oz, and the reaction has been predictable: "never mind those men behind the curtain!" :eek: :Dbut i think the Wizard ends up more valuable as a human than as some sort of superpower and therefore Toto should be commended...
</font>

Jason, you just violated the agreement under which I let you back into the DISCussion board when your privileges were suspended. I am asking the current moderators to remove them again.



Terry, my memory's not that great, but I can't imagine I would ever to promise not to attack Brian Hoeniger on PDGA Discussion in perpetuity. In perpetuity? Tell me it's not so.

Anyway, WHAT? We can talk about other stuff if you'd rather. I'm just one of those guys who wants to know what's going on with the PDGA, and the less people want to reveal the more I want to know. One of those personality things.

As for banning me again, I think there's a specific protocol now, not like when you and the rest of the big gooberheads reigned with impunity and banned people for whimsical durations and for whimsical reasons every time someone important got mad.

It's not "closed governance" it's "governance." Period. Basic principles thereof for nonprofit organizations. Because that's what works. Which lets the organizations do what they're intended to do.



Lots of assumptions in there. Are there organizations that look forward to communicating (hell, shouting out is a better term) the things they are doing and the reasons they are doing them? Are there?

Besides, it certainly is not evident that it is working. If it is, very few people are aware of current PDGA direction, and the reasons for it. I'd be surprised if 10% of the membership can name two Board members. You call that working?

It seems like that a common rebuttal to a more transparent style is that those advocating more openness wish "that governing would take place via DISCussion board." I might not be reading closely enough, but I'm hearing people stating that the discussion board can be better used as a communication tool by the BOD, but if it more persuasive to distort a position in order to rebut it, go right ahead.

It seems like that a common rebuttal to a more transparent style is that those advocating more openness wish "that governing would take place via DISCussion board." I might not be reading closely enough, but I'm hearing people stating that the discussion board can be better used as a communication tool by the BOD, but if it more persuasive to distort a position in order to rebut it, go right ahead.



emphasis added

Lyle, i appreciate what your experience has taught you. I also appreciate what Theo and Terry's has taught them. My experience and education is on par with both yours and theirs and is significantly different. I did not decide that my way is the best way. in fact, i have already refrained raising important issues because i DO respect confidentiality and sensitivity when called for.

discussing my personal impressions of an open meeting is meant as one man's account of his experience.

PLEASE go back and read the whole post. as i said previously, evaluate each paragraph for all the nasty adjectives that have been applied to me by 2 people so far. see how many paragraphs are even close to suspect. do i need to start a poll? :D



Actually Pat, I'm pretty confident that isn't true. Even if you had the same degree of education and experience, you're still down three to one in terms of flat hours spent living and the number is greater than that since we're talking about more than three people here. However, that isn't what I'm talking about. I've met hundreds of senior officers in Business, Academia, and Government, none of them would buy into what you're selling... none. Go back and read the stuff Terry linked for you. Your behaviour is inappropriate, period.

This isn't a matter of difference of opinion, I repeat, if you feel what you're doing is right, go to your current boss, explain to him your postion on this and see how he/she responds.

Communication isn't the issue. All of the info you're talking about is open, it's style and technique Pat. It's sort of like having Randy Moss in your huddle. He's good, but he does more harm than good.

BTW - Pat, lets put the face to it, you have no appreciation for what my experience has taught me. Let me repeat, there is only one way to enlightenment, it's the Pat way, as is evidenced by what you're doing here. Your words are hollow Pat, they are polite nothings meant to show indeed that you are a good guy. I grant you that, you're a good guy.

All of the info you're talking about is open, it's style and technique Pat


ok. i was gonna talk about it being a difference in style rather than a Conservative thing like you mentioned, but since you just made the point i will say this:

thank god that is finally revealed!

people are worked up about someone's style. so let's get rid of him.

points of fact:

i did talk to my boss about this situation. he thinks you all should understand that the more you try to silence someone the more it looks like you are trying to hide something.

i did go read a lot of what Terry sent. if it works for them, great. other methods work for other organizations. which are we?

i can be direct and task oriented. i was elected by a wide margin and had an extensive published set of beliefs. many of which had to do with openness, transparency and accountability. after tuesday's meeting i felt compelled to start acting as if the values i was elected on mattered. i will never agree that fulfilling the wishes of the Members of a membership organization is anything well intentioned and healthy.

i will readily apologize for being critical and sarcastic. even my mom agrees with that one - i've known it since i was conscious. i do try to control it, and with the exception of a small percentage of my post, i did. i'll try to do better.


lyle, i do appreciate what your experience has taught you. as i do appreciate what it has taught me.

a final note, i aint alone, its not 1 against 3, and i stand my statement re experience.

peace.

I think what we are observing in this discussion is most likely some classic generational friction. If you look at the last decade(s) of PDGA leadership, you will notice a lot of Baby Boomers (born in the 1940�s and 50�s) at the helm. As Generation X (born in the 60�s & 70�) comes of age and takes on more leadership within the PDGA, there will by necessity be a shift in leadership style.

My opinion would be that there is a need to acknowledge this shift�..and to embrace it. With the vast majority of the PDGA demographic being GenX and our largest growth coming from GenY, our leadership will do well to draw wisdom from the past, and work hard to lead with a style that matches the demographic of the membership. Mutual respect will go a long way.

mp3_ speaks a lot of truth

So we pay dues (going up soon) to an organization in which receiving or even looking up information is like pulling teeth. I know that if I continue to get the feeling that the BoD is not listening to the players and does not provide greater amount of information about what is going on in our association than it currently does I may tell my dad to refrain from renewing my membership for christmas as I would rather pay the $5 fee.

I agree with nearly everything James has said about how the PDGA could provide a much more efficient way to get things done and known to the members and I feel that this may not be possible if the current BoD is not receptive and just ignore the members and their ideas/suggestions. It seems that rather than working to listen to the general paying members the BoD would rather run the PDGA in an Oligarchic way run by the few PDGA "Elites"

What Lyle is saying is, people in power generally adopt similar norms and values that perpetuate their power.

Wow. How surprising.

How about this one: People out of power tend to adopt similar norms and values that the people in power deem inappropriate.

Can somebody please tell me just what exactly it is that they think the "secretive" BOD is keeping for themselves?

Have you guys on DISCussion ever tried to have a serious discussion about anything on this board? How did that work out for you? Yet you are complaining that the BOD won't have discussions here???

I know that if I continue to get the feeling that the BoD is not listening to the players and does not provide greater amount of information about what is going on in our association than it currently does I may tell my dad to refrain from renewing my membership for christmas as I would rather pay the $5 fee.



Matt,

I hope you realize how ridiculous it sounds when you essentially say "if I don't like what the BoD is doing, I'll tell Daddy not to pay my membership for me." :D

No I am saying that if I feel that we as paying memebers are not being represented in a way in which I am comfortable with then I will stop paying for the membership.

mp3_ speaks a lot of truth


Bump!

You know, if no one ever challenged the status quo and the powers that be, nothing would ever change. Maybe the "old PDGA" guys are actually hindering the "new PDGA" and where the young guys want to take it. Maybe the old PDGA guys feel that if we succeed in growing the sport as much as the young guys want to, they will longer be able to do what they have always done.
I think its funny that the "old guys" are the ones arguing that they have more experience and know how to manage better when there is a paradyme shift occurring in fortune 500 businesses where a large percentage of successful CEOs are under the age of 45. :eek:

In Fortune 500s, the young guys have to be promoted by the old guys to get to the top. Here, the young guys just have to volunteer and run, and yet, surprisingly they don't. The old guys even run unopposed and are outnumbered by the young guys in the voting membership. Who's to blame?

I'm a nearly-60-year-old guy...One time I fell asleep and dropped my cell phone in the hot tub.




The Pirate teleconferencing nude...is this an image we really need publicized here?

As for banning me again, I think there's a specific protocol now, not like when you and the rest of the big gooberheads reigned with impunity and banned people for whimsical durations and for whimsical reasons every time someone important got mad.



Actually Jason it pretty much still works that way when entire threads magically disappear because Oz gets upset.

C'mon, 60-year olds at least wear shorts...uh, don't they? Now, if the PDGA bought the hot tub for Board member comfort during long conference calls, then maybe there's some dirt to clean up.

In Fortune 500s, the young guys have to be promoted by the old guys to get to the top.

who promoted Bill Gates?

Which of course makes the point that no one, including the so called old boys, is holding anyone one back here. Our younger guys and gals aren't on our volunteer committees either where much of the organization work occurs.

actually i think maybe the "good old boys" are holding everyone back, including this organization. terry's claims that the BOD and Oz led this organization to huge gains in the last decade should be taken with a grain of salt. only 10,000 current members but over 30,000 member numbers? maybe the fact that most pdga members play 5 events or less and pay dues plus 1-4$ per event to the pdga? since there are 2200 courses listed in the directory, that is like 4 members per course. where are all the other players?if ti was 10$/member and you had 50,000 members wouldn't that look alot better to sponsors than 10,000 members?

no current corporate sponsors other than a hotel and 2 breweries?(hey, maybe we can have a beer round!)
we have a national tour, but no real sponsors and no real prize money other than that the local td's come up with. basically the only difference from the a tiers is that the pdga provides marshalls which the members pay for with increased dues.

pat(who i never liked, but totally respect now) and steve have brought some fresh air into the room, but obviously not enough. most members voted for the constitutional amendments because they were recommended by our trusted servants on the board. now we are finding out details that could imply we shouldn't trust some of these BOD members. 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.

i suggest that maybe a memberwide vote of confidence could be in order for the board members. as well as a look back at that constitution.


BTW Terry, i have a feeling the legacy of secrecy you left behind may be coming to an end. i'm glad you got alot of calls and emails from the good old boys supporting you. i sent you a pm telling you how i think you and the good old boys have held back this organization by doing the wrong things albiet for the right reasons. nobody questions the old leaders love of the game. only their direction and the secrecy getting there.

ok, flame suit on, fire away chuck, terry, etc :cool:

always remember, "good is the enemy of great"


and another thing. if we approved a new constitution, why does the one hosted on this board appear to be the old one?
pdga constitution as posted here (http://pdga.com/documents/PDGA_constitution.pdf)

No flames. The organization is an organic evolution of who has volunteered over the years. It's not like there were all of these young guys and old guys volunteering and duking it out for more powerful positions and the old guys won. Committees have been non-existent or with empty slots at various times with lack of volunteers. Some volunteers have had borderline conflicts of interest but no one else was there to step in and replace them. People with more than enough to do already have had to step into the breach numerous times to save the org over the years.

So you can't say whether the org would be further along in comparison to some non-existent alternative universe because the people you know and apparently feel have not done their best was all that we've had.

Which of course makes the point that no one, including the so called old boys, is holding anyone one back here. Our younger guys and gals aren't on our volunteer committees either where much of the organization work occurs.

no, actually it makes the point that your original statement of "In Fortune 500s, the young guys have to be promoted by the old guys to get to the top. " is not entirely true.

I was just following on 28003's post where he mentioned the Fortune 500 where the old guard in many cases moves the younger folks up the ladder, not they have to if the younger folks start their own company. But it doesn't matter in our case because there's no glass ceiling, just easily available seats that few which to seek.

Generations at Work! What an interesting topic!! The research is fascinating and relevant. I�ve facilitated classes on this topic at work since 2001, due to our changing workforce and after attending a most excellent presentation by Ron Zemke of Performance Research Associates Inc. He is one of the leading experts on generations. If you are interested in reading more, the following information is taken directly from the Performance Research Associates, Inc. copyrighted handouts I received at his presentation:

At no time in our history have so many and such different generations with such diversity been asked to work shoulder to shoulder, side by side, cubicle by cubicle. The once linear nature of power at work, from older to younger, has been dislocated by changes in life expectancy, increase in longevity and health, as well as changes in lifestyle, technology and knowledge base.

Understanding generational differences is critical to making them work for, not against, your organization. It is critical to creating harmony, mutual respect, and joint effort where today there is often suspicion mistrust, isolation, and turnover.

Caution: No Stereotyping
We are all individuals. There are a multitude of ways we differ in background, personality, and style from the other. Exploring generational differences can help explain - and bridge - the sometimes baffling differences behind our unspoken assumptions and at-odds attitudes. Generational differences are a start, not an end to understanding.

Here�s the Readers Digest Version first if you don�t want to read any further:

Veterans
Outlook: Practical
Work Ethic: Dedicated
View of Authority: Respectful
Leadership By� Hierarchy
Relationships: Personal sacrifice
Turnoffs: Vulgarity

Boomers
Outlook: Optimistic
Work Ethic: Driven
View of Authority: Love/Hate
Leadership By� Consensus
Relationships: Personal gratification
Turnoffs: Political Incorrectness

Xers
Outlook: Skeptical
Work Ethic: Balanced
View of Authority: Unimpressed
Leadership By� Competence
Relationships: Reluctant to commit
Turnoffs: Clich�, hype

Nexters
Outlook: Hopeful
Work Ethic: Determined
View of Authority: Polite
Leadership By� Pulling together
Relationships: Inclusive
Turnoffs: Promiscuity

And here�s a summary:

Baby Boomers (1943-1960)
Core Values: Optimism, Team orientation, Personal gratification, Health and wellness, Personal growth, Youth, Work, Involvement

Baby Boomers On the Job:
Assets: Service oriented, Driven, Willing to .go the extra mile, Good at relationships, Want to please, Good team players
Liabilities: Not naturally budget minded, Uncomfortable with conflict, Reluctant to go against peers, May put process ahead of result, Overly sensitive to feedback

What Other Generations Say About Boomers: Veterans say: They talk about things they ought to keep private, like the intimate details of their personal lives� They are self-absorbed...
Gen Xers say: They�re self-righteous� They�re workaholics� They�re too political, always trying to figure out just what to say. To whom and when� They do a great job of talking the talk, but they don�t walk the walk� Get outta my face� Lighten up; it�s only a job� What�s the management fad this week?... They�re clueless...
Nexters say: They�re cool. They�re up to date on the music we like� They work too much...

Messages that Motivate Baby Boomers:
You�re important to our success... You�re valued here� Your contribution is unique and important� We need you� I approve of you... You�re worthy�

Generation Xers (1960-1980)
Core Values:Diversity, Thinking globally, Balance, Technoliteracy, Fun, Informality, Self-reliance, Pragmatism

Generation Xers On the Job: Assets: Adaptable, Technoliterate, Independent, Un-intimidated by authority, Creative
Liabilities: Impatient, Poor people skills, Inexperienced, Cynical

What the Other Generations Say About Gen Xers:
Veterans say: They�re not educated.. They don�t respect experience... They don�t follow procedures� They don�t know what hard work is...
Boomers Say: They�re slackers� They�re rude and lack social skills� They�re always doing things their own way, instead of the prescribed way... They spend too much time on the Internet and e-mail�.They won�t wait their turn..
Nexters say: .Cheer up

Messages that Motivate Xers: Do it your way and enjoy� We�ve got the newest hardware and software� There aren�t a lot of rules here... We�re not very corporate�

Generation Next (1980--)
Core Values: Optimism, Civic duty, Confidence, Achievement, Sociability, Morality, Street smarts, Diversity

Generation Next On the Job:
Assets: Collective action, Optimism, Tenacity, Heroic spirit, Multitasking capabilities, Technological savvy
Liabilities: Need for supervision and structure, Inexperience, particularly with handling difficult people issues

What the Other Generations Say About Nexters: Veterans say: They have good manners� They�re smart little critters... They need to toughen up� They watch too much TV�with crude language and violence�
Boomers say: They�re cute�, They need more discipline from their parents�, They can set the time on the VCR� They need to learn to entertain themselves; they need too much attention�.Can they do my web page for me?
Gen Xers say: Neo Boomers� Here we go again...another self-absorbed generation of spoiled brats� What do you mean, what�s an album?

Messages that Motivate Nexters:
You�ll be working with other bright, creative people... Your boss is in his (or her) sixties� You and your coworkers can help turn this company around� You can be a hero here...

Veterans (1922-1943)
The Veterans Core Values: Dedication/sacrifice, Hard work, Conformity, Law and order, Respect for authority, Patience, Delayed reward, Duty before pleasure, Adherence to rules, Honor

What Other Generations Say About Veterans:
Baby Boomers Say: They�re dictatorial... .They�re rigid. They need to learn flexibility and adapt better to change� They�re inhibited... They�re technological dinosaurs... They are narrow�
Gen Xers say: They�re too set in their ways� Jeez, learn how to use your e-mail, man! They too shall pass� They�ve got all the money..
Nexters say: They�re trustworthy... They are good leaders... They are brave...

The Veterans On the Job
Assets: Stable, Detail oriented, Thorough, Loyal, Hard working
Liabilities: Inept with ambiguity and change, Reluctant to buck the system, Uncomfortable with conflict, Reticent when they disagree

Messages that Motivate Veterans
Your experience is respected here... It�s valuable to the rest of us to hear what has and hasn�t worked in the past... Your perseverance is valued and will be rewarded�.

People resemble their times and their peers more than they resemble their parents... Alan Foote, Demographer

Becky, that is awesome stuff, thanks! i just finished a management course in which we discussed a lot of these topics. your material adds the "what other generations say about... " and that material is very enlightening.

to me the message is we all need to work together, and as mp3_ eloquently pointed out, we all need to adjust while continuing to respect each other.

thanks!

Becky - that is too funny you posted that when you did. You beat me to the punch. I just put together this post:

-------------

For those interested in understanding the generational divide (Boomers and GenXers), I did a little digging and found a few links (and "appetizer" snippets) that might be good reading as a starting point. They are targeted at business, so you�ll have to glean the parts that apply to a volunteer-run, not-for-profit environment.

CIO Magazine:
http://www.cio.com/archive/030106/applied.html
�As customers, Gen X-ers and Gen Y-ers are more volatile and high-maintenance than any other generation in history. They are voracious in their desire for immediate information and have sophisticated behavioral approaches to filtering that information, no matter how many sources it comes from.�

�"Collaborative customer experiences" are the watchwords of the new CRM model. That means that a relationship between company and customer provides customers with transparency into corporate thinking, which enables the two parties to craft the customer experience jointly.�

Excellent overview from American Institute of Architects:
http://www.aia.org/nwsltr_pm.cfm?pagename=pm_a_20030801_genx
Lots of good overviews and comparison lists: Here�s one example:

The following factors and characteristics would create the worst work environment for X-ers (and perhaps for many others):
* Fear-based environment
* Poor time management
* Micromanagement
* Politically based culture
* Indirect communication
* Opinions and ideas ignored
* Prevalence of lip service, not action
* Failure to give feedback and regular performance reviews
* Insincere, gratuitous "thank you's"
* People thrown into jobs without training
* Disorganized, cluttered, or dirty workplace
* Not telling the "why's"
* "Because I said so" or similar attitudes
* Unacceptable staff behavior overlooked.

Conversely, the best environment for X-ers would have offer the following:
* Team-based management
* Diversity
* Exploration
* Experimentation
* The idea is the power, not the person
* Team and individual credit
* "Resume building" opportunities.

Great article from a Nursing publication:
http://www.nursing-informatics.com/GenXpaper.html
"The most successful teams - those with high morale, high productivity, and low turnover, are led by coaching-style managers who practice what we call FAST Feedback. F.A.S.T. is an acronym that stands for frequent, accurate, specific and timely.�

�Boomers grew up with television, but Xers also experienced the impact of personal computer and other advanced technology throughout their developmental years. Xers now process information differently than Boomers and elders from previous generations do.�

�The older generation, still mired in bureaucratic and even Taylor-style management only got in the way of the Xer's creativity and ability to self govern. They have found that old tactics of external control and rigid rules often send Xers packing in no time. This style of leadership impacts on morale, diminishes the quality of work as well as a feeling of loyalty and commitment�

Pat,

You still don't get it. The values I'm talking about are universal and while you think you've talked with your boss about the issue, you haven't. Let me make it clearer.

This is the situation; on at least two occasions Pat has participated in conversations and then used the content of those conversations to further his agenda. The first case concerned e-mails. I don't expect Jason to get this he does the same thing. Essentially, Pat took a private e-mail and brought it to this forum. The second case is that Pat took snippets of conversations held in an open board meeting, and because the end result of the democratic board meeting didn't come out the way Pat wanted it to, Pat brought those snippets, out of context, into this forum to try and win his point.

Both of these instances are incredibly disruptive and disturbing. Lets be clear, our current political situation in this country is hugely tenuous. The Dems and GOP are at each other's throats. There is acrimony and spite. None of them would do what Pat has done here!

Let me be even clearer. I don't touch on this subject often because I try and accomplish my goals in a different way. For the most part, I agree with Pat's objectives. Notice that in the past year I've developed clear documents that outline the roll of the DC, how the DC should function and be responsible to the membership and how that information should be clearly presented and posted at this site. I did this by working with the board and securing their approval. I did this while negotiating and compromising with the board to achieve my goal of open and clear communication.

What is the difference? We both have the same goal, better communication to membership that includes this site. What is different is the technique. Instead of being patient and negotiating to achieve his very important goals Pat has said, well, screw you I'm doing it my way!

This is not generational, this is not a different yet accepted form, this is stupid. What it says is if you tell Pat anything in any context, if he feels he can use that to gain his end goal (good or bad) he's going to bring it public in his own context and you will be stuck defending every nuance of every conversation you've had with the guy.

Think about this; take Jason and Steve for example. I'm betting that they've had conversations about sponsors, players, volunteers, maybe even Pat, that they'd rather were private. Comments made in some circumstances are best kept in those circumstances. What if Steve decided to go public with some of those comments? How well would that fly in the public domain?

Relationships are built on trust, that is universal whether you're Gen-X, Nexter, Boomer, Brat, Pugnacious Thug, Mafioso, or a PDGA Board Member.

So Pat, don't go to your boss and tell him you�re about open communication, go tell him that any thing he says to you is open game. That you feel you have the right to put quotation marks around any comment he makes in any context and post it in the lunch room if it "serves" the greater good, of course as defined by Pat, the all powerful, all knowing.

By the way - for those making the great posts about Gen-X vs Etc. Where do you think that information comes from? Most of it comes from Organizational Behavior studies. Those studies are conducted by and for businesses. Why? Well, it's simple enough, a good working environment means more productivity and more money. Once they understand this stuff they set up training and they cover it with their managers. I have a very diverse staff including 60 year old non-native born low level employees and very young programmers. By paying attention to each sets needs and communcation issues, I somehow manage to get them to do what I need.

This isn't brilliance or telepathy, it's common sense and respect, especially respect, even for the people I disagree with. Pat has no respect for those he's working with (despite his protestations) if he did, he would respect their confidences.

Pat,

Just want you to know that there is another "LYLE" from Texas with some business savvy that thinks you are doing the right thing.

Yes - some of what you have communicated has ruffled some feathers, but negative posts aimed to intimidate you are merely tacit admissions that these business experts don't understand proper protocol for reproving questionable behavior.

Perhaps their time could be better spent out on the disc golf course trying to get their player rating up to where yours is.

Lyle � I think that Pat does �get it�. And, I do not see how your continued public berating of him (an elected official) has any value. What I pick up from his posts is that Pat will continue to push for building trust between board members and trust between the BOD and their �customers�. It sounds like he has heard the complaints, acknowledged his wrongdoing and is not rolling over and playing dead like some seem like they want him to do. Personally, I respect that in a leader.

I am not sure if you know this, but your posts on this thread come across as very condescending��not really the respect that you espouse. From reading your posts on various topics you are obviously a very smart and thoughtful person. Your condescension does not mesh too well with that though.

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?

Terry, my memory's not that great, but I can't imagine I would ever to promise not to attack Brian Hoeniger on PDGA Discussion in perpetuity. In perpetuity?



Your promise was specifically that you would refrain from posting any criticism on DISCussion of PDGA staff until November of 2007.

I don't know if under the new procedures your violation of that promise will result in a suspension of posting privileges or not, but I think it should, and I have requested that it be done.

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