Ok, I'll participate in the public discussions regarding BOD candidate platforms. Mine hasn't changed much over the years. I spent 6 years as a volunteer to the PDGA, including over 5 years on the board, and 4 as President and Commissioner.

I have put in countless hours of my time to help the organization and sport grow. I was responsible for taking the research and pilot work Chuck Kennedy and Roger Smith did, and getting the organization to make the biggest change in the competition structure in its history. I then managed and worked on the technical implementation to get the current ratings system and online scoring operational. I consider that my biggest contribution to the sport to date.

During that time, I had to deal with a ton of politics and challenges. There were times that I got very stressed out and asked myself, why would I choose to be participating on a board that gives me more stress than my day job or other life challenges? It's not easy being in a leadership position of an organization like the PDGA. I commend all the individuals that have done it and are continuing to be willing to do it in the future.

At the core of a lot of the discussions I have seen going on in the other threads (and over the years), is what level of transparency and control should be in place for this type of organization. There are obviously opinions that range from one extreme to the other. I fall somewhere in the middle. Some of the things that I feel strongly about are:

1. The PDGA needs to be run as a business, and needs to be competitive. If not, there is a risk that some other organization could replace it someday.

2. The organization needs to be able to have some control over the makeup of the board, and not have it resort to a popularity contest.

3. There is nothing that requires the organization to put up all contracts for competitive bids, so use of an RFPs should be at management and board discretion.

4. The organization should follow the same disclosure guidelines as other similar (size and type) organizations. For example, we do not need to publish employee salaries and all the details of executive sessions at board meetings.

If you disagree with my position, feel free to vote for one of the other candidates. I will continue to work closely with the PDGA to improve it's technical capabilities and to support the growth of the sport.

I do know that I know how to work with a board and how to get decisions made. Under my tenure, we pushed through some of the biggest changes that have fueled and supported the growth over the 10 years. That continues to be my goal, whether I am on the board or not.

Fire away with any questions. I'm busy supporting the mobile app launch and helping with the new website, but I will do my best to check in an respond periodically (but probably not every day).

-Theo Pozzy

Theo,

You've cited your IT abilities and history with the PDGA website, yet the PDGA website is one of the most frustrating/annoying/disappointing services of the PDGA.

I don't know the details, so invite you to explain---to what degree are you responsible for the misfunction of the current website, and/or is there reason to believe your return to the board would improve it?

For many years, I was responsible for all of the IT operations, including the back-office system and the website. I negotiated the transition of pdga.com from private ownership to the organization. I then managed the implementation of a dynamic data-driven website from 2002 through 2007, which included the implementation of the online tournament results, live scoring, and the ratings system.

In 2008, after I finished my 5-year board tenure, I spearheaded the effort to move the website to a new content management platform (Drupal). As part of that transition, we hired Ciphent to develop and maintain the site.

The new site enabled us to provide a new level of content to the disc golf community, including frequent articles, photos, videos, and other announcements, without requiring the techies to manage and publish the content.

In 2008, we were depending on Drupal version 5, as version 6 was being developed and launched. Over the next few years, the PDGA investment in IT was flat, and didn't include the funding for major upgrades.

Last September (2010), I made a presentation to the PDGA board, and explained that the investment in IT wasn't keeping up with the technology or the growth of the organization. The board responded positively, and made a decision to significantly increase the investment in our IT infrastructure.

We have been working hard since then to make that investment into all aspects of the technology. We have implemented real-time integration between our fulfillment partner (Breiner Enterprise, Inc) and the PDGA, an iPhone app, and a major upgrade of the website.

For the website upgrade, we are going from Drupal 5 to Drupal 7, a huge jump of two major versions. One of the business drivers for this upgrade is to address the performance problems we have been dealing with in our legacy (and now mostly unsupported) code base.

If we were a larger organization, we would have a larger budget for managing our website. But we're not. We have at least transitioned form depending 100% on an unpredictable volunteer base to using commercial consultants and partners. Has the transition been perfect? No, and I'll take accountability for some of that. But I think we have also made major strides towards a sustainable infrastructure.

Yes, we're going to have to weather a few more bumps, but I think that in a few months, we're going to have a website that not only has solid performance, but is a platform for a lot of major improvements, including more social networking, better mobile device support, and enhanced features for all users.

1. The PDGA needs to be run as a business, and needs to be competitive. If not, there is a risk that some other organization could replace it someday.


what is it being competitive against? as i see it much of the policies over the last few years have been geared towards driven members away. where it was once scoffed at anytime someone brought up starting a new organization, it is now being seriously considered by many. the current PDGA strategy is a self-defeatist one.
saying that membership is up and growing doesnt really mean people like the PDGAs direction or actions. most are like myself. they play more than 5 tourns a year and are only looking to save on that $10. ratings (and lets be honest thats really the only other reason to join besides non-member BS at tourns) are nice but when the overwhelming majority of tourns available are PDGA sanctioned, competitive dgers have little offered to them besides the PDGA.


2. The organization needs to be able to have some control over the makeup of the board, and not have it resort to a popularity contest.


the organization as i see it is the membership. they have control by electing (your popularity contest) BoD members that share their views or goals. are you really trying to say that the staff and you need to have more control and influence on the BoD?


3. There is nothing that requires the organization to put up all contracts for competitive bids, so use of an RFPs should be at management and board discretion.


i see this as a shining example of abuse of position. how wouldnt RFPs be beneficial in all areas concern money spent? maximizing $$$ would be in the top of my concerns. there could be far more surplus $$$ than there is now.


4. The organization should follow the same disclosure guidelines as other similar (size and type) organizations. For example, we do not need to publish employee salaries and all the details of executive sessions at board meetings.


first, id like to know what organizations you feel we are alike? second, who cares what others do, we are a unique culture onto our own. you know full well that this sport has roots in the "hippie" type culture. they wanted to hold their governing bodies accountable and wanted more transperacy. i honestly could care less what you or anyone else makes. but i want to know why certain decisions are being made. i want to know what is being discussed.
peter shrive has called it secrecy, which i disagree with. the information many desire is attainable but only through delayed, non-accountable methods (personal emails). the problem lies in that the current board thinks little of the members as a whole, not a surprise many foolishly through away their rights. so you share only what you view as being necessary for us to know. the minutes and discussions should be posted timely after a meeting or discussion (not months afterwards only after being badgered). committees and BoD members should be posted and held accountable for their votes and motions. the popularity contest you claim above is created by the lack of information. PDGA members know very little about what anyone in the PDGA higher ups do. so when it comes time to vote how can they really find a true track record for past candidates? how can those candidates even address the current issues if they and the members do not know?

what is it being competitive against?
It's entirely possible that an organization could start sanctioning tournaments in a new way, possibly by subsidizing them with big infusions of cash/prize money. They may do it as a loss leader position to gain market share in sanctioning, with the intent of becoming the next generation of governance for the sport. If they were successful, events could start switching in large numbers away from PDGA sanctioning. The loss in revenue would require the PDGA to abandon its long-running efforts to promote and market the sport. It would leave a fractured community with multiple sanctioning bodies.

I dealt with similar situations in different competitive arenas twice in my life outside of disc golf. One of them was cat breeding. My wife and I bred show cats in the early 90's, and we had to make decisions whether to pursue status in one of two major cat competition associations, The International Cat Association (TICA) and Cat Fancier's Association (CFA). We had to decide which one to get involved in or to focus on, and having to deal with both of them was a drag.

The other area I had to deal with this was in figure skating. Both of my daughters were competitive figure skaters. We had a similar decision to deal with regarding United States Figure Skating (USFS) and the International Skating Institute (ISI). They both hold sanctioned events, and we had to decide whether we wanted to compete in events for one, the other, or both.

I think disc golf is too small a sport to be dealing with that anytime soon, so I think we should be taking proactive measures to ensure that the PDGA is the "goto" organization for sanctioned disc golf events.
the organization as i see it is the membership. they have control by electing (your popularity contest) BoD members that share their views or goals. are you really trying to say that the staff and you need to have more control and influence on the BoD?
It's not a matter of control and influence. What I want to try to prevent is the members voting for a someone because they recognize the name, rather than selecting someone who is really qualified to do a good job in the position.

Imagine if we had an election where the top 5 players in the sport ran for office, and 5 unknown people with good local involvement and strong sports management backgrounds ran for the board. Who do you think would get elected?
i see this as a shining example of abuse of position. how wouldnt RFPs be beneficial in all areas concern money spent? maximizing $$$ would be in the top of my concerns. there could be far more surplus $$$ than there is now.

It's not realistic to do an RFP for every service the organization needs to invest in. So what are the guidelines for which ones the organization does RFPs for? What if the PDGA has a long-standing and successful strategic partnership with a vendor? Should the organization always be required to go through a lengthy and costly RFP process? I don't think that's efficient. I think the executive management and board should be able to decide on when an RFP is necessary, rather than always requiring it, or setting out some complex rules or guidelines.

first, id like to know what organizations you feel we are alike? second, who cares what others do, we are a unique culture onto our own. you know full well that this sport has roots in the "hippie" type culture. they wanted to hold their governing bodies accountable and wanted more transperacy. i honestly could care less what you or anyone else makes. but i want to know why certain decisions are being made. i want to know what is being discussed.
peter shrive has called it secrecy, which i disagree with. the information many desire is attainable but only through delayed, non-accountable methods (personal emails). the problem lies in that the current board thinks little of the members as a whole, not a surprise many foolishly through away their rights. so you share only what you view as being necessary for us to know. the minutes and discussions should be posted timely after a meeting or discussion (not months afterwards only after being badgered). committees and BoD members should be posted and held accountable for their votes and motions. the popularity contest you claim above is created by the lack of information. PDGA members know very little about what anyone in the PDGA higher ups do. so when it comes time to vote how can they really find a true track record for past candidates? how can those candidates even address the current issues if they and the members do not know?
The organization has done more and more over the last ten years to communicate the decisions and decision-making process to its members and to the disc golf community. There is no way to involve a large group of people in the decision-making process itself. It's just not cost-effective or timely.

You make one claim that I really have a hard time with. You claim that "the problem lies in that the current board thinks little of the members as a whole, not a surprise many foolishly through away their rights.". I suspect you have no evidence to support this broad and accusatory claim. I have worked with many board members, and if there's anything that I think ties us together, it's that we are all passionate about the sport, the organization, and it's members. Why else would we dedicate that much volunteer time?

-Theo

I am not clear on how the appointments work. One question I have is whether a board made up of elected members who no longer wish to have the appointees of former elected board members on the board could find themselves unable to appoint different members of their choosing. Can the elected board members unappoint the appointees? Do appointees get a vote in appointing (or unappointing) appointees?

I also am puzzled by how difficult it would be to change the appointment rule down the line. If the board is voting on whether to change it's rules to no longer allow appointed board members, do appointees get a vote on that? If so, wouldn't the membership have to flood the board with electees who want to get rid of appointments in order for it to happen? Would it take three years for that to happen with the three year terms?

Thanks for discussing these points.

I am not clear on how the appointments work. One question I have is whether a board made up of elected members who no longer wish to have the appointees of former elected board members on the board could find themselves unable to appoint different members of their choosing. Can the elected board members unappoint the appointees? Do appointees get a vote in appointing (or unappointing) appointees?

I also am puzzled by how difficult it would be to change the appointment rule down the line. If the board is voting on whether to change it's rules to no longer allow appointed board members, do appointees get a vote on that? If so, wouldn't the membership have to flood the board with electees who want to get rid of appointments in order for it to happen? Would it take three years for that to happen with the three year terms?

Thanks for discussing these points.

Jennifer,

I am not that clear myself. That was a new process put into place by the current board. In the past, the board was always able to make changes of membership during a term to replace a board member that resigned. I think it required unanimous agreement among the remaining members, but I would have to check the bylaws to confirm that.

I'm pretty sure the new main intent of the new bylaws is to allow the board a little bit of control over the makeup of the board. There are many very qualified candidates out there that would be major contributors to the organization, but because of the current "popularity contest" nature of the voting, would never make it via the voting process. Examples would be someone from outside of the sport (e.g., a parks & rec manager, a sports marketing executive, etc.) that doesn't play. If such a candidate were to run against three of our top touring pros, I can tell you which way that vote is likely to go.

-Theo

Thank-you for the explanation. I was thinking that a major advantage of being able to appoint a board member or two is the ability to attract interest from a television or cable executive or other individual having the power to help promote the sport by airing tournament footage or creating a reality show, for example, where rising pros compete for a sponsorship. That idividual may require that he or she be placed on the board, but be unwilling to run for the position for various reasons, including time constraints. But what if the deal goes south, or the coverage is not very positive? Can that individual then be removed? If the terms of such an individual's resignation could be worked into a contract, then that's great. But on it's face, the new rule looks like a decision that could prove very difficult, and even practically impossible, to change later. Personally, I would be more comfortable with appointments if there is some sort of sunset provision worked in, where the elected members have to vote annualy to keep it alive. Also, I have a concern that elected members voted off the board could then be appointed back to the board immediately. Are there any safeguards in place that address these possible, if unlikely, scenarios?

Thank-you for the explanation. I was thinking that a major advantage of being able to appoint a board member or two is the ability to attract interest from a television or cable executive or other individual having the power to help promote the sport by airing tournament footage or creating a reality show, for example, where rising pros compete for a sponsorship. That idividual may require that he or she be placed on the board, but be unwilling to run for the position for various reasons, including time constraints. But what if the deal goes south, or the coverage is not very positive? Can that individual then be removed? If the terms of such an individual's resignation could be worked into a contract, then that's great. But on it's face, the new rule looks like a decision that could prove very difficult, and even practically impossible, to change later. Personally, I would be more comfortable with appointments if there is some sort of sunset provision worked in, where the elected members have to vote annualy to keep it alive. Also, I have a concern that elected members voted off the board could then be appointed back to the board immediately. Are there any safeguards in place that address these possible, if unlikely, scenarios?

I agree with you on this point. I'm not sure what the rules will be, but I'm all for the board having the ability to easily (e.g., with a majority vote) remove an appointed member.

For your IT work on behalf of the PDGA, were you getting paid before your September 2010 presentation to the board that resulted in the board's decision to "significantly increase the investment in our IT infrastructure." I have verified that you are now receiving compensation for your work, but not an amount. Let me you ask directly, "How much are you getting paid for this work? Would you continue to get paid for this if you were elected? If so, would you recuse yourself from voting on a budget that contained your compensation within it?

As someone who served on the Board for many years while taking a chunk of PDGA cash for Disc Golf World News, I don't believe you're automatically in a conflict of interest. However, without full disclosure, I think the potential for conflict increases. I find it troubling that you have not explicitly disclosed your financial relationship with the PDGA, even if what you are earning is not that much and a good deal for the org.

A couple of more questions for you.

When the revised PDGA.com is launched, will this message board be eliminated?

When I last served on the board from 2008-10, I proposed that at PDGA Board Summits, board members buy their own alcoholic beverages. (I had and have no issue with meals, some of them at nice restaurants. We do volunteer our time for these 8-9 hour working meetings.) This proposal was largely inspired by you when you first got elected to the board and I was amazed that you bought a bottle of wine at dinner during a summit in Scottsdale in the spring of 2002. This tradition had been carried forward by your fellow Oregonian oenophiles, Todd Andrews and Chris Bellinger. My proposal failed to pass 3-3 with one abstention. (The other no vote besides Todd's and Chris's was Board candidate Bob Decker's. Board candidate Feldberg, Juliana Korver, and I voted yes. Matt Gillis abstained). If elected, will the membership still be buying you bottles of wine?

Not surprisingly, I will not be voting for you. However, I appreciate your IT work for the PDGA and honestly believe this is where you can be the most effective. If you are not on the Board, perhaps you could continue to do more for the site and the PDGA as an openly paid IT consultant.

Rick Rothstein
#2458
PDGA Board Member
1987-1990, 1994-2002, 2008-2010

For many years, I was responsible for all of the IT operations, including the back-office system and the website. I negotiated the transition of pdga.com from private ownership to the organization. I then managed the implementation of a dynamic data-driven website from 2002 through 2007, which included the implementation of the online tournament results, live scoring, and the ratings system.

In 2008, after I finished my 5-year board tenure, I spearheaded the effort to move the website to a new content management platform (Drupal). As part of that transition, we hired Ciphent to develop and maintain the site.

The new site enabled us to provide a new level of content to the disc golf community, including frequent articles, photos, videos, and other announcements, without requiring the techies to manage and publish the content.

In 2008, we were depending on Drupal version 5, as version 6 was being developed and launched. Over the next few years, the PDGA investment in IT was flat, and didn't include the funding for major upgrades.

Last September (2010), I made a presentation to the PDGA board, and explained that the investment in IT wasn't keeping up with the technology or the growth of the organization. The board responded positively, and made a decision to significantly increase the investment in our IT infrastructure.

We have been working hard since then to make that investment into all aspects of the technology. We have implemented real-time integration between our fulfillment partner (Breiner Enterprise, Inc) and the PDGA, an iPhone app, and a major upgrade of the website.

For the website upgrade, we are going from Drupal 5 to Drupal 7, a huge jump of two major versions. One of the business drivers for this upgrade is to address the performance problems we have been dealing with in our legacy (and now mostly unsupported) code base.

If we were a larger organization, we would have a larger budget for managing our website. But we're not. We have at least transitioned form depending 100% on an unpredictable volunteer base to using commercial consultants and partners. Has the transition been perfect? No, and I'll take accountability for some of that. But I think we have also made major strides towards a sustainable infrastructure.

Yes, we're going to have to weather a few more bumps, but I think that in a few months, we're going to have a website that not only has solid performance, but is a platform for a lot of major improvements, including more social networking, better mobile device support, and enhanced features for all users.

I agree with you on this point. I'm not sure what the rules will be, but I'm all for the board having the ability to easily (e.g., with a majority vote) remove an appointed member.

Wouldn't having the ability to easily remove a board member just force the appointed board member to go along with what they think the board majority wants? How would making some board members be rubber stamps for the majority be in the best interest of the members? How does having 2 different levels of board members add value?

Wouldn't having the ability to easily remove a board member just force the appointed board member to go along with what they think the board majority wants? How would making some board members be rubber stamps for the majority be in the best interest of the members? How does having 2 different levels of board members add value?

I understand exactly what you are saying. If appointees can be voted off if they vote yes or no on another item, then they do not have real voting power. The minutes indicate that the board voted on the issue of whther they will be full board members, and they voted that they will indeed be full board members. So I don't see how they could ever be deappointed in view of that vote.

However, the same holds true for appointees relying on the board for reappointment at the end of their terms. They have to stay in the electees' good graces to get reappointed. Except the other appointees can vote to appoint them too. And they can vote to appoint themselves if I am not mistaken. Somewhere in there, it becomes either too easy to get rid of an appointee or too dificult. :confused:

The Board can get rid of any member whether elected (and presumably appointed) even without cause. From Bylaws second part of section 3.12 ... Any Board member may be removed, with or without cause, upon the unanimous affirmative vote of the entire Board of Directors. In addition, the Board shall cause a vote of the members to be held to recall any director upon the written petition of not less than ten percent (10%) of the Active members calling for such vote. In the event of a vote of the members regarding the recall of a Director, the proposed change shall be approved upon the affirmative vote of not less than sixty-six percent (66%) of participating voting members.

Wow, the more I learn about the workings and actions of the board the less I wish I knew.

From what I understand, the Bylaws are plain vanilla boilerplate for non-profits. Nothing they've done is unusual in terms of special bylaws or exercising options like having some appointed members.

I thought that provision about removing another director by unanimous vote required that the director being removed abstain, be absent, dead, etc. Otherwise, he or she can just vote not to remove themselves and the vote is not unanimous.

Or is there something preventing them from voting on the issue of their removal? If they can't vote, then the other bylaws would seem to empower the board to remove any board members they want and appoint anyone they want to carry out the remaining term of service.

I'm very interested in Senor Pozzy's response to RR's queries. Some very good questions there.

One from me: Are the pDGA members footing the bill for a bottle of wine for each BOD member, or do they share one bottle?

When the revised PDGA.com is launched, will this message board be eliminated?

Rick,

I don't want to speak for Theo, but my understanding (based on reading BoD Minutes from the May 2011 (http://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/minutes-from-may-2011-teleconference) and June 2011 Teleconferences (http://www.pdga.com/pdga-documents/minutes-from-june-2011-teleconference)) is that when the PDGA transitions to the new website and social media-based functionality, we will no longer communicate through a traditional message board interface in the vein of the message boards produced by vBulletin, phpBB, bbPress, Simple Machines forums, etc. which are the ones most commonly utilized on the internet these days.

I'm very interested in Senor Pozzy's response to RR's queries. Some very good questions there.

One from me: Are the pDGA members footing the bill for a bottle of wine for each BOD member, or do they share one bottle?

The whole wine thing was blown out of proportion. It should never have become something the board of directors dealt with in a vote.

The PDGA has provided meals for the board and invited guests at every summit I have attended (going back almost 10 years now). One of the traditions is a meal at Rae's Coastal Cafe in Augusta. There are usually 20 or more people at the big dinner. The PDGA foots the bill, including any beverages (alcohol or not) consumed at the dinner. That includes wine as well as beer.

A lot of people know I enjoy good wine. I have a big temperature-controlled wine cellar with some very old and expensive wines. However, I know that you don't buy expensive wines for a large group of people, especially when its being paid for out of an organization's budget. For the record, I have people ask me to select wines at big business dinners I attend for my day job, and I am always very careful to get the best valued wines.

If you look at the amount of time the PDGA board and volunteers put in, and then look at what the PDGA pays for food and/or liquor for them at a small number of dinners each year, it's an insignificant "perk" or compensation for their efforts. Some people don't drink alcohol at the dinners, and some people don't drink wine. I personally don't like beer, so I order wine. And wine is cheaper by the bottle when multiple people are drinking it. It is definitely not a bottle per person per dinner!

I think this issue, when it came to a head, was a serious waste of time for the Board of directors. They have much more important things to deal with.

For your IT work on behalf of the PDGA, were you getting paid before your September 2010 presentation to the board that resulted in the board's decision to "significantly increase the investment in our IT infrastructure." I have verified that you are now receiving compensation for your work, but not an amount. Let me you ask directly, "How much are you getting paid for this work? Would you continue to get paid for this if you were elected? If so, would you recuse yourself from voting on a budget that contained your compensation within it?

As someone who served on the Board for many years while taking a chunk of PDGA cash for Disc Golf World News, I don't believe you're automatically in a conflict of interest. However, without full disclosure, I think the potential for conflict increases. I find it troubling that you have not explicitly disclosed your financial relationship with the PDGA, even if what you are earning is not that much and a good deal for the org.

A couple of more questions for you.

When the revised PDGA.com is launched, will this message board be eliminated?

When I last served on the board from 2008-10, I proposed that at PDGA Board Summits, board members buy their own alcoholic beverages. (I had and have no issue with meals, some of them at nice restaurants. We do volunteer our time for these 8-9 hour working meetings.) This proposal was largely inspired by you when you first got elected to the board and I was amazed that you bought a bottle of wine at dinner during a summit in Scottsdale in the spring of 2002. This tradition had been carried forward by your fellow Oregonian oenophiles, Todd Andrews and Chris Bellinger. My proposal failed to pass 3-3 with one abstention. (The other no vote besides Todd's and Chris's was Board candidate Bob Decker's. Board candidate Feldberg, Juliana Korver, and I voted yes. Matt Gillis abstained). If elected, will the membership still be buying you bottles of wine?

Not surprisingly, I will not be voting for you. However, I appreciate your IT work for the PDGA and honestly believe this is where you can be the most effective. If you are not on the Board, perhaps you could continue to do more for the site and the PDGA as an openly paid IT consultant.

Rick Rothstein
#2458
PDGA Board Member
1987-1990, 1994-2002, 2008-2010

Rick,

I am getting paid for the technical work I do for the PDGA, and I have been since. My rate to the PDGA is half (or less) what it would be if I was working for a for-profit organization. Any time I spend working with the IT Steering Committee or the board is volunteer time. I didn't charge anything for my time at the 2010 Fall Summit Meeting. I expect to continue working the same way if I'm elected to the board. I will just be putting in more volunteer time.

I plan on completing the standard conflict-of-interest statement if I'm elected. I will recuse myself from any votes that the board deems create a conflict of interest.

As far as the discussion board goes, I have not been in support of shutting it down in the past, and I'm not now. I think the PDGA needs to be at the center of the disc golf social nework, and I think a discussion forum is one piece of the puzzle. I will be working closely with Mike Dietrich (the PDGA iPhone app developer), who is going to be leading a discussion about social networking at the Fall Summit. We want the PDGA as the center of a much larger disc golf community.

-Theo

I expect anyone with a conflict of interest, to recuse themselves from voting without the Board telling them if they should or not.

BOB