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 . . .

[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?

[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.

[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.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by jconnell

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.

It isn't a vote......it was a PDGA survey....

Everything I have learned about surveys says that you want to achieve the highest response rate possible and creating a survey which is too long can create more variability in the results when an election occurs.

All I heard about the survey was "I took that PDGA survey and the friggin thing took like an hour and all the questions were the same as the one before".

BTW the response rate of surveys outside of those on the phone rarely exceeds 20% so we shouldn't expect high participation but the PDGA should have made an effort to state what issues may have been covered instead of just saying "Take the PDGA survey NOW!!!"

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by the_kid

It isn't a vote......it was a PDGA survey....

Everything I have learned about surveys says that you want to achieve the highest response rate possible and creating a survey which is too long can create more variability in the results when an election occurs.

All I heard about the survey was "I took that PDGA survey and the friggin thing took like an hour and all the questions were the same as the one before".

BTW the response rate of surveys outside of those on the phone rarely exceeds 20% so we shouldn't expect high participation but the PDGA should have made an effort to state what issues may have been covered instead of just saying "Take the PDGA survey NOW!!!"

Fine, it's not a vote. But it's still bull to say that because you didn't feel like taking the survey, its results are bogus. If you have an interest in the direction the organization is taking, you should be taking every opportunity to make you opinions known when they ask for them. Doesn't matter what form it takes or what you hear about it. If YOU didn't take the time to investigate it yourself, then the problem is on you, not the survey. It's a cop out to say "I heard it was long and boring and repetitive, so I skipped out on it."

[dscmn]

stand back folks it's going to be a virtual tsunami of sponsors now, just like when they banned drinking and made everyone wear those nifty-materialed collared shirts...


...oh, wait.



oh.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by jconnell

Fine, it's not a vote. But it's still bull to say that because you didn't feel like taking the survey, its results are bogus. If you have an interest in the direction the organization is taking, you should be taking every opportunity to make you opinions known when they ask for them. Doesn't matter what form it takes or what you hear about it. If YOU didn't take the time to investigate it yourself, then the problem is on you, not the survey. It's a cop out to say "I heard it was long and boring and repetitive, so I skipped out on it."

So basically the 90% of people who didn't take the survey and vote should have no room to complain? Ok then sounds awesome! The fact that the PDGA does nothing but tell you the survey is the problem especially when it is time consuming and glitchy. If they would have announced three main points of interest that would be included in the survey the response would have probably doubled.

"Take the PDGA survey where smoking policy, drug testing, whiny pros, and the possibility of term limits for positions such as the Executive and Marketing directors.

BTW I find it funny Layland was pretty much banned for actions which went against the image of the PDGA while others working for the PDGA have more publicized cases which you will find by looking up their name.......and if you view images you can see them both as a "evil guy" and "good PDGA guy". I am sure that helps our image a lot.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by dscmn

stand back folks it's going to be a virtual tsunami of sponsors now, just like when they banned drinking and made everyone wear those nifty-materialed collared shirts...


...oh, wait.



oh.

Get out your poncho!

[dscmn]

i've been out of the loop a bit. was one of the appointed board members the surgeon general?

[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.

[petershive]

to the_kid and james_mccaine:

There was urgency in the "smoking" matter. Some members had requested that we define the policy for 2012 before they were asked to renew their memberships. We felt that was a reasonable request.

It didn't bother me at all that Board members may not have taken a stance on the issue during the campaign. If we could only act on issues from our campaign platforms we couldn't do much of anything. For example, I covered by far the most extensive range of campaign issues, but I said relatively little about smoking. My "smoking" comments were mostly just asides related to drug testing issues.

I voted for the "tobacco-free" policy. I was most strongly influenced by two considerations. First, I felt that the PDGA is making a serious effort to improve its image at showcase events. It seemed reasonable to me that they be allowed to try this policy at Majors -- events actually owned by the PDGA. There are only seven of these, while there are about1000 PDGA events overall. I would not vote for such a policy if it extended beyond the Majors. Second, the concession that smoking could be permitted in areas defined by the TD appealed to me.

Please read the policy as described by Rebecca on the front page. The details are all there. You can carry tobacco products, but "open and visual possession" subjects you to a courtesy violation.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by petershive

to the_kid and james_mccaine:

There was urgency in the "smoking" matter. Some members had requested that we define the policy for 2012 before they were asked to renew their memberships. We felt that was a reasonable request.

It didn't bother me at all that Board members may not have taken a stance on the issue during the campaign. If we could only act on issues from our campaign platforms we couldn't do much of anything. For example, I covered by far the most extensive range of campaign issues, but I said relatively little about smoking. My "smoking" comments were mostly just asides related to drug testing issues.

I voted for the "tobacco-free" policy. I was most strongly influenced by two considerations. First, I felt that the PDGA is making a serious effort to improve its image at showcase events. It seemed reasonable to me that they be allowed to try this policy at Majors -- events actually owned by the PDGA. There are only seven of these, while there are about1000 PDGA events overall. I would not vote for such a policy if it extended beyond the Majors. Second, the concession that smoking could be permitted in areas defined by the TD appealed to me.

Please read the policy as described by Rebecca on the front page. The details are all there. You can carry tobacco products, but "open and visual possession" subjects you to a courtesy violation.

I think keeping Pros from destroying property at Majors would do more for our image than this policy. Also like i stated before the PDGA seems to look to image when it meet the objectives of those in control. Glad we had our first $100,000 Worlds...even if it was promised by a man in 05' who still remains very high ranking and is the "image" of the PDGA. Can't we find another decent looking educated guy to fill this role.

Basically I think the priorities are all mixed uip....the PDGA having more of a role in keeping Pros behaved iis more important in my mind. Even some of the "good" guys are just Johnsons on the course and to those running the events.

[the_kid]

Originally Posted by petershive

to the_kid and james_mccaine:

There was urgency in the "smoking" matter. Some members had requested that we define the policy for 2012 before they were asked to renew their memberships. We felt that was a reasonable request.

It didn't bother me at all that Board members may not have taken a stance on the issue during the campaign. If we could only act on issues from our campaign platforms we couldn't do much of anything. For example, I covered by far the most extensive range of campaign issues, but I said relatively little about smoking. My "smoking" comments were mostly just asides related to drug testing issues.

I voted for the "tobacco-free" policy. I was most strongly influenced by two considerations. First, I felt that the PDGA is making a serious effort to improve its image at showcase events. It seemed reasonable to me that they be allowed to try this policy at Majors -- events actually owned by the PDGA. There are only seven of these, while there are about1000 PDGA events overall. I would not vote for such a policy if it extended beyond the Majors. Second, the concession that smoking could be permitted in areas defined by the TD appealed to me.

Please read the policy as described by Rebecca on the front page. The details are all there. You can carry tobacco products, but "open and visual possession" subjects you to a courtesy violation.

What about a Joe Camel or Marlboro dyes? WHat about having butts in your bag? My favorite was the candy cigarette one though.

The issue I don't get is no e-cigs at all due to the fact they make ones that look nothing like cigarettes.