The PDGA has just posted a "Notice to Amend Bylaws", which would make fundamental changes to the Board. They have already made fundamental changes, increasing the Board term to three years and the Board membership to nine. This must have been done at the recent Summit, because we haven't seen anything about it in any previous minutes. The Bylaws permit the above changes without amendment. But they also want to make a third even more fundamental change which does require amendment of the Bylaws.

The Board wants to bypass the membership and reserve unto itself the power to appoint some of its own members.

This would be a disaster. Any Board that appoints itself, or even part of itself, becomes inbred. It will ultimately function more like an advisory council than a true representative Board, and will serve mainly to validate policies of the PDGA administration.

Can the Board amend the Bylaws on its own say so? Probably. They plan to meet Tuesday night to "consider" the amendment, and so they have given the (minimum) five days notice required by the Bylaws. Do they plan to ask for membership approval? Probably not. The only recourse would be to submit written petitions from ten per cent of the membership requesting membership vote, and there is obviously no way that could happen in five days.

So I predict that they will amend the Bylaws Tuesday night, that they will not allow the membership to vote on the matter, and that in September we will have a nine-member Board that appointed part of itself.

And if I am correct, am I willing to do anything about it except complain? If I could find four PDGA members willing to run for the Board, and like-minded on the importance of giving the Board back to the membership, I would also run. Then in the Fall we could re-amend the Bylaws.

Peter, that is a very interesting position considering the fact that it was your resignation from the PDGA Board of Directors in 2008 that lead to the appointment of Juliana Korver to complete your unfinished elected board term.

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

I would kindly urge Mr. Shive and interested PDGA members to do a little research on why organizations appoint board members to serve alongside elected board members before you jump to unfounded conclusions. You will quickly find out that appointed positions are standard business practice amongst organizations with a board of directors.

USA Ultimate has several appointed board members from outside of their sport that provide them with an unbiased outside view of their organization, as well as provides them with valuable business skills needed by the organization that their elected board members may not possess.

http://www.usaultimate.org/news/greg-downey-appointed-to-usa-ultimate-board-of-directors/?pg=5

The recent decision at the Spring summit by the PDGA Board to increase the terms and number of board positions to nine with two appointed board members, as well as the creation of a nominating committee to recruit and vet qualified candidates is a move to increase the quality and effectiveness of our board and move the organization in a positive direction. These changes are standard amongst sports organizations worldwide and were recommended by sports consultant Jack Kelly (Biography (http://www.teamip.com/2011/02/new-consultant-john-p-jack-kelly/)) as a way to strengthen the PDGA so that we can become more competitive in the global sports market. The change in our board structure was also recommended and endorsed by the CEO of USA Ultimate, Tom Crawford, who came to lead that organization from an Olympic sports background.

It should be noted that current PDGA board members would not be selecting the candidates for the appointed positions but that this important piece of work would be performed by a nominating committee working on behalf of our members.

If anyone is interested in learning more about board governance and the appointment of board members to serve with elected board members, I would urge you to read a book that is on the shelf in my office, "Not-For-Profit Boards - A Practical Guide To Modern Governance (http://theboardauthority.org/newsroom/not-for-profit-boards-offers-roadmap-for-effective/)", co-authored by our consultant Jack Kelly and available at http://TheBoardAuthority.org (http://TheBoardAuthority.org).

For more information on the Board Authority and consultant Jack Kelly, visit http://theboardauthority.org/professional-team/

Count me a skeptic.

Though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Perhaps this is a working model for other non-profit boards---perhaps even for us---but at first glance it seems a step away from being a "member-run" organization. Certainly a big enough step to warrant a decent interval for discussion before it's adopted, and I hope our current member-elected board will proceed slowly.

We have been very fortunate to have CPA Bob Decker elected to the Board the past several terms and have had a financial person more by accident than design in the past. With the current org structure for the PDGA, we must always have an experienced financial expert serving on our Board and also at least one or two experienced people from outside our sport which we've never had on the Board before. That's common as an org gets to a certain size and we are there now. USA Ultimate has three appointed Board members and nine elected members but they are also bigger than the PDGA at this point.

The expansion to nine Board members with three year staggered terms should have happened before now but we finally got there. Peter even knows this because we talked about back when we went to the Bylaws structure several years ago. With the current Board of 7 members with 2-yr terms, potentially more than half the Board gets replaced in the year when four seats are up for vote. This can be very disruptive, especially with new Board members who come on board two weeks before they have to review and adjust the next year's budget with perhaps never having seen it before. With 3-yr terms and nine members, no more than three seats are typically up for election/appointment and there are still 6 who know what's going on when the new members join the Board. This is a big step forward for the org in pofessionalism, experience and stability.

I can accept the staggered 3-year terms as a good idea. Expanding to 9, I have to trust the board to know what the current workload is, and whether increasing the numbers might become unwieldy.

Outside board members, or board members appointed by the other board members, or through a committee......that's a little more to digest.

I have absolutely no background in boards of directors, for profits or non-profits, nor do I have any real idea of whether we've grown to the point of needing outsiders on the board. It still seems the kind of change that ought to be taken after some discussion, on and off the board.

Brian,

I do agree with you that my position is "interesting". And if I do run I would certainly need to completely and openly address the circumstances of my resignation. In reference to your opening barb I will only state that I did not want the Board to appoint my replacement. I fought as hard as I could to have my replacement chosen by the membership during the election process. I lost.

Now to the matter at hand, which is of great importance. The PDGA administration is proposing a radical change in the way our Board is chosen. We (the membership) know nothing more than what is in the announcement posted yesterday and what you have told us above. It appears that you want to institute these changes four days from now. This scenario begs the following questions:

1) Does the Board plan to submit the proposed Bylaws changes to the membership for approval? If they did, I would have no objections. That would give you time to make your case for the pressing needs for change, and would give us a chance to consider the implications and advise accordingly. If they didn't, it looks like this is being railroaded through with no chance for anyone to reflect.

2) Would this "nominating committee working on behalf of the membership" be chosen by the Board? Would the candidates it nominates be appointed by the Board? In either case the membership loses its power to select Board members, and the Board is effectively appointing part of its own membership.

3) You know by now that I have learned to "follow the money". Is your consultant Jack Kelley paid by the PDGA? Would any of the members of this "new model" Board, appointed or otherwise, be paid for their service?

4) You characterize my conclusions as "unfounded" and you urge me to do research. When am I supposed to do all this research, and when will I be allowed the time to support my conclusions? Only the next three days?

From the March 2011 Teleconference Minutes (http://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/minutes-from-march-2011-teleconference):

Restructuring PDGA Board Election procedures - Nesbitt
Nesbitt reported on challenges due to the lack of continuity and lack of business skills in board member candidates, as well as related discussions with consultant Jack Kelly. Discussion ensued on the positives and negatives of extending board terms and using a nomination committee to identify suitable candidates. Stork urged caution when dealing with limiting board candidates. The board discussed options and ideas for strengthening the organization through stronger board members and whether a financial stipend or change in the length of terms might encourage more qualified candidates to run in the future. It was suggested that the PDGA should consider creating an advisory committee of former board members to help orient new board members to their new jobs. Nesbitt reported that the call for candidates will be slightly delayed until after related discussions at the summit.


So it sounds like the Board of Directors discussed via teleconference, and at the 2011 Spring Summit (http://www.pdga.com/pdga-summit), the need to have BoD members with business acumen, and continuity as new board members rotate in every few years. They are aware of their own limitations and are actively pursuing methods to make the BoD better and the role they perform in guiding the future of our organization and the sport of disc golf. How is this a bad thing?!? :confused:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't know who kicked your dog or whizzed in your Cheerios while you were a board member, Peter, but the cynicism, and lengths you now go to discredit just about every executive decision the BoD makes, continues to astound me. :confused:

Jeff,

Read my posts again. I'm not objecting to extending Board terms, or even to the formation of a nominating committee (as long as any member is still free to run).

I am only objecting to the Board railroading through a change in the Bylaws that allows it to appoint any of its own members. Nothing in the minutes you cite indicate that the Board was considering such a move.

You wonder why a former Board member, of all people, would object to any policy proposed by the Board, as though service on the Board ensured lifetime loyalty to it. If the Board had appointed me, maybe that would be true. But the Board didn't appoint me, Jeff, the membership elected me. So my loyalty is to the membership.

USA Ultimate has several appointed board members from outside of their sport that provide them with an unbiased outside view of their organization, as well as provides them with valuable business skills needed by the organization that their elected board members may not possess.




I see possible value here Brian, I will reconsider my opposition but like Peter says it appears the decision will be made in 3 days.

With the board this year already voting to change the just changed 2011 rules ...

""That rule 803.09 B(3) be amended to read, �Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition only by prior approval of the PDGA Tour Manager.�, and that it be implemented on 1/1/2012.

Motion passes unanimously.""

I guess i don't understand how new board members from outside our sport could possibly add value to a decision/vote on items like this. Since I don't have time for your suggested reading before the Tuesday call maybe you can explain this to me and others who wonder the same thing.

Thanks Brian and I appreciate your posting here since there hasn't been nearly enough information or time to consider this.

It is mostly just about the board wanting to have an accountant and maybe another professional or two, and not having to worry about losing them if some popular player runs for the same seat. The alternative would be that they would have to pay these people real money. It's not like they think they can take over the world if they only had two board seats that were not subject to popular vote. And if they do take over the world, more parks will have courses.

This move by the PDGA / BOD seems very simple to me, personally, and I do not understand the need for people to SEARCH for any negative angle they can find.

My understanding is...The PDGA is adding a few more members, to the BOD, to work in areas that they may lack the experience and ability to generate desired results. I am not sure of the positions, but if the BOD lacks experience, or ability, at accounting / web design / advertising (Random examples)...then KUDOS to them for being aware of their limitations and looking for help. It takes more courage and intelligence to realize that certain goals may not be able to be reached with the current members of the BOD and putting aside personal pride and status to open a few positions that address where the BOD may have been weak in the past.

We are all members of the PDGA and we expect the BOD to handle certain duties for the membership to an acceptable degree. To simplify - lets say these duties have fallen into 10 categories - these categories are the result of communicating with the membership and moving with the ever-changing landscape of disc golf in general. So, we have 10 things that need to be done to satisfy the members and BOD as the best agreed goals.

The current BOD realizes that they can accomplish 6 of the 10 goals, but need specialized talent and experience to accomplish the other 4 goals. So, they plan to take action and add the needed number of new BOD members to fulfill their responsibility to their members. GREAT! This completely makes sense and is simple to understand.

I will say what, I THINK the PDGA would like to say if they were to attempt to communicate with some of the membership on the same low level...

"We, the BOD, have listened to the members pointing out that we suck at A B and C, so we are taking action to address this by bringing in people that do NOT suck at A B and C. You are welcome."


Also, I think the PDGA takes the "high-road" in general when responding to members concerns and criticisms, specifically when stated and presented in a childish way...like this, and many other, threads on the discussion board. The title alone, of this thread, sets the negative tone and does not fall under constructive criticism in any way.

The PDGA taking the "high-road" and treating everyone with respect, whether deserved or not, is a burden they must carry. Many times the PDGA can not get any worthwhile feed-back because people seem to ALWAYS find something to complain about - even if the PDGA's action is 9/10ths of what the person desires, they will grab that other 1/10th and try to create problems.

A few examples of what people constantly complain about:

1. Finances - "Where is all the money going?"
2. Action - "Why does the PDGA not get someone better to do this or that?"

Using this current move by the PDGA, we have an example of the BOD taking ACTION and using FINANCES - it is right there for all of us to see, although some people are blinded by their own agendas, and it is being questioned instead of applauded.

I would like to point out the DOUBLE-EGDED-SWORD / HYPOCRITICAL nature of membership response to PDGA decisions --- (Using this current thread as an example)

The PDGA decides to take QUICK action and add some members to the BOD to address some of their weaknesses and people say - "We only have 5 days !?!" "We are being railroaded" "How dare the PDGA make any decisions with out asking every member of the PDGA?"

or

The PDGA announces that they will consider adding a few more members to the BOD, in the NEXT FEW MONTHS, to address some of their weaknesses and people say - "Why take so long to make a decision?" "Just put your egos aside and hire a few people to do the jobs" "We want it now, not half way through this years disc golf season"

....this is a constant echo on the discussion board, no matter the subject at hand, and it gets to be quite silly to hear over and over.


It is amazing how some will SEARCH for the negatives instead of SEEING the positives right in front of their eyes.

Brandon

If the membership approved this matter, I would have no objections to it. But the Board should not change the Bylaws so that they can appoint their own members without seeking that approval. The membership should not have the right to elect Board members taken away from them unless they vote to allow it. This is too important an issue to be treated in such a way.

This measure has obviously been under consideration by the Board for months. They had plenty of time to consult the membership and put it to a vote. But they didn't. Instead they tell us on Thursday that they are going to do it the following Tuesday. This is undue haste, to put it mildly.

If the Board votes without seeking membership approval, I would do everything I can to see that the membership is eventually given the right to consider and vote on the measure. I would run for the Board, and that right would be my central plank. But that is not sufficient. Current Board members, together with their appointees, would still be in control and could easily vote me off, charging "disloyalty to the Board". The charge would be quite correct.

So I would also organize a drive for signed petitions to put the matter to the membership, as prescribed by the Bylaws. I'd need about 2000 signatures, which seems well within reach.

And most surely, if I were a Board member I would never spring such an important measure on the membership without allowing plenty of time for it to "advise and consent".

This move by the PDGA / BOD seems very simple to me, personally, and I do not understand the need for people to SEARCH for any negative angle they can find.

My understanding is...The PDGA is adding a few more members, to the BOD, to work in areas that they may lack the experience and ability to generate desired results. I am not sure of the positions, but if the BOD lacks experience, or ability, at accounting / web design / advertising (Random examples)...then KUDOS to them for being aware of their limitations and looking for help. It takes more courage and intelligence to realize that certain goals may not be able to be reached with the current members of the BOD and putting aside personal pride and status to open a few positions that address where the BOD may have been weak in the past.

We are all members of the PDGA and we expect the BOD to handle certain duties for the membership to an acceptable degree. To simplify - lets say these duties have fallen into 10 categories - these categories are the result of communicating with the membership and moving with the ever-changing landscape of disc golf in general. So, we have 10 things that need to be done to satisfy the members and BOD as the best agreed goals.

The current BOD realizes that they can accomplish 6 of the 10 goals, but need specialized talent and experience to accomplish the other 4 goals. So, they plan to take action and add the needed number of new BOD members to fulfill their responsibility to their members. GREAT! This completely makes sense and is simple to understand.

I will say what, I THINK the PDGA would like to say if they were to attempt to communicate with some of the membership on the same low level...

"We, the BOD, have listened to the members pointing out that we suck at A B and C, so we are taking action to address this by bringing in people that do NOT suck at A B and C. You are welcome."


Also, I think the PDGA takes the "high-road" in general when responding to members concerns and criticisms, specifically when stated and presented in a childish way...like this, and many other, threads on the discussion board. The title alone, of this thread, sets the negative tone and does not fall under constructive criticism in any way.

The PDGA taking the "high-road" and treating everyone with respect, whether deserved or not, is a burden they must carry. Many times the PDGA can not get any worthwhile feed-back because people seem to ALWAYS find something to complain about - even if the PDGA's action is 9/10ths of what the person desires, they will grab that other 1/10th and try to create problems.

A few examples of what people constantly complain about:

1. Finances - "Where is all the money going?"
2. Action - "Why does the PDGA not get someone better to do this or that?"

Using this current move by the PDGA, we have an example of the BOD taking ACTION and using FINANCES - it is right there for all of us to see, although some people are blinded by their own agendas, and it is being questioned instead of applauded.

I would like to point out the DOUBLE-EGDED-SWORD / HYPOCRITICAL nature of membership response to PDGA decisions --- (Using this current thread as an example)

The PDGA decides to take QUICK action and add some members to the BOD to address some of their weaknesses and people say - "We only have 5 days !?!" "We are being railroaded" "How dare the PDGA make any decisions with out asking every member of the PDGA?"

or

The PDGA announces that they will consider adding a few more members to the BOD, in the NEXT FEW MONTHS, to address some of their weaknesses and people say - "Why take so long to make a decision?" "Just put your egos aside and hire a few people to do the jobs" "We want it now, not half way through this years disc golf season"

....this is a constant echo on the discussion board, no matter the subject at hand, and it gets to be quite silly to hear over and over.


It is amazing how some will SEARCH for the negatives instead of SEEING the positives right in front of their eyes.

Brandon

Nice rant but it isn't quite so simple. You make up a good scenario but is it really that simple? Some of the members concerns include these questions.

1- why does this seem to be being pushed through so rapidly with such limited discussion and communication to the members?
2- are these new board members from outside our sport going to be compensated and if so how much?
3- what value do they add to the discussion on rules votes like I cited in a previous unresponded to post in this thread?
4- this poorly explained and communicated significant change following on the heels of a similarly poorly explained and communicated significant change in the smoking policy at worlds seems, to me at least, to increase attention on the BOD actions and to bring at least a little greater scrutiny to what they are doing.

Am I, and other members, opposed to these actions? I do oppose the smoking ban, especially since we are so quick to take alcohol sponsors. As for the appointed board seats I just don't have enough information yet to know what the pluses and minus are. And I certainly don't feel the board is explaining the need for this change and communicating it well enough.

What is the rush? Why the secrecy? Why can't the PDGA come out and lay out their position and reasoning for the proposed change as simply as you did in your fictitious example. If the members are told this is what we want to do and this is why we think we need to do it and this is the benefit we expect to gain from it I feel 80% of the resistance goes away. Until that tack is taken there will be plenty of questions and guesses at motives.

The PDGA brings threads like this upon themselves by poorly explaining and communicating issues like this to the members.

Be honest Peter. If the BoD put it up for vote, it would pass with a huge majority. The majority of the pDGA membership is far too uniformed and far too absorbed with playing tournaments to even care. You know that they will do whatever the BoD suggests.

And Peter, you are (ironically of course) one of the worst offenders in regards to actually listening to the membership if we are to judge from your actions as a BoD member that included crushing all opposition to your unbelievably authoritarian crackdown on this very message board.

How ironic that it is you making the call for a vote of the membership when it was your repressive actions that destroyed this once-fertile incubator of talent and progress that the pDGA forum was despite its exaggerated flaws. Too bad that the very people you ran away from the forum are the ones you need to support you in your feeble attempt to regain some credibility. All because ol' Peter thought a few people posting comedic but sharp and insightful ramblings was "bad for sponsorship." You and the pDGA gotta learn everything the hard way---by silencing views opposed to your own, your mind is closed and weakened.

I submit that the pDGA pro tour has atrophied since Peter's unwise crackdown on the forum, and the reason is that this website (since Peter and his like-minded denizens of destruction cracked down on the opposition, not unlike present-day Syria or Libya in fact) has lost its place as the #1 place for disc golf information. For example, there's an NT event in Alabama five days from now and yet the last post anyone even made about it on this website was over a week ago! Talk about a lack of promotion, a lack of interest! It's embarrassing, to be frank. People are flocking to sites like DGCoursereview.com, and with good reason...for example DGCoursereview.com has up-to-date info on the new courses in Louisiana, while the pDGA website is missing at least 3 that were installed in 2010. Again, totally embarrassing (and if the Louisiana State Coordinator who Graham appointed after removing the properly-elected man without a hearing would do his job, you wouldn't have that problem, but I digress).

The pro tour has not improved at all. In fact with the end of the USDGC as we knew it, the pro tour is in shambles. Again it is ironic that the pro tour has nearly died while top pros hold so many seats.

Maybe this change in the BoD will help. Something must be done.

P.S. Enjoy this post while it lasts. It's too hot for the small minds to handle.

Why does adding these extra skill-sets mean that the folks have to be appointed as BOD members?

I mean, if we need an accountant, why don't we just "hire" one? Why is it necessary to have them be appointed to the BOD?

I can certainly understand the board's desire to minimize the issues surrounding turn-over of BOD membership every couple of years, but I also agree with Mr. Shive in that it seems a trivial thing to put together a membership vote. It avoids any appearance of impropriety.

I am decidedly UNHAPPY with the recent BOD decision to ban smoking at PDGA Worlds and to learn that this is being considered for further expansion to all PDGA events. IMO the BOD way overstepped its boundaries and is way outside of its purpose.

Because of that action, I am HIGHLY skeptical of the unilateral BOD decisions and with awarding it any further powers...especially ones which create a greater disconnect between the membership and the BOD.

The Board meets tomorrow. So far I have objected most strongly to the way in which this scheme is being foisted, but only vaguely to the measure itself. If I don't have convincing specific reasons why the plan itself is objectionable, then I am just a knee-jerk obstructionist. Here are some of those reasons:

1) Our Board sets the policies that bind all PDGA members. Therefore, Board members should be accountable to the membership, and should be well aware of the concerns of typical PDGA members. Outside appointees, by definition, are neither. Such people don't belong on the Board.
2) The PDGA plea for more continuity of skilled personnel has merit. However, these people do not have to be appointed to the Board. The PDGA needed tour management, but it didn't have to appoint David Gentry to the Board. The PDGA needs ratings, but it doesn't have to appoint Chuck to the Board. And if we should lose the excellent services of Bob Decker we can hire a CPA, outside or otherwise, without making it a Board appointment. Whatever the PDGA needs (including outside expertise) it can hire on a staff or consultant basis, as it does now.
3) The PDGA administration is basically arguing, "Nobody within the disc golf community is good enough at promoting and marketing. Therefore, we must get these people from outside". This premise is both insulting and debatable.
4) More importantly, we've heard this argument before and responded to it, to our dismay. Am I the only one who remembers the SportsLoop fiasco? SportsLoop still has a website, and it still lists the 2003 PDGA National Tour events in its archives. But it does not appear to have done business since 2006.
5) Nobody suggested in 2003 that we should appoint SportsLoop executives to our Board. Can you imagine the fix we would be in if we had?
6) The action sets a bad precedent. If the Board decides to appoint some of its own members this year, it could decide to appoint them all next year.

Perhaps Brian and the Board can still make a case for this plan. But they certainly haven't yet, nor have they shown any indication that they want to try. They have acted more as though they wanted to get this done without the membership even knowing about it, let alone think about it and participate in the decision.

This is huge. Slow down, Board. Make your case, and let the membership vote.

How amusing to watch y'all pretend that the BoD has been accountable to the membership! What will it take for y'all to realize the pDGA is simply a funnel from disc golfers' pockets into the connected insiders bank accounts?

There is no accountability because the insiders banking our membership dues do not want it. There never will be either...until the pDGA gets some competition at a national or global level that is. That day grows closer, as the pDGA grows more and more irrelevant each passing day. Now that the players have seen that electing pros to the BoD was equally as futile as electing anyone else, especially old dinosaurs with a penchant for totalitarian suppression of dissenting speech, the die is cast---welcome to irrelevance, pDGA. You have demonstrated that greed kills growth better than Satan himself could have shown.

A couple of questions:

Who comprises the nominating committee? and

What qualifications are they looking for in those they nominate?

Thanks to all members who have a concern over the Board�s possible action being taken tomorrow. Let us provide few insights into this decision.

There is a difference in having a skill set on the Board vs hiring this skill set. The Board sets the direction of the PDGA, and having these skill sets within the Board of Directors is desirable in order to make wiser decisions on various matters relating to the direction of the PDGA. With an entirely elected Board, the PDGA Board often finds itself without those needed expertise(s). The idea is to provide the Board with a broader skill set than those who a) are members and may be willing to run for the Board or b) who the membership may elect. As we have stated, many other non-profit organizations have taken this approach in this phase of their growth as an organization, including other disc sports organizations.

When the PDGA office needs these skills to accomplish tasks, they can just go out and hire skill sets as needed to accomplish specific tasks that they require, including accounting, IT, etc. The Board does not accomplish these tasks, the office does. The only way we the Board can get these needed skills presently within their voting membership is hope that the members elected to the Board have these needed skills.

We, the Board, believe we need to change this. In consultation with a number of respected members and outside counsel, we believe that the addition of a minority of appointed members is a critically important move to strengthen the Board�s composition. The discussion was thorough and detailed over the past few months, and the result of the discussion was unanimous.

No board members are paid for their service. The bylaws are clear on this subject, and we are not changing this section of the bylaws. Appointed board members would not be paid, just as elected board members are not paid.

This issue has not yet been voted on. If the Board believes that a delay to this action is appropriate because we do not have the pulse of the membership on this issue or we are making an improper decision, we will delay this action at Tuesday�s meeting.

On behalf of the 2011 PDGA Board of Directors

Dave �Nez� Nesbitt
PDGA Commissioner and Board President

some cool reading

http://www.discgolfassoc.com/downloads/archive/disc-golf-1978-cat.pdf

Dave, your answer yielded no information on the "skill set" the board lacks and is looking to add. What is this "skill set" you are seeking?

Addditionally, what if these appointed members turn out not to have the skill set you thought, or times change, and you seek out a new and different skill set, how does one get rid of these appointed members?

I can't believe I actually agree with Mikey on something, with that something being the well-deserved tongue-lashing he gave Shive for how he acted as a board member versus what Shive is demanding now.

And Peter: you ran for the BoD, were elected to the BoD, flat out quit the BoD without fulfilling the commitment that you asked the membership to bestow upon you, and have spent immeasurable effort pushing conspiracy theories about the current BoD at every turn since. Smells of sour grapes to me.

How amusing to watch y'all pretend that the BoD has been accountable to the membership! What will it take for y'all to realize the pDGA is simply a funnel from disc golfers' pockets into the connected insiders bank accounts?

There is no accountability because the insiders banking our membership dues do not want it. There never will be either...until the pDGA gets some competition at a national or global level that is. That day grows closer, as the pDGA grows more and more irrelevant each passing day. Now that the players have seen that electing pros to the BoD was equally as futile as electing anyone else, especially old dinosaurs with a penchant for totalitarian suppression of dissenting speech, the die is cast---welcome to irrelevance, pDGA. You have demonstrated that greed kills growth better than Satan himself could have shown.

Best thing I've read on these forums for quite some time.

Nez,

Thanks very much for your input on this matter. We have certainly needed something like this. I believe that the Board's desire to have direct access to skilled personnel is entirely legitimate. Still, that does not mean that these people must be voting Board members.

The key sentence in your post says, "The only way we the Board can get these needed skills presently within their voting membership is hope the members elected to the Board have these needed skills". Not so. Think about Stork, for example. He obviously has a skill set that the Board values highly. He attends all Board meetings and is privy to Board e-discussions, so his skill set is directly available to the voting membership. But he wasn't elected, he was hired. Same goes for Chuck. When you need direct access to his skills, he's there. But you hired him and you don't need to appoint him to the Board.

The job description of any consultant or staff member can include attendance at Board meetings, etc, so their skills can be as directly available as the Board wants. They just wouldn't vote. Nor should they, for the reasons noted in earlier posts.

OK, that's my opinion. Other PDGA members may feel very differently. I wouldn't object to your plan if the membership approved it. What has bothered me most is that the Board wants to take away membership rights and give them to the Board, and has not (until your post) even considered consulting the membership on the matter. It is certainly reassuring that you are now considering that possibility.

Less importantly, the Bylaws do permit Board members to be paid. The relevant sentence is, "The Board of Directors shall have powers in its discretion to contract for and to pay to Directors rendering unusual or exceptional services to the Corporation special compensation appropriate to the value of such services . . ." You could define any skill set as rendering an "unusual or exceptional service" and pay that Director as much as you wanted.

Nez,

Thank you for your post and congrats on the new Guts catch record. Very impressive.

I think a big part of the problem is communication between the board and the members. Or lack of it. Look at 2 recent 'controversies'. First the smoking ban at worlds. This was communicated to the members first by a non-PDGA official in a very misleading way with supporting links to a BOD minutes section about banning medical marijuana at worlds in CA on the lightly used discussion board. After several days of uninformed comments the PDGA finally responded with a post from Brian Graham that confirmed the policy but was so generic it needed to be clarified shortly after. Now we know thhis was done as an image thing. Can we assume our image is now so important we wont accept any more alcohol sponsors? Or hold players parties at bars? Or isnt our image tht important? Is it any wonder the members voiced concerns and confusion?

The second controversy is the appointment of new board members. Again nonexistent communication. To this member it appears this is being rammed through on the shortest timeline possible. To what gain? So far I am still not certain what the rush is. By the way I think adding 2 more board members with staggered 3 year terms is an excellent way to address the turnover issue. The communication to the members is again nonexistent.

In an attempt to get more information from the BOD and ED last week I sent emails to all 8. As of an hour ago I have only heard back from Brian Graham, Cale Leveska, and Todd Andrews with explanations why they think this is the right thing to do. (all thoughtful responses) If this is urgent enough to ram through in 5 days it sure seems like more of the BOD could take the time to respond to members inquirys in that time. Again, poor communication.

The PDGA magazine dedicates several pages to the PDGA for communication. Frankly I was surprised not to see anything about the smoking ban in the last issue. What about using those pages to increase communication to the members? How about something like "the BOD believes we have issue X. This is why we think it is a problem. Here is how we would like to address it. This is what we think our solution will result in.". Or post something like that on the discussion board. If you aren't even going to go to the trouble to do either of those the BOD should at a minimum respond to member's emails in a timely manner.

Until you improve the communication from the BOD to the members you will continue to have issues like this. By the way, I fully understand that your job on the BOD isn't to make me as a member happy. It is to promote, govern, and grow disc golf.

My point is improving communication with the members will make your job MUCH easier.

Thanks

Mr. Kenny, you seem to have completely forgotten how the modern pDGA works, although your plea for a pDGA that is responsive to its dues-paying membership is well-written. Unfortunately there is little if anything that anyone can point to that would show that the pDGA is the least bit responsive to its membership, especially its poor disc golf "pros".

And when I say poor, I mean in a fiscal way. While Mr. Shive was reminiscing about Sportsloop the other day (a scar that yes, we do remember, but so painful it is verboten but once when the Mississippi River spills its banks), why don't we instead reminisce about how charging the pDGA pro members an extra $20 or $25 per year (and now an extra $10 for a colonoscopy---I mean rules exam) was supposed to improve the pDGA tour? Oh, how it has helped. Not!

The NT has dropped to how few tournaments, and the USDGC went kablooey and morphed into a handicapped overrated amateur event? Oh do tell us pDGA, do tell us where our extra contribution to the cause is going...because it certainly isn't showing up in pDGA pro purses. With the price of gas 50% higher than when the pDGA pro tax was passed, it's a wonder how our poor pros even get from tournament to tournament anymore. Do tell us where this great National Tour you sold us is, pDGA. I wonder, will the Worlds payout this year still be less than the 2000 AA edition? That's 11 long years ago when pDGA membership for everyone was about $35 or $40.

So Mr. Kenny, don't be surprised to see Nez & the crew pass some sort of fee increase while they ramrod this latest "improvement" straight down (or up, depending on your perspective) the chute. Got to pay for this new-found "talent" you know. I can't wait to see who they'll hire next. Maybe they'll make one of their new positions "Membership Apologist" and he or she can get paid for making excuses about why the pDGA pro tax hasn't gone where it was promised?

I will have to concede that parts of my "rant" above were misinformed and that I am not up to par on the inner workings of how a BOD really functions. So, I will have to defer inside knowledge to those "in the know", but will still try to bring my points up with some amount of validity.

I am not aware if the positions being created are paid, or not...I do not even know what the positions encompass. I do not know the history of the PDGA and BOD, or any of the major happenings of the past that have shaped it to it's present day form.

What I "think" I know is that people expect too much from a small organization that IMO is trying to do the best possible job in regards to the majority of it's membership. Membership to the PDGA itself is very very very inexpensive and is optional - no one is forced to be a member. The amount of criticism vastly outweighs the offering of ideas, input and solutions. The PDGA has to act professionally while critics come at them from low and childish angles.

Now - without the crying about $$ / NT / Pros / Member's rights etc.... I would like to hear answers to some basic questions...from anyone interested. I am open to learn, but have a very low tolerance for heavily agenda oriented thinking.

(I have included my personal responses)

1. Is all the talk about money / reports / fees just people beating around the bush and not just coming out and saying that the PDGA / BOD is STEALING from the PDGA membership?

A - That is what it seems to me - not sure why people just do not accuse the PDGA / BOD of stealing and have at it from there. I know there is a cry for the financial reports - I get it - when they are released accusers can make a case to back up the accusations.

2. What number of people would you guess pay any attention to the workings of the PDGA or BOD in reality? 30 to 50? Not talking about rules or schedules - the actual "minutes" and subjects of BOD meetings in general.

A - My estimate would be, as above, around 40.

3. Would anyone have gotten their panties in a bunch if the PDGA just said we are hiring X number of new people to do (insert responsibilities here)? Is it the fact that these positions are tied into the BOD? Is it really that big of a deal if they vote among themselves for these positions?

A- I do not think that anyone would have exploded if the positions were not associated with the BOD and they were not being voted on at all. I think that the BOD is voting on the positions themselves as to not have anyone question if ONE BOD member is pulling all the strings.

4. With all the conspiracy theories floating around and being created here - especially in regards to the BOD and PDGA membership voting...how many people even vote for the elections of the BOD in the first place? How many people even know there IS a BOD?

A - I do not even know how many active members there are...I would guess that around 5% of whatever the number is actually voted.

5. Does anyone think that the amount of expected "rights" of the membership are very inflated, even borderline insane?

A - I do think that the expected "rights" of the membership are too much - IMO we can give the people putting in the time and effort some room to move without every step being questioned.

I am not personally Pro or Con PDGA --- I am more in the camp of realizing that he PDGA consists of a small group of people attempting to handle a huge amount of work that consists of so many, different and constantly changing, aspects that they have earned, and should be given, a reasonable amount of patience, understanding and empathy from the membership.

or

I wonder why a thread like this, and so so many others in of the same nature, are not simplified and presented without the backhanded disrespect? How about the title of the thread being - "Questions about the upcoming BOD vote" and inside the thread just ask the @%$#ing questions.

Why is there only a 5 day window?
Why is only the BOD voting?
What are the positions?
Are the positions going to be paid and how much?

Just leave your AGENDA aside and ask what you would like to know.

AND - I do not even think the PDGA needs to answer any of the above questions - or halt the crazed theories about the BOD takeover of the world - or the super spy-like way the financial reports have not shown up yet (maybe they are in $%#@ing area 51) - or even entertain responding to some of the discussion board rhetoric in general - or ask what basement this "other" big movement that may take the PDGA's place is coming from - or the whining about World's $$$ <where agenda meets ignorance - or a "money-grab" $10 REALLY??? - or pretty much anything like these petty little gripes that **** me off, while a small number of people try to remain sane running the best thing to happen to organized disc golf in it's short history.

I can not shake my usual ideal - That if you do not like the show, change the channel... but do not continue to watch the same show with your only purpose being to constantly call in and [email protected] about the show you are CHOOSING to watch.

I am done typing now....Brandon

I think a big part of the problem is communication between the board and the members. Or lack of it. Look at 2 recent 'controversies'. First the smoking ban at worlds. This was communicated to the members first by a non-PDGA official in a very misleading way with supporting links to a BOD minutes section about banning medical marijuana at worlds in CA on the lightly used discussion board.


You just don't know when to quit, do you Pete Kenny?

The blanket no-smoking policy was first clarified with a PDGA board member and then a link was posted to the BoD minutes showing confirmation of the no-smoking policy. How come everyone else understood it but you? How come you were the only person who felt it was 'misleading,' Pete? Your accusation of posting 'nonsense', and 'ridiculous claims' and 'erroneously posting that the PDGA BOD has taken such an outrageous position,' was immediately shown to be completely false, and yet you still stubbornly continue down this path, unwilling to apologize.

Are you sure you want to add wsfaplau to your Ignore List? Yes.

Yawn

I can not shake my usual ideal - That if you do not like the show, change the channel... but do not continue to watch the same show with your only purpose being to constantly call in and [email protected] about the show you are CHOOSING to watch.

I am done typing now....Brandon

Changing the channel isn't an option for most, as it is the only channel we have.

They should answer basic questions, as it serves their interests and the member's interests.

While I don't subscribe to a lot of innuendo shared by some of the usual posters on these topics and certainly don't expect the board to turn a turd into gold, I do think there is a plausible basis for much of the criticism which comes their way.

I also don't get why people get so concerned about people complaining. If their complaints aren't legit, quickly dispel them. Just assuming their complaints aren't legit isn't enough.

While we wait for news about the Board deliberations, and the call for Board candidates, I have had time to do some of the research that Brian suggested.

Brian refers us to the impressive credentials of Jack Kelly and Greg Downey. Mr. Kelly, an outside expert, appeared at the recent Summit meeting and told the Board why outside experts should be appointed to it. Mr. Downey, also an outside expert, was recently appointed to the USA Ultimate Board.

I refer you to the impressive credentials of the six members of SportsLoop's Advisory Board (http://www.sportsloop.com/sportsloop/abo_advisory.asp). I'm sure that any of them would be happy to tell the Board why outside experts should be appointed to it, and perhaps even offer their services. Does that mean we should appoint them?

Brian suggests that we should appoint Board members because USA Ultimate did it. Ultimate is a team sport without professionals. USA Ultimate has about twice our membership and has 213 staff members. How much like USA Ultimate should we become?

Our Board sets the policies that bind the entire membership. Therefore Board members should be familiar with membership concerns, and should be accountable to the membership. Outside appointed Board members would be voting on issues they know nothing about, and would not be accountable to the membership. Therefore they have no business on our Board.

Thank you Peter,
I think any outside expert that recommends the use of outside experts, should recommend someone other than themselves.

If there are experts willing to join the BOD (an unpaid position) to fulfill a specialized function, then what is the reason to appoint them to the BOD? They can volunteer as unpaid consultants.

Let's keep the BOD as a membership elected BOD.

We have a number of paid experts that support our BOD and the entire PDGA. If we need more experts, then the BOD should explain the need to the membership and budget accordingly.

Also these experts should face other experts in a bidding process for any positions. And all positions should be subject to regular review, if not an actual timeline of service.

Putt it Right!
BoB

Based in info I learned reading about the upcoming PDGA elections it appears the BOD did indeed vote to appoint 2 new BOD members.

The BOD has appointed a nominating committee to identify worthy candidates.

Can someone please inform the members who was appointed to the nominating committee?

The PDGA Board recently amended the Bylaws to remove the right of the membership to elect all of the Board members, and instead allowing it (the Board) to appoint some of its own members.

I need volunteers who would be willing to circulate petitions among local PDGA members. The petition requests that the membership be allowed to vote on the amendment.

The membership should be consulted because:
1) The administration made no effective case that the amendment is necessary, and there are very good reasons to believe that it is ill-founded. You can review this discussion on the "Picking and Packing the Board" thread on the "Other PDGA Topics" Forum of the Discussion Board.
2) The Board should not remove such important and fundamental membership rights without the full "advice and consent" of the membership.
3) The Board acted with deliberate haste and stealth in forcing the amendment. It was all over in five days, and few PDGA members were even aware that it was being done.
4) If the Board can get away with this, they could easily remove other important membership rights. Next year, for example, they could vote to appoint all Board members.

At this point a petition is our only recourse. We need about 2000 signatures. If I could get about 100 volunteers from different parts of the country, each one would need only 20-30 signatures. If you would be willing to do this, please contact me ([email protected]).

Thanks,
Peter

I would rather spend my time trying to get signatures to install a course at my local forest preserve that has voted against disc golf.

This is why I don't visit this message board every day like I used to. If we'd all use our time to promote the PDGA and disc golf in general we might be able to push this game forward. Instead of replying to this thread I should be e-mailing a local park district that may not know about disc golf.

Amen to that cevalkyrie. Hope things are going well down there.

I am calling off the petition drive. I have just realized that it is pointless. The Board can now easily block any member-driven initiative. This is mainly because it takes months to complete a petition drive, but the Board can amend the Bylaws in five days.

Regardless of who wins the at-large Board positions this summer, next year's Board will still be controlled by the holdovers plus their appointees. Even if a petition drive led to the defeat of the "appointment" amendment, the Board could reinstate the amendment five days later. They could even amend the Bylaws to remove the right to petition.

I thank those who have volunteered to circulate petitions.

So why the secrecy on who is on the nominating committee to appoint new BOD members?

According the the PDGA mission statement one of the values of the PDGA is transparency.

FAIL!