Ask Board member Peter Shive

[petershive]

Everyone,

I have promised to maintain an informative and responsive link with the membership, and this is the best place to do it. Here are the reasons why I believe it is a good idea:

1) Although it has limits, I believe in a policy of transparency, communication and accountability.
2) The membership elected me as their representative on the Board. They deserve some accounting of what I do there, if only so that they can judge the quality of my service.
3) It helps me a lot because it works both ways. If members know what is going on, they can often provide input that would be useful in making decisions. So I learn from it.
4) It can help the Board by cutting down information glitches and by assuring the membership that the Board is listening.

There must be ground rules for something like this. This isn't like a gossip column, or a campaign platform, or even like a newspaper editorial. I need first of all to consider the feelings of my fellow Board members, who may feel uncomfortable about posting themselves and understandably edgy that I do it. I expect that we will discuss this issue at the Fall Summit meeting (Sep 26-28), and I hope that we can set up ground rules that are agreeable to all of us. Until then I will be reasonably cautious. But not mute.

At this time I welcome your comments and questions. Just keep in mind that I may withhold some responses until after the Summit meeting.

[16670]

do you know the results from the no-smoking "test" at worlds?
i still dont know what they were testing ,public opinion?
since it was a test id like to know the results or what results they think there were.
id like to know before i renew this next year or i might test my option to not.

[petershive]

to 16670:

I have not yet seen any post-tournament feedback from the "no smoking" ordinance at this year's Worlds. Usually it takes a few months for Worlds reports to be finalized. We might hear something about it at the Summit, but that might be pushing it. And we would not likely make any decisions based on incomplete reports.

It sounds like you are anxious to know what (if any) smoking policies might be put in place for 2012, so you can factor that into your renewal decision. I would hope we would factor membership opinion into any deliberations, and that we would inform the membership of any major policy changes before the end of 2011.

[16670]

Thanks for your response Peter. Its nice to have a board member that is open to communication with its members in a public forum.

[omegaputt]

Peter
At the next meeting when the topic of the message board comes up. Ask Theo and Chuck if the message board was a good place for communicating with the members when they launched the app for the iPhone. And when they were asking for feedback from the members.

[wsfaplau]

I know the new website is hopefully launching soon and the discussion board will be changing to a more social media based one. I'm not making any judgements until I see how it is but please keep in mind not all the members are Facebook or Twitter regulars and would still like a way to communicate.

Thanks and good luck

[petershive]

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.

[wsfaplau]

Hi Peter, thanks for following up with this thread.

I was pleased to read Nez's article in the magazine about trying to communicate better with the membership. He wrote how BOD members will write a column in each issue. Is your turn coming soon and what would you write about?

You report your stances on some of your campaign issues is softening a bit. I think as you get more information you are finding you aren't as far part as you once thought. As you get better communicated with you are finding you are in more agreement than you thought. As you serve your term please keep this lesson in mind as you continue your advocacy for better communication with the members.

Thanks Peter

[johnrock]

Hi Peter,

Just one question that I'm sure more members than just me is interested in:

Can we (PRO members of the org) look forward to a different level of membership with a lower annual fee? A lot of the posts I read indicate that many of us long time players do not feel the org is where we want to keep investing our money year after year when the membership fees are $75. Many of us still are involved in the game, just not on the touring level. I'm sure that a lot of pro players do participate in every tournament in their area, but there are many more who don't travel as much as they used to for a myriad of reasons. My experience shows that many long time players are now more involved with their immediate area, organizing weekly/monthly events, exposing new players to the game, designing new courses, and other things that are advancing the game just as much as the touring players. Please share your thoughts on this.

[johnbiscoe]

good question john...

i'm to the point where i can't really see the value in a $75 renewal as well...(and still wonder why pro is more than am for that matter)

[keithjohnson]

Peter - Johnrock makes a good point - and in all seriousness I think it could be done using the same theory used for the non-member fee but inverse. If there is a way to bring this up at a teleconference before the end of the year it would be appreciated.

Non playing /supporting Pro pays $30 but gets no ratings available - and then if they play in more than 4 PDGA Events during the year they would have the option to upgrade to full membership rights and see stats, etc.

This $30 membership still gives them the ability to vote, run for offices, be a TD, be a state coordiantor - and for those who don't play as much or not at all - this keeps them from making an all or nothing decision to be a member of the PDGA. In my opinion it would also alleviate alot of the complaining involved with the Pros that are paying the "extra $25" when they don't play and therefore get none of the benefits that the extra $25 covers for the playing pros.

I think the money lost would be more than offset by the retention of those members who wish to remain current and support the sport.

Just my opinion,
Keith

[petershive]

To johnrock, johnbiscoe, keithjohnson:

The Board has already discussed this idea at the recent Summit, and approved the broad concept. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. Everyone would like a membership that catered to their precise needs, for an appropriate price. That would be an impossibility -- an administrative nightmare.

We do want to add to existing membership categories, acknowledging that some members may not need or desire all of the services the PDGA provides (ratings, tournament tracking, magazine etc). We need to define the categories, and decide on a fair price for those services. The Board is not well-suited to make that kind of decision, so we asked the Staff to come up with a plan. My recommendation/desire is to keep it simple at first, just one or two new categories, and then see how it works out.

[petershive]

Here is some recent information related to questions raised during the election campaign:

Some members wanted smoking policies to be clarified before being asked to renew their membership for 2012. At the October teleconference we voted for a modified smoking ban for PDGA Major events. Rebecca Duffy, the official PDGA spokesperson, has written an excellent article about this on the PDGA front page. All the details are there.

There has been an interesting development on the drug-testing front. The WFDF (World Flying Disc Federation) has approved the WADA (World Anti-Doping Association) rules for international competition. The PDGA is not a member of WFDF, but it will be interesting and instructive for us to look at and learn from how this example affects other disc sports.

[nez]

Originally Posted by petershive

There has been an interesting development on the drug-testing front. The WFDF (World Flying Disc Federation) has approved the WADA (World Anti-Doping Association) rules for international competition. The PDGA is not a member of WFDF, but it will be interesting and instructive for us to look at and learn from how this example affects other disc sports.

Let's be clear though - PDGA will not be implementing the WADA Code anytime soon . . .

[keithjohnson]

Originally Posted by petershive

To johnrock, johnbiscoe, keithjohnson:

The Board has already discussed this idea at the recent Summit, and approved the broad concept. The Devil, as they say, is in the details. Everyone would like a membership that catered to their precise needs, for an appropriate price. That would be an impossibility -- an administrative nightmare.

We do want to add to existing membership categories, acknowledging that some members may not need or desire all of the services the PDGA provides (ratings, tournament tracking, magazine etc). We need to define the categories, and decide on a fair price for those services. The Board is not well-suited to make that kind of decision, so we asked the Staff to come up with a plan. My recommendation/desire is to keep it simple at first, just one or two new categories, and then see how it works out.

Peter,

I respectfully disagree - Breiner's system is/can be geared to any and all pricing and the admin side would be exactly the same as it is for a Supporting member going to full but in reverse - the system can see who is who on the PDGA side when batches are uploaded and non-members - are turned "on" when the dues are paid now, so it would be just the same idea - there is no need to try and make it a huge undertaking - price it at $30 like a student membership - if they decide to play in Events and not just be a TD - then they pay full membership fee of AM or PRO - it just adds 1 more set of codes to the database -Non member, Supporting member, TD or non-playing member, and full member.

Pretty darn (can't say dam thanks to a only allowing a pc set of words in the last 8 years) simple and I would bet that the goodwill gained and the monies earned by people supporting the sport as well as not lost by members dropping out would be well worth the week or so of someone coding the system to regulate and maintain it.

Just my opinion - and as someone who has been a full time 5 year renewing at a time member since 1996, TD for 16 years running over 40 PDGA Events and over 60 total Events, and State coordinator for the last 5 years - it sounds like an idea whose time is long overdue.

I hope the staff gives serious consideration to these types of ideas and that the BOD will support efforts to grow the membership base which should be in 25-50,000 renewing every year instead of just at 50,000+ TOTAL members now.

Keith

[petershive]

to keithjohnson:

We aren't in disagreement, Keith. A plan like yours has the kind of simplicity that I am hoping for and could support. Is it the best plan? You are actually more qualified to judge than I, because I don't have the kind of experience you have had. I am sure that the staff is looking into ideas like this one. I believe that they read this thread, but if you wanted to be sure you could send your idea directly to Brian Graham.

And certainly the Board is anxious to support measures designed to increase member signup and retention. Our concerns during our discussion were much like the ones you express in your last paragraph.

[JenniferB]

At some point, players who get DQd will be required to take a drug test at their own expense to get reinstated. You know it's coming. It's just a matter of time.

[nez]

Originally Posted by JenniferB

At some point, players who get DQd will be required to take a drug test at their own expense to get reinstated. You know it's coming. It's just a matter of time.

No chance . . .

[petershive]

Nez's posts here are welcome, and signal an overall increased desire by the Board to communicate with the membership. We talked about this at the October teleconference. I expect and hope that other Board members will also post here as they please. Remember, though, that not all Board members have the time or inclination to post on discussion boards.

Another indication of that increased desire is our election of Rebecca Duffy as the official spokesperson for the Board. Her article about the new smoking regulations on the PDGA front page is just the first of many we can expect from her.

[the_kid]

Peter, do you any problem with the smoking ban being one of the first policies discussed by the new board when the vast majority of those running for office did not state anything about their view on the issue? It seems as though direct involvement by the members was removed from the situation.

Please do not fall back on the survey results taken from a very small portion of the membership due to the length of the survey and the fact that most people don't care to take any PDGA survey.

It may have been better to send out the surveys to Pro players who have attended or have been invited to a major last year.

Basically I feel many of those who responded will never be influenced by this policy while others who never had their voice heard will.

One last thing- Is it also disallowed to carry cigarettes?

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by the_kid

Please do not fall back on the survey results taken from a very small portion of the membership due to the length of the survey and the fact that most people don't care to take any PDGA survey.

That's the lamest cop out I've ever heard. If members are against a new policy that was derived from this survey, and they CHOSE not to participate in that survey, then they forfeit all rights to complain about the policy. You don't get to answer a question of "a" or "b" with "I don't care" then cry that "b" won the vote.

If you couldn't be bothered to participate in the survey, I don't think we should be bothered to listen to your complaints about the results.

[james_mccaine]

Originally Posted by petershive

Nez's posts here are welcome, and signal an overall increased desire by the Board to communicate with the membership. We talked about this at the October teleconference. I expect and hope that other Board members will also post here as they please. Remember, though, that not all Board members have the time or inclination to post on discussion boards.

Another indication of that increased desire is our election of Rebecca Duffy as the official spokesperson for the Board. Her article about the new smoking regulations on the PDGA front page is just the first of many we can expect from her.

Sometimes discussion and communication are more effective when they occur before policies are set.

[wsfaplau]

Originally Posted by james_mccaine

Sometimes discussion and communication are more effective when they occur before policies are set.

Excellent point James.

However, as a vocal critic of the PDGA on the lack of communication to the members I do believe the criticism has been heard and I see an effort being made to improve the situation.

Learning to communicate effectively with an organization isn't like turning on a tap and water flows out. It will take some doing to do it well but I see the effort being made.

So for now, I am pleased with the effort. Keep it up.

[underparmike]

Dear Mr. Shive:

I'm a bit underwhelmed by your response and the pDGA's response to my request for an explanation of what benefits the pDGA would provide if I decided to sanction the biggest tournament in Louisiana with the pDGA.

Do you think it is wise to act as though the pDGA has a monopoly on sanctioning? It's been my observation that businesses that adopt the attitude you all have displayed usually end up being destroyed by competitors with better customer service and an
eagerness to attract new business.

[petershive]

Everyone,

I need your advice. When the PDGA launches its new website, we may lose the Discussion Board, and have no other PDGA-supported forum for free exchange of ideas. If we do, I will want to continue communicating with the membership on an outside forum. I have two questions.

In the past I have used discgolfersrus and discgolfreviews. One problem with these is that they lack the detailed internal structure of the PDGA Discussion Board. As a result, individual threads can be overwhelmed by posts on unrelated topics, and it becomes difficult to follow the thrust of complex issues.

Are there other forums I should consider? Are there solutions to the problem I note above?

[krupicka]

I think disc golf course review has a little better organized message board than either discgolfersrus and discgolfreviews.

[Jeff_LaG]

I'm waiting to reserve judgement until we see what the communications portion of new website will entail. It will supposedly be a combination of social-based media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, and a traditional message board-based interface. If this new social-based website does not meet the satisfaction of the members, or if the powers that be decide to eventually transition away from a message board interface despite strong opposition from the membership, I am sure there will be considerable protest, and rightfully so.

I know virtually none of the details, but I do think it is safe to say that I think it's a little premature to paint a "sky is falling scenario" that a "PDGA-supported forum for free exchange of ideas" is going to essentially disappear altogether. Despite other advances with communications on the website, if the membership is overwhelmingly opposed to the removal of a message board-type interface, I'm sure they will let our elected Board of Directors and PDGA Office know about it.

[petershive]

Jeff,

I agree with you, to a point. I'll be thrilled if the PDGA makes a committment to an open Discussion Board on the new site. And it may. But it hasn't yet.

And if it doesn't, I want to explore all possible options beforehand. I don't want to wait until after the sky falls to begin to think about the future. There is no harm in preparing for possible disappointment, and much to gain.

[johnrock]

Hey Peter,

As disappointing as it is to hear about possibly losing the Discussion Board, why not take a closer look at the Disc Golf Course Review site? Tim G. has posted there that he would entertain the idea of a pDGA only thread (or section). Even though the pDGA couldn't work out a way to use his course directory services, maybe the board over there would suffice for pDGA info and chatter.

[petershive]

johnrock:

That's a great idea. I'll check into it today. Maybe it could become a good fallback position for us.