PDGA Discussion Board - View Single Post

petershive · Oct 05 2011, 03:59 PM

Everyone,

I've been on the Board for a bit more than a month, and recently returned from the Fall Summit. Although Board Member Peter must necessarily be far more circumspect than Board Candidate Peter, this is a good time to open communication with the membership. I can talk more about the Summit than I could about teleconferences, because any PDGA member is free to attend Summits and could thus have received the information from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

I am not the spokesman for the Board. Rebecca Duffy was elected to that position. The recollections and opinions expressed on this thread are entirely my own. I do this out of a sense of personal accountability to the membership, and a desire to get feedback about issues of interest. I can learn a lot from this kind of interaction, as I did during the campaign. I have more time than most Board Members, so it is easier for me to do it.

I ran as a "reform" candidate, so I'll start with some issues I raised during the campaign. Considering the aggressive nature of my campaign, I have been received very cordially by the Board, and heard respectfully. Nez's style as Board President is to fully engage every member, even those who express minority opinions. I have been happily surprised to find that the Board is (and has been) more concerned with many of my "reform" issues than I ever expected. Let's look in detail at some of these:

The Website: The Board is well aware of the sorry state of the website, and has been working on potential solutions for a long time. The problems stem mostly from lack of continuity caused by the buyout of the original contractor, and by the desire to launch a new website that offers more modern capabilities. I don't see a quick and easy fix here, although I'm cheerfully willing to be surprised. But if it does take a long time, it will not be due to lack of effort on the Board's part.

PDGA Signup: The PDGA online signup fee structure will be changed as of January 2012. All event entrants will pay $1.50 plus 4% of their entry fee. In my opinion, this best reflects the actual costs of these transactions, and is thus fairest for all divisions. In addition, some of the ambiguous language in the sanctioning agreements will be changed.

Appointed Board Members: I originally saw a dark purpose in the Bylaws change that permitted this, but I'm much more comfortable with it now. Unless we can somehow create a better-informed electorate, I actually favor appointing some Board Members. That, as many of you know, is a huge shift for me.

Communication: We talked about this at some length. The Board would like more communication with the membership, but this is a very complex matter. As I may hold minority views on many issues, the Board might well wish that someone else wanted to do the communicating instead of me. For my part, I don't want to sacrifice effective working relationships on the Board or introduce unnecessary contentious elements into Board deliberations. The Board seems quite willing for me to give this a try, so long as I observe the protocols that bind all members of nonprofit Boards.

So much for old business. I'll comment on some interesting new developments when I have more time next week.

Oct 05 2011, 03:59 PM	#7
petershive PDGA Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Laramie, Wyoming Posts: 402	Everyone, I've been on the Board for a bit more than a month, and recently returned from the Fall Summit. Although Board Member Peter must necessarily be far more circumspect than Board Candidate Peter, this is a good time to open communication with the membership. I can talk more about the Summit than I could about teleconferences, because any PDGA member is free to attend Summits and could thus have received the information from the horses' mouths, so to speak. I am not the spokesman for the Board. Rebecca Duffy was elected to that position. The recollections and opinions expressed on this thread are entirely my own. I do this out of a sense of personal accountability to the membership, and a desire to get feedback about issues of interest. I can learn a lot from this kind of interaction, as I did during the campaign. I have more time than most Board Members, so it is easier for me to do it. I ran as a "reform" candidate, so I'll start with some issues I raised during the campaign. Considering the aggressive nature of my campaign, I have been received very cordially by the Board, and heard respectfully. Nez's style as Board President is to fully engage every member, even those who express minority opinions. I have been happily surprised to find that the Board is (and has been) more concerned with many of my "reform" issues than I ever expected. Let's look in detail at some of these: The Website: The Board is well aware of the sorry state of the website, and has been working on potential solutions for a long time. The problems stem mostly from lack of continuity caused by the buyout of the original contractor, and by the desire to launch a new website that offers more modern capabilities. I don't see a quick and easy fix here, although I'm cheerfully willing to be surprised. But if it does take a long time, it will not be due to lack of effort on the Board's part. PDGA Signup: The PDGA online signup fee structure will be changed as of January 2012. All event entrants will pay $1.50 plus 4% of their entry fee. In my opinion, this best reflects the actual costs of these transactions, and is thus fairest for all divisions. In addition, some of the ambiguous language in the sanctioning agreements will be changed. Appointed Board Members: I originally saw a dark purpose in the Bylaws change that permitted this, but I'm much more comfortable with it now. Unless we can somehow create a better-informed electorate, I actually favor appointing some Board Members. That, as many of you know, is a huge shift for me. Communication: We talked about this at some length. The Board would like more communication with the membership, but this is a very complex matter. As I may hold minority views on many issues, the Board might well wish that someone else wanted to do the communicating instead of me. For my part, I don't want to sacrifice effective working relationships on the Board or introduce unnecessary contentious elements into Board deliberations. The Board seems quite willing for me to give this a try, so long as I observe the protocols that bind all members of nonprofit Boards. So much for old business. I'll comment on some interesting new developments when I have more time next week.