james, good questions.

the law does not require the Board to define confidential. in fact, labelling certain docs as confidential goes BEYOND the law and makes disclosure much more restrictive

second q: not sure about that one... another reason to take a few weeks and find out

third: NCAs are also on the table. it is a seperate but related issue.

those are all things the pdga does, and it would be considered competition if one were to do similar things.



It doesn't mean they would be referenced in a non-compete. It's obvious to anyone that such a restrictive document written as you describe it would be detrimental to the sport.

Sorry, not buying it, looks to me like a political play using the message board as a medium.

Again, concerning the the motion you quoted, is this in the public minutes somewhere or did you take it upon yourself to release it here?

it is a current discussion, tim. we're allowed to talk about topics under discussion, for petes sake.

it is a current discussion, tim. we're allowed to talk about topics under discussion, for petes sake.



With a header of "member control vanishing"? Including statements such as:

"please talk your Directors and make your feelings known."

"some will try to tell you that "all companies do this", blah blah blah, etc etc etc. thats complete BS. this motion seeks to keep information away from the Members. it exists for no other reason."

Sorry, I guess my definition of 'discussion' differs from yours.


Again, is the motion you quoted public information or did you take it upon yourself to release it early?

there is no such thing as "early". it is a topic we are discussing. do you suggest we leave member input out of this entirely?

This is getting to be like a Bill Clinton interview. Continue on, don't bother answering, your actions are speaking for themselves.

But while I've had enough of your thoughts on the issue, I would be curious as to how the other Board members feel about your approach on this 'motion'. IMHO, it wasn't member input you sought. It looked more like an attempt to derail the process.

well, it seems more like you have some topics where you favor member input and others where you seek to avoid it at all costs. it is member input i seek. i have an opinion, yes, and that is that the NDA/NCA is a horrible idea as written. so what... we're supposed to have opinions. i think enough of our members to know that they can look at an issue and make up their own mind, even if (shudder) they already know my (or other Directors) opinion.

If a member is duly elected to the BOD by the membership, then refuses to sign these ill-advised agreements, what then?

Keep having elections until someone who <u>will</u> give up some of his rights is elected (possibly the membership's 3rd or 4th choice)?

Is this just a way for the existing BOD to weed out those who don't support their non-disclosure position by making them ineligible for BOD service?

Is it even legal for an entity such as the PDGA to require such agreements from duly elected officials?

?????

:confused:

Pat,

Why does the BoD feel this is a such an issue that it needs to act on it?

Chap

Don't we need to see some actual facts before we can conclude that the BOD is proposing to do something detrimental to the Association?

Of course not. That makes it too hard to get everyone up in arms to promote a particular view, and might lead to a real discussion. ;)

My post is all questions, no conclusions.

Pat,

You have made clear your interpretation of the Colorado law that may or may not require this. Can you please provide a link to this law so the membership can take a look at it and make our own interpretation whether this is as outrageous as you obviously feel it is.

Thanks,

Pete Kenny
6002

pete, its not my interpretation ,its my attorney's. one copy of the law is at http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1997/sl.155.htm (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1997/sl.155.htm.) there are better interfaces on other sites, but i dont have those links on me right now.

chap, the issue has been going on for a number of years. i was told repeatedly that disclosure was not required, even illegal. finally, i checked with a law firm that specializes in colorado nonprofit law. disclosure is required, assuming certain conditions are met, of course. some of us believe that there is no need to limit disclosure beyond the colorado law. other believe we are better served by keeping secrets.

the motion on the table has not been discussed with the association attorney, and there are several very specific legal questions i have that have not even been answered. discussion has been shut down, and Bob has called for a vote.

Thx Pat

Link doesn't seem to work

Take out the period at the end &amp; it does.

i fixed the link.

there are two aspects of the law that come into play. first, the question of the minimum records must be kept is outlined in 7-136-101. that section also describes where some of the required records are to be kept. next there is the question about inspecting corporate records, and that is defined in 7-136-102. paragraph 1 describes what must happen for the records described in 7-136-101. paragraph 2 desribes what must be done for all other records.

in short, records must be disclosed if the demand meets the requirements of paragraph 3.

what we are trying to do with this motion is prevent members from having access to information that is by default allowed under colorado law.

Didn't we have a huff about this issue some months ago? Someone was in a huff because the PDGA required them to come to the headquarters to get financial records? Isn't that what this subsection says, records must be kept, and made available at the headquarters? Isn't that what we do? I'm so confused as to what your issue is.

Anyway, please, for those of us who are slow, define what your issue is, and refer directly to the sections and paragraphs that pertain to that issue.

BTW - Read this section:

7-122-104. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powers. ALL PERSONS PURPORTING TO ACT AS OR ON BEHALF OF A NONPROFIT CORPORATION WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO AND WITHOUT GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT THEY HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR ALL LIABILITIES INCURRED OR ARISING AS A RESULT THEREOF.

What this says is that if there is a by-law that says passing information that is confidential and you know it's confidential leaves you liable for damages. In other words if you act outside of the scope of your job and you know you are, that's a no-no.

I like this legislation.

there is no such bylaw, so lets not get too far ahead of ourselves.

the section does not say records may only be viewed at corporate hq. it says "reasonable location". the accounting records and bylaws, etc must be kept at HQ, and be viewable there, but nothing says records cannot be made available in other places.

the part you quoted is not directly related to this discussion, which is about what records must be made available to members who so demand.

No, but it is informative. You still haven't outlined your issue and related it back to the specific legislation for those of us who are weak of brain. Is your argument that a Board Member is a reasonable location for the storage of information?

there is no such bylaw, so lets not get too far ahead of ourselves.

the section does not say records may only be viewed at corporate hq. it says "reasonable location". the accounting records and bylaws, etc must be kept at HQ, and be viewable there, but nothing says records cannot be made available in other places.

<font color="red"> BTW - nothing seems to indicate that it should be stored in other places or be made available via, say a MB or other medium such as e-mail, either. But again, I'm still not sure I understand what the issue is... </font>



the part you quoted is not directly related to this discussion, which is about what records must be made available to members who so demand.

i'm not sure i even know what you are getting at lyle. the issue is that some of the Board are rushing in language that disrupts the legal flow of information in our association without even bothering to vet the language to attorneys or answer the questions of other Directors before voting. the other issue is the desire to restrict access to information beyond what colorado law requires.

i'm not sure i even know what you are getting at lyle. the issue is that some of the Board are rushing in language that disrupts the legal flow of information in our association without even bothering to vet the language to attorneys or answer the questions of other Directors before voting. the other issue is the desire to restrict access to information beyond what colorado law requires.



In what way are they restricting information flow, excuse me legal information flow? And how does that relate to Colorado law? From what you've written, I'm concluding there is a law that says something like "non-profit organizations must communicate with their membership in fashion XYZ. Furthermore, a non-profit may not prevent the communication of data in form UVW." Another way to look at it is, I need a definition of what they are trying to do, and I need the specific section of the Colorado legal code that forbids what they are trying to do.

BTW Pat - I see the text of the motion before the Board, I just don't see how it relates to Colorado law. I'm asking you to take that motion and show the direct language that prohibits what the Board has proposed.

I can't see any kind of statutory requirement preventing free flow of information from an organization to the public or membership whether for profit or not for profit. However, I see no reason why any organization wouldn't determine what information they want to share with others and who can do the sharing. I'm sure the local McDonalds could post its annual financials if it wanted to but has decided not to do so for a variety of reasons. It would be a pretty cheap investment for an entrepreneur who wanted to start a fast food chain if all they had to do was spend $40 to become a member of the McDonalds club and get to see all of the info for running that org.

I don't see why it doesn't make sense for the PDGA to construct and approve an appropriate policy since it does have employees and competitors for some aspects of what it does including existing or potential international orgs.

Makes total sense to me also. What the motion seems to address is not allowing an individual who has access to sensitive information to take it upon themselves to distribute that information without the majority consensus of the Board, and to not allow a person to make copies of such information and take it upon themselves to distribute it once their involvement has ended.

I still wonder why this has become an issue, and why one Board member objected so strongly that they felt it necessary to bring their battle here. I'd really like to hear from other Board members on the subject and if they felt such an approach was appropriate. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the climate here probably won't facilitate this without it dissolving into an unproductive mess for all that would get involved.

i'm not sure i even know what you are getting at lyle. the issue is that some of the Board are rushing in language that disrupts the legal flow of information in our association without even bothering to vet the language to attorneys or answer the questions of other Directors before voting. the other issue is the desire to restrict access to information beyond what colorado law requires.



Pat,

I distinctly remember PDGA president Bob Decker asking you to wait until we had received the letter from PDGA attorney, Brian Murphy, in regards to disclosure before you released financial information against the wishes of the majority of the Board. You refused and released the information without authorization and in direct defiance of a BOD resolution that you were on the losing end of.

As a result of your recent actions, the following motion was made:

MOTION: That the PDGA Board of Directors as a whole will make decisions regarding disclosure of confidential information in accordance with Colorado law, including the determination of what constitutes confidential, and that no individual board member may release such information without permission of the board.

This motion was seconded and it was open for discussion for two full days. You did not respond and you did not ask any questions during this discussion period. A vote was called by the BOD president following the discussion period and five of the seven BOD members have now voted. Now you want to wait for a decision from the attorney?

In the interest of fairness to your fellow BOD members you should probably let the readers here know that the PDGA attorney, who is licensed and practices in Colorado, stated in his letter that the opinion you claim to have, and one that you refuse to share with your fellow Board members, is not grounded in Colorado law. The members should also know that PDGA Board president, Bob Decker, is a CPA who specializes in non-profit finances and he advised you against releasing the data before you chose to do so.

The sad thing about this entire episode is that it really has less to do with the BOD's willingness to disclose financial information, than it does the BOD's unwillingness to see a rogue board member do anything he feels like doing in defiance of Board decisions. I applaud the Board's stance against this type of irresponsible behavior and the members should know that the majority of the Board members do take their responsibilities to the members and the association very seriously.

I am personally in favor of releasing more detailed financial information and I know a few other BOD members who feel the same way but this disclosure must be weighed against the responsibility of the association to protect itself from outside competitors and it must also be done in accordance with the law and with the approval of the Board of Directors.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

it makes total sense to me too. just not the one that is being rushed through. if you want to hear from other board members, please contact them! they can all be reached via the contact us page. if you dont want to talk about this here, then please dont. but leave it alone for those of us who do.

lyle, there is no law prohibiting it. nor is there a law that requires it. to put in limitations is something that must be done with extreme care, not willy-nilly. if this one passes, it will require a Board meeting, motion, and approval, for every information request. for a MEMBER organization, that is absurd.

theres nothing wrong with requiring receivers of information to state that they are aware of, and will follow, whatever local and/or colorado law applies to the subsequent re-distribution of information. that would disallow someone to obtain material under false pretenses, then spread it around to non-members. in fact, that probably makes sense. perhaps we should all sign such a statement when we join or renew.

chuck, the mcd's example is kinda stretched. our "financials" would not give anyone a road map. besides, this extends so far beyond financials, that the money part is a tiny piece of the overall puzzle.

Suddenly things become clear.

Very disappointing. I wish I could also say that it is surprising, but unfortunately it�s not. :mad:

If a member is duly elected to the BOD by the membership, then refuses to sign these ill-advised agreements, what then? <font color="red"> the plan is to require it as part of the candidates package. ditto for volunteer service - sign or dont be a volunteer </font>

Keep having elections until someone who <u>will</u> give up some of his rights is elected (possibly the membership's 3rd or 4th choice)? <font color="red"> that seems like one of the probable outcomes, yes </font>

Is this just a way for the existing BOD to weed out those who don't support their non-disclosure position by making them ineligible for BOD service? <font color="red"> i doubt anyone would ever admit to that. </font>

Is it even legal for an entity such as the PDGA to require such agreements from duly elected officials? <font color="red"> very good question indeed. the short answer is probably. it does depend on the exact language. (which is why motions like this REALLY SHOULD be run past an attorney before voting on it</font>

?????

:confused:

In the interest of fairness to your fellow BOD members you should probably let the readers here know that the PDGA attorney, who is licensed and practices in Colorado, stated in his letter that the opinion you claim to have, and one that you refuse to share with your fellow Board members, is not grounded in Colorado law.



Is this document something that was paid for with PDGA funds? If so, how can one Board person choose to not share something that is owned by the organization? Or is this person just being dishonest about its existence? :mad::mad:

I suppose the benefit of a doubt offers a third possibility. That being the Board member paid for this letter of opinion out of his own funds, or will at least be reimbursing the PDGA shortly.

i'm not sure i even know what you are getting at lyle. the issue is that some of the Board are rushing in language that disrupts the legal flow of information in our association without even bothering to vet the language to attorneys or answer the questions of other Directors before voting. the other issue is the desire to restrict access to information beyond what colorado law requires.



Pat,

I distinctly remember PDGA president Bob Decker asking you to wait until we had received the letter from PDGA attorney, Brian Murphy, in regards to disclosure before you released financial information against the wishes of the majority of the Board. You refused and released the information without authorization and in direct defiance of a BOD resolution that you were on the losing end of.

As a result of your recent actions, the following motion was made:

MOTION: That the PDGA Board of Directors as a whole will make decisions regarding disclosure of confidential information in accordance with Colorado law, including the determination of what constitutes confidential, and that no individual board member may release such information without permission of the board.

This motion was seconded and it was open for discussion for two full days. You did not respond and you did not ask any questions during this discussion period. A vote was called by the BOD president following the discussion period and five of the seven BOD members have now voted. Now you want to wait for a decision from the attorney?

In the interest of fairness to your fellow BOD members you should probably let the readers here know that the PDGA attorney, who is licensed and practices in Colorado, stated in his letter that the opinion you claim to have, and one that you refuse to share with your fellow Board members, is not grounded in Colorado law. The members should also know that PDGA Board president, Bob Decker, is a CPA who specializes in non-profit finances and he advised you against releasing the data before you chose to do so.

The sad thing about this entire episode is that it really has less to do with the BOD's willingness to disclose financial information, than it does the BOD's unwillingness to see a rogue board member do anything he feels like doing in defiance of Board decisions. I applaud the Board's stance against this type of irresponsible behavior and the members should know that the majority of the Board members do take their responsibilities to the members and the association very seriously.

I am personally in favor of releasing more detailed financial information and I know a few other BOD members who feel the same way but this disclosure must be weighed against the responsibility of the association to protect itself from outside competitors and it must also be done in accordance with the law and with the approval of the Board of Directors.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director




What financial information did he release? Also where is this "confidential information" you speak of?

The only thing he posted was the law which I'm sure is not confidential.

brian is misinformed. i did share the opinion with the other directors. i paid for it myself, so you can drop that line of thought right now.

brian is also spreading disinformation with this line: "of a BOD resolution that you were on the losing end of." there was no such resolution. yes, there was one that addressed the monthly budget results, but that is different (and specific).

What financial information did he release? Also where is this "confidential information" you speak of?

The only thing he posted was the law which I'm sure is not confidential.



I don't think Brian is referring to the message board.

What financial information did he release? Also where is this "confidential information" you speak of?

The only thing he posted was the law which I'm sure is not confidential.



I don't think Brian is referring to the message board.




Well were was this confidential information leaked then?

i just saw this sentence, and now i am actually kinda upset

This motion was seconded and it was open for discussion for two full days. You did not respond and you did not ask any questions during this discussion period. A vote was called by the BOD president following the discussion period and five of the seven BOD members have now voted. Now you want to wait for a decision from the attorney?

you better believe i want to wait for an attorney. we are being asked to vote on a legal matter. i have several questions that i submitted to the board that have not even been addressed by the other directors let alone the association or outside counsel. wouldnt you want a legel opinion if you were asked to weigh in on a legal matter?

not to mention the fact that votes like this cannot be taken without the consent of all directors anyway, as per the ByLaws:

3.9 INFORMAL ACTION BY DIRECTORS. Any action required to be taken at a
meeting of the Board of Directors may be taken without a meeting if a consent in writing, setting
forth the action so taken, shall be signed by all of the Directors. Such consent shall have the same
force and effect as a unanimous vote of the Directors.

it should be noted, agsain in the interests of fairness, that i stated my objection to the vote on these grounds in the first place, and Bob proceeded anyway.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8395/popcorndq4.gif

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8395/popcorndq4.gif



I don't think there will be much of a show here. I don't see Brian or the rest of the Board members being the type that would air their differences in a public forum. I think enough has been said already, and recent actions taken illustrate well that there is a problem.

Everyone,

I voted in favor of the motion that requires the full Board to vote on material that would be made public. Here's why:

Although I ran on a platform of openness, there is some information that I personally feel should be confidential. This includes:
1) E-mail communications between Board members.
2) Conversations of Board members at Board meetings.
3) Identities of PDGA members who call posts to the attention of the monitors.
4) Conversations between the members of the moderating team.
5) Details of Disciplinary Committee deliberations.
6) Etc, etc.

Suppose that an individual Board member disagreed, and felt that some or all of the above information should be made public. I would not want that Board member to be able to release the information unilaterally. I would want the Board to be fully involved in the decision.

The protection works both ways. Suppose that I was the Board member who wanted to publicize such information. I should not be allowed to do it without Board permission.

A Board cannot function effectively if any of its members unilaterally take upon themselves powers that should be vested in the Board as a whole.

Peter

Your #6 Ect, ect is a fitting catch-all.
This member (Steve Timm) sees this as
"Anything the BOD does not want me to see"

Pat B

No reason to rush to vote in policies/procedures
that could be contrary to CO law.

steve timm

somehow the "platform of openness" has become the "platform of etc,etc"

the funny thing is that none of those things have ever been released, unilaterally or otherwise. one of them, the name of a post reporter, was requested and the request was denied. thats about as close as its come.

the association cannot function effectively when everyone is so paranoid about working with volunteers. there seems to be a "what can go wrong" mentality, instead of a "what can go right", and everyone is guilty until proven pure.

Certainly Peter Shive has proven beyond a doubt that he doesn't intend to stick with any of his campaign promises, much less even stick it out and complete his term.

Since he has resigned, I don't think his opinions on anything are worth a hill of beans. Not sure why he is continuing to weigh in on matters like he is on the board....

YAWN! Hey, can I get a coke with that popcorn?

Let's see if I remember. Before this current Board when our ED was Brian H., every time there was a disagreement, it was because those other Board members didn't get the way things should be done. So, we have an election and we vote in new guys and get a new ED and low and behold, none of them get it either.

One begins to wonder where the problem really lies?

That said, let me extend my heartfelt thanks to Peter, Todd, Ron, Steve and the other Board members who continue to serve despite what they have to put up with. I don't have your character and strength of commitment, but I can certainly appreciate it and am grateful for your guidance of this organization.

"this disclosure must be weighed against the responsibility of the association to protect itself from outside competitors"

This is some funny stuff. Another person with a future in comedy. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. I would suggest that PDGA officials should submit to a drug test to verify that they are not under the influence when making statements and decisions like this.

how can an association charged with the benefit of the sport even be in competition? is it possible for "betterment of the sport" to include "competition with existing and future service providers"? some of you think this is a rhetorical message board question. it is not. clarifying who we serve is one of the things we really need to do the most. our dependance on fees and eagerness to enter into open competition with vendors suggests that somewhere along the way we moved from betterment of the sport to betterment of the PDGA.

1) E-mail communications between Board members.
2) Conversations of Board members at Board meetings.
3) Identities of PDGA members who call posts to the attention of the monitors.
4) Conversations between the members of the moderating team.
5) Details of Disciplinary Committee deliberations.
6) Etc, etc.



peter, you forgot another one that came up earlier this month: the meeting agenda.

yes, some of the Board feels that releasing the agenda of the Board meeting before the meeting would damage the association and the sport.

in the interests of fairness, this is a great example of me not releasing information and proceeding in accordance with the consensus of the Board. it DOES happen :)

Actually Lyle, we have most of the same old guys, with a couple new guys thrown in. And some of the new guys are in the same old group of people, including the new ED.

I think the problem here is that we didn't get a professional ED with experience growing and running an organization. While i appreciate Brian's efforts, i think the same old spirit of paranoia and small time underground subculture still exists here. When nothing changes, nothing changes...we still have 5000 members or so, what is that 4 or 5 members per course?

To Dick:

I continue to "weigh in" because I am still on the Board, at least until August 31, and hopefully (if I win election to the Board this summer) for longer than that.

Still Waiting for my coke. Man, service here has really gone down hill.

I second Brian in wanting to see Tim Kieffer and Vanessa Chambers run for the PDGA Board of Directors. They both seem thoughtful, intelligent and diplomatic.

However, they are both very nice people and I have to wonder why anyone in their right mind would want to subject themselves to the abuse that some members heap on our elected volunteers.

I second Brian in wanting to see Tim Kieffer and Vanessa Chambers run for the PDGA Board of Directors. They both seem thoughtful, intelligent and diplomatic.

However, they are both very nice people and I have to wonder why anyone in their right mind would want to subject themselves to the abuse that some members heap on our elected volunteers.



I agree, I'd like to see Tim and Vanessa run, not to mention Discette!

Careful commentary even when you are confronted with aggression and inappropriate behavior is a skill that I do not have, or at least I don't exercise. These people do and that skill is a valuable one.

not to mention Discette


Where's UPM???

nothing would be better than to have those three, and many more, run for the BoD this year. i couldnt agree more.

hey BDH, which Directors do you think fit the description? "Replacing 1 or more current BODs who appear to lack the political savvy and/or the experience and/or the self discipline warranted by the position with these folk"

for a former ED to say that about PDGA volunteers is pathetic. you enjoy access that no one else enjoys, you get data that no one else is allowed to get, and we pay you to do things that others does for free. but thanks for weighing in. your comments are always enlightening.

Actually Lyle, we have most of the same old guys, with a couple new guys thrown in. And some of the new guys are in the same old group of people, including the new ED.

I think the problem here is that we didn't get a professional ED with experience growing and running an organization. While i appreciate Brian's efforts, i think the same old spirit of paranoia and small time underground subculture still exists here. When nothing changes, nothing changes...we still have 5000 members or so, what is that 4 or 5 members per course?



How many new members came in to office last election? I'd say that we've seen a good bit of change in the Board in the last two years with at least five new members (maybe six? see what happens when you get old...).

BTW Dick - lets remember that in the last election cycle the "reform" candidates lost. The two reform candidates currently on the Board both ran un-opposed. I'd say that the voting membership doesn't see the behavior here as paranoid, I'd say they see it as professional.

BTW - being a reform candidate is O.K. if you conduct yourself in a non-paranoid fashion (see how I took the term and returned it in a different context) look at Steve's behavior. He is professional and polite, even when I treat him poorly. If Steve runs again, he will have my vote.

And I continue to weigh in because I care deeply for PDGA. Right now Im hoping <font color="red">Kieffer and Ross</font> will seriously consider running for the BOD this summer. While the experience certainly can be intense, it shouldnt take up more time than y'all (we all) spend on this disc-gustion board.

Replacing 1 or more current BODs who appear to lack the political savvy and/or the experience and/or the self discipline warranted by the position with these folk, not to mention Vanessa (boy does the PDGA ever have need of women among its leaders), I believe would make a measurable and positive and maybe even a sustainable difference in terms of organizational governance, team building, and growth.

BDH



While I appreciate Brian's support, I will not run for office. It is my belief that an officer should conduct themselves in a fashion that reflects well on the organization. My conduct on this MB does not reflect that belief. If I ran I'd have to change my behavior here to fit my standards; that isn't something I'm willing to do right now.

not to mention Discette!



Sorry, no time. I enjoy volunteering as President of the Southern California Disc Golf Association and being the TD of the So Cal Championships. I don't have to put up with too much abuse from the So Cal members. I also currently serve on a PDGA committee.

I try to be diplomatic, but sometimes I lose control of my fingers when posting and I type things I later regret.

"I try to be diplomatic, but sometimes I lose control of my fingers when posting and I type things I later regret."

AHHH, don't we all! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I thought about running just to see how few people would vote for me

"1 or more current BODs who appear to lack the political savvy and/or the experience and/or the self discipline warranted by the position with these folk"

BDH, i've reported your post as a thinly veiled personal attack on Pat.

oh, and BDH, thanks for taking us from a small organization to , well, a small organization. what exactly did you do again?

in 2000 we averaged 5 members per course. same as now. well assuming the renewals pan out for us this year.

remember, disc golf, it's in the air! kind of like smoke...

To BDH: I am among the many members how do recognize the many positive contributions you have made to the PDGA. Thank you again.

To Lyle: I agree you would make a fine addition to the BOD, however, I can appreciate your position for not running. In fact its the same reason you left the chairmanship for a PDGA committee. If you ever reconsider, I'd vote for you.

To the BOD: If the BOD made a decision and a member on the losing end of that decision decided to ignore it and take actions contradictary to that decision, well, I don't think i would be the only member to take issue with that.

To pete(good old boy #6100): obviously you have misplaced your sense of humor. Please check the lost and found. Thank you. again.

Many posts on this board are funny. Yours aren't among them

And how many new courses have been created since 2000? I'm sure someone can provide the details, but there's been an explosion of courses out there!

<font color="blue"> [personal attack deleted] </font>

"stating a fact about himself? "\

ahhh, nice personal attack there Vanessa. Since my full name is Richard, Dick is a nickname.

you are correct, courses have doubled since then as has membership.

it's not like i'm here hating on the PDGA. I run events, am a state coordinator, PLAY in events, etc.
I'm just pointing out that while some people are content to keep working on the vw microbus, i think we should be looking at getting a hummer. I think we should set our goals higher than what we currently are.

I'm just pointing out that while some people are content to keep working on the vw microbus, i think we should be looking at getting a hummer. I think we should set our goals higher than what we currently are.



Dick - Are you working at getting this "hummer" by taking pot shots at current BOD members and former directors?

Negative tactics rarely render positive results. The good you may provide as a state coordinator and by running PDGA events is being completely negated and overshadowed by your bitter, sarcastic attitude towards the PDGA and its leadership on this message board. One hand is supposedly building up our org while the other works even harder to tear it down.

Please consider using some leadership skills, diplomacy and tact to get the membership motivated to help you reach your goal.

ok, to show i'm trying to help, here's another idea i had to help grow the pdga.

Hold a membership drive and offer some kind of cool patch or sticker to every course member at a course that can get 20 members. Think up a cool name like maybe "PDGA Premier Course" and put the course name on the patch or sticker...

for example, rockburn gets 20 members to join under their drive as regular rockburn players.

the patch or sticker says:

Rockburn Disc Golf Course
{insert pdga logo here}
PDGA Premier Course(or whatever)

the goal would be to get 20 members per course. you could even have different name for larger levels, like 50 members could be a charter course, etc....

"the other works even harder to tear it down."

i'm not trying to tear it down. i'm pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

BTW, i might add that BDH took it upon himself to come to this thread and started the attack. Funny that you are giving him a free pass to attack anyone he feels like as usual.

ok, to show i'm trying to help, here's another idea i had to help grow the pdga.

Hold a membership drive and offer some kind of cool patch or sticker to every course member at a course that can get 20 members. Think up a cool name like maybe "PDGA Premier Course" and put the course name on the patch or sticker...

for example, rockburn gets 20 members to join under their drive as regular rockburn players.

the patch or sticker says:

Rockburn Disc Golf Course
{insert pdga logo here}
PDGA Premier Course(or whatever)

the goal would be to get 20 members per course. you could even have different name for larger levels, like 50 members could be a charter course, etc....



I knew you could do it. Thanks for using the positive approach and suggesting solutions. :D

Please consider using some leadership skills, diplomacy and tact to get the membership motivated to help you reach your goal.



It goes both ways. Leadership is more than mere hosannas. Many people on here seem to consider any criticism of the PDGA or the BOD to be taboo, whether the actual criticism is plausible or not. Is it really out of line to point out that a disparity between membership growth and growth of disc golf as a whole might be troubling?

Now that's a great idea about holding coordinated membership drives! I think you're correct that much of PDGA growth has to happen at the grass roots level, and it would be great to encourage and reward that from the national level.

"1 or more current BODs who appear to lack the political savvy and/or the experience and/or the self discipline warranted by the position with these folk"

BDH, i've reported your post as a thinly veiled personal attack on Pat.



And here I thought he was talking about Peter...

Please consider using some leadership skills, diplomacy and tact to get the membership motivated to help you reach your goal.



It goes both ways. Leadership is more than mere hosannas. Many people on here seem to consider any criticism of the PDGA or the BOD to be taboo, whether the actual criticism is plausible or not. Is it really out of line to point out that a disparity between membership growth and growth of disc golf as a whole might be troubling?



Oh baloney! Shall I send you the e-mails I have from Board Members that say I'm a mixed bag at best. I am all for criticism, and in fact have leveled my fair share. I believe that criticisms should be real, accurate, and politely stated. If not, I'm likely to try and point that out.

Now, if I were a pundit I would say all of those criticisms are just carping. That's not true. But enough serve only the purpose of introducing the poster as having the "real" view of the PDGA.

The issue you present here is one that comes up every 6 months, almost like it's on someone's calendar. I presented a ton of data showing that our growth rates and retentions are not inconsistent with the growth rates and retentions of similar organizations. Frankly, I'm pretty tired of this being presented as an issue without any corroborating evidence other than "my gut instincts tell me."

Is it really out of line to point out that a disparity between membership growth and growth of disc golf as a whole might be troubling?



Not connected. I just checked USGA membership and their membership looks like it has jumped from 750K to 900K in the last few years in the face of declining participation in golf. Much better if the sport is increasing faster than org membership to provide a new pool of potential members. If it goes down to 4 PDGA members per course and the number of courses doubles, we're still on the right track with lots of potential new members out there.

Yes, following that logic, if there are three total PDGA members and 300,000 disc golf courses, the PDGA would be a bastion of health.

As an aside, I personally don't care much about this issue, and am open to arguments on both sides; I was merely mentioning that dissent in itself, should not be unwelcome or frowned upon, and group agreement may mean nothing at all.

Yes, following that logic, if there are three total PDGA members and 300,000 disc golf courses, the PDGA would be a bastion of health.

As an aside, I personally don't care much about this issue, and am open to arguments on both sides; I was merely mentioning that dissent in itself, should not be unwelcome or frowned upon, and group agreement may mean nothing at all.



Dissent (definition: to differ in opinion) is cool. But things seem to drift to disrespect and ungratefulness in a hurry on this board.

To the BOD: If the BOD made a decision and a member on the losing end of that decision decided to ignore it and take actions contradictary to that decision, well, I don't think i would be the only member to take issue with that.

nothing of the sort happened! and if i dont get a retraction from those have had said otherwise, the legal trouble about disclosure will pale in comparison. i am tired of the libelous posts suggesting i released something that the Board restricted. they serve no purpose other than to cloud the issues.

tim, vanessa... it seems different posters have different Directors as their evil villians. i am yours. other Directors may be other Member's. thats ok. but allow other members to have their own. we dont all have to think alike. as james says, there are many here who misconstrue all crticism as negative. this discussion board is like the Commons of a small town. it is used to assemble and discuss. sometimes you overhear all kinds of wacky talk, venting, postitive comtributions, the whole gamut. posting with some emotion is a good thing, a healthy thing, imo. posting as if lobotomized is a waste of time. i hope we inch back towards the posting with emotion side of things over time.

be careful what you wish for...

To the BOD: If the BOD made a decision and a member on the losing end of that decision decided to ignore it and take actions contradictary to that decision, well, I don't think i would be the only member to take issue with that.

nothing of the sort happened! and if i dont get a retraction from those have had said otherwise, the legal trouble about disclosure will pale in comparison. i am tired of the libelous posts suggesting i released something that the Board restricted. they serve no purpose other than to cloud the issues.



Retraction:
At PDGA Board Member, Pat Brenner's request, and under the veiled threat of a lawsuit, I retract the following statement I made in a previous post:

"You refused and released the information without authorization and in direct defiance of a BOD resolution that you were on the losing end of."



The following motion was made on July 23, 2007 and these are the results of that Board poll:

MOTION: that the monthly budget updates be made available to Active members upon request.

Choices Votes Respondents
AYE 2 Dodge, Brenner
NAY 5 May, Bellinger, Lyksett, Decker, Pozzy

Clarification:
The resolution that Pat was on the losing end of was in regards to the monthly budgets, while Pat released the PDGA's annual budget. He did so deliberately, unauthorized and against the wishes of the majority of the Board. He was asked by PDGA Board president, Bob Decker to wait on a pending response from the PDGA's attorney before releasing this data but he refused. As it turned out, the PDGA attorney's letter confirmed the other Director's beliefs that the PDGA was under no legal obligation under Colorado Law to release our annual budget to anyone.

The attorney further stated, "If a director believes that the Board has acted improperly, he or she should demand that his/her objections are noted in the Board minutes. If the disagreement is serious enough, the director should consider resigning and making his/her resignation public. However, under no circumstances whatsoever, does the director have either a right or a duty to unilaterally act in defiance of the Board�s direction. Once again, any statement to the contrary is simply false and not grounded in the law."

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

PDGA- spending your money on......ummmmmm.....something.

If it wasn't necessary to be a member to play A-tiers I don't think I would remain one.

Anyway why has the PDGA's pool of active members stayed the same for over ten years? Obviously there is something about the PDGA that turns people off causing them not to renew. So does the PDGA plan on fixing this?

Also will the PDGA ever make a real national tour instead of what we have now?


I must say even if the BOD isn't trying to keep the financial information from its members it sure seems like it.

I estimate the PDGA has received $750 of my money so where has it gone? All I have seen is purses and fields get smaller.

once again, the last paragraph has nothing to do with this issue. there was no "Board direction" at all on this. the motion that was rejected concerns a different document

further, "As it turned out, the PDGA attorney's letter confirmed the othe Directorr's beliefs that the PDGA was under no legal obligation under Colorado Law to release our annual budget to anyone." is a matter of considerable debate. attorneys with expertise in colorado nonprofit law say otherwise.

once again, the last paragraph has nothing to do with this issue. there was no "Board direction" at all on this. the motion that was rejected concerns a different document

further, "As it turned out, the PDGA attorney's letter confirmed the othe Directorr's beliefs that the PDGA was under no legal obligation under Colorado Law to release our annual budget to anyone." is a matter of considerable debate. attorneys with expertise in colorado nonprofit law say otherwise.




So the BOD feels like they have to be obligated to show us
the info before they will decide to do so. Why not just let
dues paying members see what they are paying for?

How about we just have another amnesty so Climo can win AM worlds. Wait someone tried that and they did worse in AMs than they did in pro the year before. Karma is a pain in the rear eh? Guy is on our BOD too so I wonder if he had his own personal interests in mind more than that of the members.

Scooter,

This whole episode has less to do with the BOD's willingness to disclose financial information, than it does the BOD's unwillingness to see an irresponsible board member do anything he feels like doing in defiance of the Board and without the Boards approval.

I have already stated several times that I am personally in favor of publishing more detailed financial information. We are in the enviable position of having nothing to hide. I am willing to go through the proper channels to achieve these goals and Pat has proven through his actions that he is not. Disclosure must be weighed against the responsibility of the Board and the Executive Director to protect the associaton and it must also be done in accordance with the law and with the approval of the entire Board of Directors.

Pat has lost the trust of the executive director and his fellow BOD members. How effective do you think he can be as a board member now? How effective can our association be with board members who do not trust each other?

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

Brian, no matter how you spin it, the facts are this:

1. releasing the info i released was not banned by the Board
2. releasing the info i released is required by colorado law, and i have the opinion that backs me up

approval is not required before acting in accordance with the law. the only thing you can complain about is releasing it electronically rather than requiring him to go to Georgia.

Matt Hall #18131 wrote:

Anyway why has the PDGA's pool of active members stayed the same for over ten years?

Hmmm is this the "new Texas math"? On 12/31/97 the PDGA had 4247 current members, 10 years later on 12/31/07 this figure was 11943 = 281% of 4247 ...

Lets see now. The PDGA was founded in 1976. 21 years later there were 4200 current members. This figure almost tripled the next 10 years. Not sure how this amounts to "staying the same" even in kindergarten math.

Matt, youve posted here hundreds of times, possibly never once in support of PDGA. Some things this balances against are the ridiculous stack of plastic you walked away from Flagstaff for 2nd place at the 2005 PDGA Am Worlds; since then youve won almost $8 grand playing in close to 60 PDGA pro events.

Bottom line, you, yourself, and your ego have all gotten a lot of bang from PDGA its events TDs and your fellow members for your $750 covering 8 years as a PDGA member.

In this context, Matt, if it all simply isnt good enough in your mind, then its either time to demonstrate you do have a clue by taking some leadership. Lets see you start organizing the next TX NT event and drumming up sponsorship. But if this doesnt mesh with your vision of how its all supposed to be wonderful and huge and laid out on a plate for Matt to sup on, then yes PLEASE, walk away from PDGA, and thank you.

To the other readers - sorry -but like Vanessa vs Dick yesterday, I am sick of all this negative BS from a relatively small group of posters. As MANY have said constructive and articulate criticism is always appropriate and should be given due consideration by the PDGA leadership of the day.

<font color="blue">[borderline personal attack removed] </font> that have no basis in fact have over the past few years indeed done damage to PDGA. And for that reason, I say, Matt, the exit door is front of you, feel free to walk through it.

BDH





Didn't do the math just was told that the current members has increased by like 1200 since 97.


That stack of plastic was crazy eh? Kinda makes you wonder why anyone would want to move up to pro. I don't like the AM payout structure where an AM can end up with more cash back than a pro playing 1000 rated golf.


Anyway welcome to probation............

Scooter,

This whole episode has less to do with the BOD's willingness to disclose financial information, than it does the BOD's unwillingness to see an irresponsible board member do anything he feels like doing in defiance of the Board and without the Boards approval.

I have already stated several times that I am personally in favor of publishing more detailed financial information. We are in the enviable position of having nothing to hide. I am willing to go through the proper channels to achieve these goals and Pat has proven through his actions that he is not. Disclosure must be weighed against the responsibility of the Board and the Executive Director to protect the associaton and it must also be done in accordance with the law and with the approval of the entire Board of Directors.

Pat has lost the trust of the executive director and his fellow BOD members. How effective do you think he can be as a board member now? How effective can our association be with board members who do not trust each other?

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director




How effective can the PDGA be if the members don't trust the BOD? :confused:

I appreciate what you do Brian as you seem to be willing to work with pretty much anyone but unfortunately I do not feel the same way about everyone towards the top of the PDGA.

I am a supporter of the PDGA and tell pretty much everyone to join but sometimes I wonder why we aren't doing better.

Pat, I'll grant you #1 as a legal technicality, but #2 is less persuasive than Brian's counter, since the rest of the BOD was working off that legal opinion. At that point, why choose a legal justification?

At any rate, I agree that disclosure is good, but working through the channels, or working to radically change the channels is ultimately the only effective tactic.

Laws mean little, as we can see in this episode: people unwilling to disclose, will use legal opinions to support their view, while people wishing to disclose will use legal opinions in their favor. In the end, the judgement of the leaders will uphold or thwart any law. In other words, rather than creating an unnecessary stir, why not shed a clear light on it all. That is ultimately more effective.

[Didn't do the math just was told that the current members has increased by like 1200 since 97.

And so you just threw it out in public ? When the real numbers have been available on this website for years ?:

http://www.pdga.com/demographics.php

Anyway welcome to probation............



Hey if I get it then I deserve it, and its a price that is worth paying.

[/QUOTE]


Just like your "Classes"? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Anyway I'm pretty sure someone has already stated that the # of player per course hasn't gone up too much. That might not matter to some but I think it is an important figure. Another good figure would be how many extra miles you have to travel this year if you are "on tour".

To the BOD: If the BOD made a decision and a member on the losing end of that decision decided to ignore it and take actions contradictary to that decision, well, I don't think i would be the only member to take issue with that.

nothing of the sort happened! and if i dont get a retraction from those have had said otherwise, the legal trouble about disclosure will pale in comparison. i am tired of the libelous posts suggesting i released something that the Board restricted. they serve no purpose other than to cloud the issues.



Retraction:
At PDGA Board Member, Pat Brenner's request, and under the veiled threat of a lawsuit, I retract the following statement I made in a previous post:

"You refused and released the information without authorization and in direct defiance of a BOD resolution that you were on the losing end of."



The following motion was made on July 23, 2007 and these are the results of that Board poll:

MOTION: that the monthly budget updates be made available to Active members upon request.

Choices Votes Respondents
AYE 2 Dodge, Brenner
NAY 5 May, Bellinger, Lyksett, Decker, Pozzy

Clarification:
The resolution that Pat was on the losing end of was in regards to the monthly budgets, while Pat released the PDGA's annual budget. He did so deliberately, unauthorized and against the wishes of the majority of the Board. He was asked by PDGA Board president, Bob Decker to wait on a pending response from the PDGA's attorney before releasing this data but he refused. As it turned out, the PDGA attorney's letter confirmed the other Director's beliefs that the PDGA was under no legal obligation under Colorado Law to release our annual budget to anyone.

The attorney further stated, "If a director believes that the Board has acted improperly, he or she should demand that his/her objections are noted in the Board minutes. If the disagreement is serious enough, the director should consider resigning and making his/her resignation public. However, under no circumstances whatsoever, does the director have either a right or a duty to unilaterally act in defiance of the Board�s direction. Once again, any statement to the contrary is simply false and not grounded in the law."

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director




<font color="red"> Oh my gosh! The infamous "retract that or you'll be hearing from my lawyer" threat. Don't think you're special Brian, off hand I don't know anybody who hasn't been treated to this... benefit.

I figure when all these lawsuits finally pan out, someone is going to be rich baby! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
</font>

I've often wondered if the real motivation behind the "you're not growing fast enough" is the "you're not growing fast enough so I can quit my "real" job and make a living playing disc golf" point of view?

Now, I don't have any real measure of that, other than the unreal expectations of those who post here, and their inability to face the facts of good growth, comparatively speaking that is.

I'd think, given their desire for this organization to grow in leaps and bounds on an exponential curve, they'd step up and make it happen. I mean, they all have lots of opinions, and lots of ideas, but none of them make those ideas happen. Of course, given that those ideas won't make what they want to happen, happen maybe that's the reason they don't step up to the plate?

Brian G., please, make the sport as big as BG so I can quit living vicariously through this message board and really be a Pro disc golfer.... please.

O.K., that ought to do it. Let's see, by next summer I should be able to go on tour, better start talking to my wife about travel plans.

How effective can the PDGA be if the members don't trust the BOD? :confused:





I know what you mean! Everyone thinks it's the feds who are listening in on our phone calls, but really it's the PDGA. They have this special software package that searches for key words. It turns out that any time some one says "the PDGA Board %$^#[email protected]," or any version thereof, the call gets tagged and recorded!

Be careful, Big Brother is listening!

Oh my gosh! The infamous "retract that or you'll be hearing from my lawyer" threat. Don't think you're special Brian, off hand I don't know anybody who hasn't been treated to this... benefit.



Hi Lyle,

I am not at all worried about myself but I would hate to see any more of our members money wasted on this matter. Pat has already forced us to spend far too much on acquiring a legal opinion from our attorney, only to have him ignore or disregard it. I would also prefer that my time be dedicated to matters that actually benefit our members and the sport of disc golf.

That being said, this is my last post on this thread!

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

Just like your "Classes"? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Aah yes, my "classes." A subject that a chosen few have taken pleasure in hanging over my head. FYI these amounted to two more than worthwhile 1 hour phone discussions with a mentor - Dan Stork Roddick - that we both appreciated. Feel free to email Stork directly for more details if you are interested in once again getting the facts straight.

And yes there indeed were times when the stress that comes with being the PDGA's lead employee for 10 years got the better of me. Part of the reason Im such a big fan of BG is he has the thick skin and grounding in southern politeness and patience that have become de rigeur for the job.

BDH




How are members supposed to get the facts straight if they can't even get the info?

Just like your "Classes"? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Aah yes, my "classes." A subject that a chosen few have taken pleasure in hanging over my head. FYI these amounted to two more than worthwhile 1 hour phone discussions with a mentor - Dan Stork Roddick - that we both appreciated. Feel free to email Stork directly for more details if you are interested in once again getting the facts straight.

And yes there indeed were times when the stress that comes with being the PDGA's lead employee for 10 years got the better of me. Part of the reason Im such a big fan of BG is he has the thick skin and grounding in southern politeness and patience that have become de rigeur for the job.

BDH




How are members supposed to get the facts straight if they can't even get the info?



Stop it, stop it, you're makin' me fall out of my chair!

This is one of the most open orgs I've ever worked with. Every time someone says, you didn't tell us, it turns out they didn't bother to ask.

Dan: Hey scooter, how ya doin'?

Member: You guys didn't really have classes right? You were just drinkin' beer...

Dan: No Member, we really did, here's what we covered...

Member: Um, that's too much detail, I didn't really want that much detail, I was way more comfortable with the beer drinkin' model.

Lyle and I am supposed to agree with you? I mean if you have your way we will end up like Canada. Just the thought scares me.


Either that or all of the US will be like Houston.

How are members supposed to get the facts straight if they can't even get the info?



Um, so it's the HQ's fault you didn't check on the veracity of a number you heard?

Don't tell me you now think you know how the PDGA could better spend it's money.


And thanks for the cheapshot about Houston, you've benefitted quite well from HFDS over the years, if you didn't like it I suggest you return all the money and prizes.

How are members supposed to get the facts straight if they can't even get the info?



Um, so it's the HQ's fault you didn't check on the veracity of a number you heard?

Don't tell me you now think you know how the PDGA could better spend it's money.


And thanks for the cheapshot about Houston, you've benefitted quite well from HFDS over the years, if you didn't like it I suggest you return all the money and prizes.




I think you missed the whole point. I was talking about the financial info and Houston as a city with who knows how many illegals.

Matt Hall #18131 wrote:

Anyway why has the PDGA's pool of active members stayed the same for over ten years?

Hmmm is this the "new Texas math"? On 12/31/97 the PDGA had 4247 current members, 10 years later on 12/31/07 this figure was 11943 = 281% of 4247 ...

Lets see now. The PDGA was founded in 1976. 21 years later there were 4200 current members. This figure almost tripled the next 10 years. Not sure how this amounts to "staying the same" even in kindergarten math.

Matt, youve posted here hundreds of times, possibly never once in support of PDGA. Some things this balances against are the ridiculous stack of plastic you walked away from Flagstaff for 2nd place at the 2005 PDGA Am Worlds; since then youve won almost $8 grand playing in close to 60 PDGA pro events.

Bottom line, you, yourself, and your ego have all gotten a lot of bang from PDGA its events TDs and your fellow members for your $750 covering 8 years as a PDGA member.

In this context, Matt, if it all simply isnt good enough in your mind, then its either time to demonstrate you do have a clue by taking some leadership. Lets see you start organizing the next TX NT event and drumming up sponsorship. But if this doesnt mesh with your vision of how its all supposed to be wonderful and huge and laid out on a plate for Matt to sup on, then yes PLEASE, walk away from PDGA, and thank you.

To the other readers - sorry -but like Vanessa vs Dick yesterday, I am sick of all this negative BS from a relatively small group of posters. As MANY have said constructive and articulate criticism is always appropriate and should be given due consideration by the PDGA leadership of the day.

<font color="blue">[borderline personal attack removed] </font> that have no basis in fact have over the past few years indeed done damage to PDGA. And for that reason, I say, Matt, the exit door is front of you, feel free to walk through it.

BDH





Didn't do the math just was told that the current members has increased by like 1200 since 97.


That stack of plastic was crazy eh? Kinda makes you wonder why anyone would want to move up to pro. I don't like the AM payout structure where an AM can end up with more cash back than a pro playing 1000 rated golf.


Anyway welcome to probation............



And if this comes true, here lies one of the problems I have with the current message board policies. Someone can come on here, spout unfounded, inaccurate anti-org statements, show no respect for all that has been given him and pretty much be a total ingrate, but the person who calls him out on it has to walk on eggshells to make sure they stay within the bounds of the moderators. I'm getting tired of contributors having to constantly tiptoe around the 'me first' posters who usually have little regard for fact or appreciation of what they've been given. Does anyone really wonder why more pros don't post here? More TDs? More Board Members?

Rhett Stroh should still be here, unless he finally got smarter than the rest of us and decided that he could better spend his time elsewhere. Some who seem to feel this is the pulpit for bashing the efforts others as they sit on the sidelines crying for more can go. We have no shortage of takers and critics, but we sure could use more doers. I'm all for giving the few doers we have a whole heck of a lot more leeway than the takers.

Oh, my apologies to the moderators themselves who have the thankless job of trying to keep this thing civil.

Truthfully I couldn't care less about most of the stuff the PDGA does but there are a lot of people who do and I don't think the PDGA would be harmed by letting us know what goes on inside our organization.

I mean how much does the PDGA spend on helping to install new courses?

How Much is spent on the National tour?

How much is spent for improvements to courses before worlds?

I don't think all the people that want to know where our money goes is like Mikey and thinks they are wasting all of our money. I can say that the PDGA probably spends money on programs which i may consider a waste but others may see as very beneficial the problem is where do you get this info?

I personally would just like to know about a few basic things the PDGA spends OUR money on to help the sport grow in terms of producing longterm players, new courses, and bigger better events.

Hi Lyle,

I am not at all worried about myself but I would hate to see any more of our members money wasted on this matter. Pat has already forced us to spend far too much on acquiring a legal opinion from our attorney, only to have him ignore or disregard it. I would also prefer that my time be dedicated to matters that actually benefit our members and the sport of disc golf.




I can't see why this isn't outraging all of the people who bring up that dues are too high, fees are too high, sanctioning cost to much and so on. Getting into the childish "he did it first" type arguments don't interest me at this point as they really don't matter and you never get to the bottom of it anyway. The bottom line is the selfeshness and a lack of being able to cooperate is resulting in PDGA resources (i.e. my dues, your dues, the time of the people we elected and so on) being wasted. Resources that should be spent on how to move forward are instead of foolish finger pointing and blame finding.

Everyone here who feels it necessary to point out why something hasn't been accomplished yet or why things cost too much should consider that here is a prime example of waste. To be consistent, you should be at least as upset about this as many were about various other PDGA activites that are funded by member fees. This is total waste and a total disrespect of membership contributions.

Truthfully I couldn't care less about most of the stuff the PDGA does but there are a lot of people who do and I don't think the PDGA would be harmed by letting us know what goes on inside our organization.

I mean how much does the PDGA spend on helping to install new courses?

How Much is spent on the National tour?

How much is spent for improvements to courses before worlds?

I don't think all the people that want to know where our money goes is like Mikey and thinks they are wasting all of our money. I can say that the PDGA probably spends money on programs which i may consider a waste but others may see as very beneficial the problem is where do you get this info?

I personally would just like to know about a few basic things the PDGA spends OUR money on to help the sport grow in terms of producing longterm players, new courses, and bigger better events.



General financial information? Start here.

PDGA Financial Docs (http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2006/0506FinancialDGWN77.pdf)

Also check your pertinent copy of Disc Golf World. Before you bring up the easy 'but that's not this year's info' argument, consider that it took me 30 seconds to find this. I'm sure someone of your intellect can do at least as well with a bit of effort and obtain the same for 2007.

To get the info, you first quit expecting it to be spoon fed to you and instead put a bit of effort into it. Doing the same before touting 'facts' might also be a good idea. Quit thinking that the resources of the org revolve around you.

Thank you all.

That's exactly what stirs me to post when I do -- not because I think the PDGA is some kind of organizational paragon, but because its crazy to take advantage of this forum to spout innuendo and rumor, assert things that are not true (though kudos to Matt for explaining the source of his statistics was "something he heard"), smear reputations, etc. etc. etc. There are folks out there who are new to the board and the org who BELIEVE the people that write this stuff!! I think it was Tricky Dick (moderators, please note that is not a personal attack, it is a nickname for a historical figure!) who said you can't fool all the people all of the time. I hope that most readers and members of this organization will realize that indulging such a reckless disregard for the truth will utlimate damage the organization.

Its actually kind of fun to be on probation. I'm in good company!

Truthfully I couldn't care less about most of the stuff the PDGA does but there are a lot of people who do and I don't think the PDGA would be harmed by letting us know what goes on inside our organization.

I mean how much does the PDGA spend on helping to install new courses?

How Much is spent on the National tour?

How much is spent for improvements to courses before worlds?

I don't think all the people that want to know where our money goes is like Mikey and thinks they are wasting all of our money. I can say that the PDGA probably spends money on programs which i may consider a waste but others may see as very beneficial the problem is where do you get this info?

I personally would just like to know about a few basic things the PDGA spends OUR money on to help the sport grow in terms of producing longterm players, new courses, and bigger better events.



General financial information? Start here.

PDGA Financial Docs (http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2006/0506FinancialDGWN77.pdf)

Also check your pertinent copy of Disc Golf World. Before you bring up the easy 'but that's not this year's info' argument, consider that it took me 30 seconds to find this. I'm sure someone of your intellect can do at least as well with a bit of effort and obtain the same for 2007.

To get the info, you first quit expecting it to be spoon fed to you and instead put a bit of effort into it. Doing the same before touting 'facts' might also be a good idea. Quit thinking that the resources of the org revolve around you.



Just to be clear here, if you go back and read the Colorado State Law on non-profits that Pat so generously provided (Thanks Pat!) it makes it clear that this info does not have to be presented anywhere but in the main office (a reasonable location). The fact that the PDGA has always gone out of it's way to make this info available in publication and by reasonable request (I'll get back to this in a moment) is incredibly responsive.

In terms of reasonable requests, at one time I requested info from Brian H. and he wrote me back saying "no." His reply essentially said, "I don't know you, why would I send you info on our organization?" This was the start of my liking Brian, his response was reasonable in that it was his job first and foremost to protect this organization.

Once I explained my interest and who I was, he said "let me get you what you need." The concept that this organization isn't responsive is based on belligerent requests that do not take into account the fiduciary responsibilities of our management team. If you want them to be irresponsible you will be disappointed in every case (at least so far as the hired employees and most of the Board are concerned). Most of the carping I see here is based on very irresponsible requests that frankly would be ignored by most organizations...

a lot of the innuendo and rumor that is false would be immediately and forever eliminated through disclosure! for excample, any of the discussions about cost of ratings would have been cut short if i, or anyone who has the actual numbers, could simply say "look, it doesnt cost X, it actually costs Y". same for the international subsidies. it is ALWAYS far better to discuss reality than conjecture. but for some reason, some here feel that it is more productive to allow misinformation to flourish than it is to get accurate info out there.

if the association would have dealt with this issue at anytime up til now, it likely would not have cost the association near as much as it did/is going to. to be fair, there has been no discussion at all about the cost of the legal opinion, so this is the very first the Board has heard anything about this aspect of the issue.

and Brian, that was not a veiled threat, or at least wasnt supposed to be. i had intended for it to be clear. so, thank you for the retraction.

Oh, a real lawsuit...

Last week I was in McDonald's and I ordered a Big Mac and instead of the customary three pickles, I only got two! I taught them though, I said "I better get my pickle or I'm suing!" Well, just like that I got my pickle! Boy did I teach them.

if the association would have dealt with this issue at anytime up til now, it likely would not have cost the association near as much as it did/is going to.



So now it looks like we have a Board member who is threatening the organization. Am I correct that the 'is going to' part above is based on actions you are undertaking or theatening to undertake? :confused:

If so, perhaps its time you consider that you are no longer acting in a manner that has the best interests of the organization in mind and should promptly resign.

To be more direct on this, IMO, if you are taking any legal action upon the organization or its directors, you have put yourself into a situation that results in a conflict of interest and need to remove yourself (or be removed) from the Board. :mad:

hardly. if i take action against an ED who libels and slanders me, that is hardly a COI with the association. Brian retracted the statement, so there is no need to pursue it further. any other actions i am or may take regarding disclosure are actions that will follow the law and the available legal opinions.

any legal opinions i have gotten, i paid for out of my own pocket. if the association doesnt like the opinions i pay for and wished to pay for their own, i cannot stop them, as i am only one vote on the budget. the choice is the association's though, not mine.

scooter and others who have asked questions about membership, growth, and retention - here are some charts and numbers for you.

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/market_data/didnotrenew.gif

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/market_data/member_rev_change.gif

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/market_data/rev_members.gif

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/market_data/rev_per_member.gif

http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/market_data/raw_membership_data.gif

I disagree. If you are taking action against a director of this organization, there is a conflict of interest. If you are implying that your actions are going to cost the organization unless certain things happen, there is a conflict of interest.

But overall, if you are basically saying that you feel it is OK to be disruptive and uncooperative, then you really should consider stepping down. You have ceased to be of service to the members of the PDGA if your actions have come down to this.

Wow! all kinds of data there.

If Pat were a super hero he'd by # man.

Look, it's a bird, it's a plane, No! it's # man. Faster than a speeding decimal point, can leap tall slide rules, fighting number corruption everywhere!

Thanks Pat for... Um, what was the purpose of these numbers again?

Mr. Brenner:

I applaud your efforts in the earnest, sincere, and valuable quest to produce the disclosure of the financials. I am proud that we have one Director who understands his obligation to the membership.

The paranoia of the pDGA Board is indeed costing us dearly. Hiring a lawyer to hide the financials rather than disclosing them is the latest example of how out of touch our current "leadership" is.

Thank you very kindly for giving Mr. Graham a taste of his own threatening medicine. Let's hope he begins to respect the membership in the same way he demands it of us.

The truth will set US free,
Michael Kernan
#14304

So BDH can direct the statement "brain dead" towards me and get nothing but if I say clueless I get suspended for 3 weeks. Nice!

Good ole boy I guess.

Pat,

While I don't always agree with your positions or your methods I do appreciate your stepping up and volunteering your time. Without question if more folks stepped up with the time commitment you have the PDGA would be better off.

I believe your term on the BOD ends on August 31, 2008. Is that correct? As of now, do you plan on running again?

Thx

"To be more direct on this, IMO, if you are taking any legal action upon the organization or its directors, you have put yourself into a situation that results in a conflict of interest and need to remove yourself (or be removed) from the Board. "

Is this a legal opinion, tkieffer? are you a lawyer? you state it like it is a fact rather than your opinion. I think many people would say that you may be biased towards them status quo. believe me, you don't have to be afraid of change. the shroud of secrecy the current bod likes to operate behind is not necessarily the best policy, as it makes one wonder exactly what they are hiding. is there some reason you have such negative opinions on something you likely have no firsthand knowledge of? possibly you have some kind of personal ax to grind?

YAWN

IMO = In my opinion

[quote
Is this a legal opinion, tkieffer? are you a lawyer? you state it like it is a fact rather than your opinion. I think many people would say that you may be biased towards them status quo. believe me, you don't have to be afraid of change. the shroud of secrecy the current bod likes to operate behind is not necessarily the best policy, as it makes one wonder exactly what they are hiding. is there some reason you have such negative opinions on something you likely have no firsthand knowledge of? possibly you have some kind of personal ax to grind?

[/QUOTE]

No personal ax to grind as I have never met the people involved and am under the impression that I would probably get along with them fine if we ever met on a course. My beef is with the actions taken and the lack of respect for fellow Board Members, current and past directors, and PDGA resources.

I'm not a lawyer, but I guess my business experiences make it seem rather obvious that if someone is in the process of suing the company (or threatening as much), it is usually in the company's best interest to remove the person from the environment until things work out (paid leave if the law requires it). If in the end the person shows they just can't work with the rest of the staff, then the root of the problem is obvious (no need for the 'Dad, he started it" discussions) and the correction is also obvious.

I don't fear change, just fear that the process and effectiveness of any group would be severely hindered by things that have been shown here. When it comes down to the point of a Board Member threatening lawsuits against the Director, releasing motions to the message board under slanted preface, and seeming to just plain not get along with the rest of the Board, I fear that either a change is needed if things are ever going to get back to a point that real progress can be made, or a good chunk of your and my dues will be wasted on stupid stufff like 'he said she said' lawsuits.

"To be more direct on this, IMO, if you are taking any legal action upon the organization or its directors, you have put yourself into a situation that results in a conflict of interest and need to remove yourself (or be removed) from the Board. "

Is this a legal opinion, tkieffer? are you a lawyer? you state it like it is a fact rather than your opinion. I think many people would say that you may be biased towards them status quo. believe me, you don't have to be afraid of change. the shroud of secrecy the current bod likes to operate behind is not necessarily the best policy, as it makes one wonder exactly what they are hiding. is there some reason you have such negative opinions on something you likely have no firsthand knowledge of? possibly you have some kind of personal ax to grind?



Legal schmeagle. It's called common sense.

If you're trying to make a point Dick somewhere I missed it.
On the other hand, I do have my pickle. Would you like one too?

Look out, he's got a lawsuit in his hand. Everybody panic now! Run for your lives! We're all gonna die!

Hey, has anyone crunched the numbers on this one? Pat, how many times has the PDGA been sued? How many times has the PDGA been sued by you? How many times have you threatened to sue? Members want to know.

Pat, how many times has the PDGA been sued?
<font color="red"> i dunno.</font>
How many times has the PDGA been sued by you?
<font color="red"> zero</font>
How many times have you threatened to sue?
<font color="red"> zero</font>
<font color="red"> </font>

Pat, how many times has the PDGA been sued?
<font color="red"> i dunno.</font>
How many times has the PDGA been sued by you?
<font color="red"> zero</font>
How many times have you threatened to sue?
<font color="red"> zero</font>
<font color="red"> </font>



Last question, can you define your interpretation of threaten to sue? I just wanna be straight on this one, I think we may have a different definition. Oh, and how many times have you threatened to sue another member of the PDGA?

last question, huh? ok, i will believe that when there are no more questions :)

why dont you just explain how you meant it, since there is some question? if what you meant is different from how i took it, then i will revise my answer if necessary.

last question, huh? ok, i will believe that when there are no more questions :)

why dont you just explain how you meant it, since there is some question? if what you meant is different from how i took it, then i will revise my answer if necessary.



Sure enough, "you've misrepresented me and if you don't retract it I'm going to call my lawyer."

BTW - I modified my last post, it occurred to me that you might not consider a member of the PDGA as the PDGA.

You're right, there's always another question. That's why I's so grateful that there's an "Ask Pat, PDGA Board Member" thread. :D

BTW - just to make this easy, let's assume that if you said something like this, that in every case you were 100% correct, you were misrepresented.

hmmm... if you mean towards an individual, then a couple times maybe. if you mean towards the pdga, then zero.

hmmm... if you mean towards an individual, then a couple times maybe. if you mean towards the pdga, then zero.



That maybe makes it sound like it was less than a couple of times, maybe...

How many of those couple of times were against EDs, Board members or other volunteers? I mean, if all those Board Members and volunteers, not to mention the ED, are misrepresenting you, maybe we should get rid of them and let you run the organization?

whatever, Lyle. this isnt making sense anymore. its not "all of those Board Members...etc etcetc...". dont blow this further out of proportion than it already is. replacing people is your suggestion, not mine.

whatever, Lyle. this isnt making sense anymore. its not "all of those Board Members...etc etcetc...". dont blow this further out of proportion than it already is. replacing people is your suggestion, not mine.



Yes, but you still didn't answer the question. How many were EDs, Board Members, or volunteers? The rest is just fun commentary.

i dont really know, lyle. i suppose that anyone who is interested could comb the message board and come up with an answer for you.

10-24-07 28003 Colin Furrow posted:

Pat, why does the BoD make decisions, then a month later, announce half of the decision, let people debate it on the message board, and then decide if it was a good idea or not?
Thanks.


Pat, this is the first post on this 39 page thread.

My use of the term Ax is poking fun at the
speech patterns of some of our locals.
Not implying inflicting bodily harm,
removing body parts or cutting you loose.

I see from the November 5, 2007 minutes
one Pat Brenner was unanimously appointed to a
standing committee called OVERSIGHT.
What is the function of this committee?
Do you have to clear 5'2" to have vision?

5'2" is a thinly veiled reference to the
5-2 votes that appear in the minutes.

thanks for your efforts
steve timm

actually, there is no Oversight Committee, or Director, or Liaison anymore. those were eliminated by board vote last night. so it has no function.

in the past, the OD was charged with ensuring that Directors and Committees conduct their duties in accordance with the Constitution. the OD and Communications Director roles are not specified in the new ByLaws, and the first Board under the new ByLaws decided that the Directors elected by the members to those roles would continue to serve in their capacity through the end of their elected term. this was done to make some sense out of electing directors to positions that were immediately abolished.

on one hand, oversight is every director's responsibility so naming the role should be unnecessary. in practice, the OD had little if any true power. requests the OD makes can be just as easily refused, and the recourse is to take actions that are already available to him as a Director.

on the other hand, the other primary argument for eliminating the role seemed to center on the fact that i had attempted to use the OD position to obtain information - an attempt that was refused. to eliminate the role because it had been used seems kinda petty to me, but i might have a bias due to my involvement in the issue.