Jebb
Mar 11 2009, 10:19 PM
Did you know?

It has recently been decided that for a sanctioning agreement to be fully valid it now has to be submitted by the original TD who first ran a tournament under that name. It makes no difference if the original TD gives his/her blessing or serves as an officer in the same club running the event.

We really need more clarification on this ruling and how it can possibly be deemed fair to disallow a tournament's sanctioning even when the original TD is involved with the tournament and gives their blessing for another person to TD the event.

If this all sounds too incredulous to believe, perhaps a PDGA rep could explain further in some way that makes any reasonable sense.

Per PDGA:


The board discussed the ongoing issues as well as our internal sanctioning policy and came to the conclusion that the key to sanctioning boiled down to ownership of the event name. Events are sanctioned by the individual tournament director whose name appears on the sanctioning agreement and not by disc golf clubs.



One tournament has already been relieved of previously granted sanctioning by this line of reasoning. Also, seems like this could really be a drag for traditional events when some TDs are passed away or choose to quit playing/officiating.

Is this right or not?

krupicka
Mar 11 2009, 10:36 PM
This policy might be the result of habitually delinquent TDs using puppet TDs on the sanctioning form to get around sanctions, but this is just pure speculation on my part.

bruce_brakel
Mar 11 2009, 10:46 PM
That's kind of a one-sided approach to a complicated situation, isn't it? Aren't you leaving out the parts about the club split, and two clubs operating under the same name, and both wanting to run a tournament of the same name on the same weekend?

Jebb
Mar 11 2009, 11:02 PM
Thats not how it went down Bruce, at least in the sense of you saying both groups wanted to run a tournament by the same name.

This ruling was used to allow another traditional event with another name to steal a weekend away from a previously sanctioned traditional event only because the second sanctioning agreement had the original TD's name on it. Makes no difference that the original TD of the first event (which had already been given sanctioning) gives his blessing and had even planned to work the initially-sanctioned event.

gnduke
Mar 12 2009, 05:02 AM
If he planned to work the originally sanctioned event, how could he apply to be the TD of another sanctioned event on the same date?

I don't think the TD is the real owner of club run events though.

rhett
Mar 12 2009, 01:41 PM
It sounds right to me. There have been a lot schenanigans lately with people being "TD in name" as well as the types of political BS that always pop up in disc golf like Bruce alludes to.

Here's the right answer, and maybe I need to do this for EIEIO: if the original TD retires, s/he submits the sanctioning agreement with the new TD listed. This does put the onus on the PDGA staff to check with both the original TD to be sure s/he really is retiring (and its not some schenanigan), and then the staff also has to check with the new TD to make sure they really do know about the use of their name.

That's a lot of extra work for the PDGA staff, but with disc golfers and clubs continuing to act like babies a lot of the time, I guess its necessary.

Jebb
Mar 12 2009, 03:14 PM
If he planned to work the originally sanctioned event, how could he apply to be the TD of another sanctioned event on the same date?


Thats not it, don't assume!! there are 3 people involved, one who used this ruling to steal a weekend away from another TD.

Nothing nefarious whatsoever from the first event that had already been sanctioned, nonetheless it had sanctioning pulled through an amazingly unfair decision over the 'ownership' and that weekend was awarded to another event with a TD in direct opposition to the first event.

krupicka
Mar 12 2009, 03:46 PM
If you don't want speculations based on incomplete information, then don't present partial information. The message board is not a great court of public opinion.

Jebb
Mar 12 2009, 06:11 PM
From what I've presented without naming names thus far, how could this possibly be fair? What would you do if it happened to you?

cgkdisc
Mar 12 2009, 06:27 PM
If the Tour Director or Executive Director can't referee this situation to your satisfaction, there's always the courts. Would Judge Judy agree with you? I have no comment since there's not enough information presented and just from one side.

I'm going to recommend that both a host and a TD be indicated on the Sanctioning form. The host will own the event name (if not PDGA championship) and could be a club, Park Dept, business, TD or another person. The TD is simply the person made responsible by the host for executing that specific event and agreement.

gang4010
Mar 12 2009, 07:14 PM
Is it fair? Doesn't sound like it.
What to do? Sounds like there are lots of options.
A) Change the name of the tournament!
add an X to the front or back of the name so it looks the same for player recognition.
B) Pick another weekend - sorry but I've been involved with an event w/ the same name for 18 years, and there is no such thing as "a traditional weekend" - things move around for all kinds of reasons - live with it.
C) If you just gotta keep the name and the weekend - Run the event unsanctioned and thumb your nose at the PDGA.
D) If the policy as written is so poorly conceived and implemented as to present obstacles to sanctioning for no good reason, draft an alternative and submit it formally to the ED and the CD for consideration/presentation to the board.

chuckw
Mar 13 2009, 12:23 AM
Hi Gang4010,

In your case B, when you had to move it around. In the past 18 years of your involvement with the tourney, have you ever had an approved sanctioning agreement in hand, had that approved agreement cancelled without your consent, and the date then given to another who applied later than you?

gnduke
Mar 13 2009, 03:19 AM
This ruling was used to allow another traditional event with another name to steal a weekend away from a previously sanctioned traditional event only because the second sanctioning agreement had the original TD's name on it. Makes no difference that the original TD of the first event (which had already been given sanctioning) gives his blessing and had even planned to work the initially-sanctioned event.



I didn't assume, I tried to make sense of what was written.

From what you said, event 1 had the traditional name and was already sanctioned.

A request was filed for event 2 under a different name by the original TD.

Unless maybe the first TD identified as "original" is the Original TD of the second event and not at all involved with the first event that the second TD identified as "original" had at one time been the original TD of and was planning to assist with.

In which case the rest of what you said kind of makes sense.

johnbiscoe
Mar 13 2009, 12:52 PM
did they both get run past the state coordinator? that would seem to be the logical spot for this type of thing to be dealt with.

Jebb
Mar 13 2009, 02:07 PM
what if the state coordinator played a role in the manipulation of sanctioning?

gang4010
Mar 13 2009, 02:30 PM
Hi Gang4010,

In your case B, when you had to move it around. In the past 18 years of your involvement with the tourney, have you ever had an approved sanctioning agreement in hand, had that approved agreement cancelled without your consent, and the date then given to another who applied later than you?



In a word no.
Whenever date changes were being considered, there was always the need to work with other folks occupying target dates. Most frequently that was handled through the Regional Coordinator, and more recently the State Coordinator (as Biscoe suggested).

It's sort of beside the point. I guess my point is........is that it doesn't help you to be RIGHT in this instance - it only helps you to be pro active and DO something about it. I'm sure there are many more options that could be considered.

You have my empathy - it's an unfortunate circumstance. Making it turn out for the best has got to be your ultimate goal. Lamenting your misfortune isn't the thing that'll get you there.

rhett
Mar 13 2009, 02:36 PM
what if the state coordinator played a role in the manipulation of sanctioning?



What if you just laid your cards on the table and spelled out exactly what it is you're talking about, including event names, TDs, and state coordinator?

To me it sounds like you don't really have a valid complaint because you refuse to post the details even though you continue whining about it trying to get sympathy.

Sorry if that souns harsh, but I've been the target of plenty of this kind non-specific BS myself. People who don't really have a legit complaint often talk/post in leading generalities trying to get others to draw incorrect conclusions. This allows them to later deny it all saying "I never said that" even though they led everyone down exactly that path.

So name names or drop it, please.

4u2nv
Mar 13 2009, 02:51 PM
what if the state coordinator played a role in the manipulation of sanctioning?



What if you just laid your cards on the table and spelled out exactly what it is you're talking about, including event names, TDs, and state coordinator?

To me it sounds like you don't really have a valid complaint because you refuse to post the details even though you continue whining about it trying to get sympathy.

Sorry if that souns harsh, but I've been the target of plenty of this kind non-specific BS myself. People who don't really have a legit complaint often talk/post in leading generalities trying to get others to draw incorrect conclusions. This allows them to later deny it all saying "I never said that" even though they led everyone down exactly that path.

So name names or drop it, please.



If he were to publicly name names on this forum it would be a violation of the rules. Yes this problem could probably be described in better detail by changing names over events/people and letting everyone know what went down and how so we could have some input.

exczar
Mar 13 2009, 02:52 PM
I would rather he go to the PDGA first before naming names here, even if every word posted here is true. Whether it is a BOD member or whoever approved your scheduling, start there.

Have you started going up the chain of command yet?

johnbiscoe
Mar 13 2009, 03:00 PM
what if the state coordinator played a role in the manipulation of sanctioning?



then perhaps you should elect a different SC next time around...

Jebb
Mar 13 2009, 03:13 PM
I haven't named names because I don't want any excuse for this thread to be deleted by another inane loophole, i.e. personal attacks.

Is it safe to say the state coordinator of Alabama and the PDGA Executive Director giving an older PDGA member his way even if wrong? Would you find it disturbing if the ED went back on his word more than once?

How exactly DO you fight such corruption?

johnbiscoe
Mar 13 2009, 03:20 PM
how did it get to the ED? that's the tour manager's responsibility i would think.

Jebb
Mar 13 2009, 04:11 PM
manipulation is how it got to the ED.

exczar
Mar 13 2009, 04:12 PM
OK, now you say the the SC, ED and an older member are on one side, and just you are on the other.

I'm not going to state any conclusions, but I don't think I need to read this thread any more.

chrispfrisbee
Mar 13 2009, 04:26 PM
Exczar..you just jumped to a conclusion. It's not just Jebb. It actually involves a PDGA affiliate club with an executive board & 40+ paid members on one side and an "older PDGA member" who went straight over the Tour Manager's head to the PDGA Executive Director with the SC in his pocket on the other.

And it is a REALLY complicated situation because the PDGA has sent out three different "official" stances.

One granting the TD sanctioning.

One pulling that sanctioning.

& another awarding the desired weekend to another TD.

It happened pretty much the way Chuck W. stated previously to Craig.

Jebb
Mar 13 2009, 05:18 PM
What would be fair is for the ED to stick to his given word and not sanction ANY event for Memorial Day weekend.

chuckw
Mar 13 2009, 08:06 PM
Hi All,

Wow.

Thanks for the response gang4010.

I did not make a statement, I asked a question. The answer was �No� as I expected.

I will not �name names� because names are irrelevant to my questions regarding this process. I will lay out all of the cards that I have in the form of a time line. I am interested in what happened as a matter of process irrespective of who was involved.

For our purposes let A and B denote members in good standing of the PDGA. Let SC denote an elected PDGA State Coordinator, and PO denote the �PDGA office.�

05 DEC 2008
Member A submits a tournament sanctioning request to the PDGA for a date (D).
The request is submitted to the SC who acknowledges receipt.

15 JAN 2008
There is a local dispute in which Member A and Member B find themselves on different sides.

23 JAN 2009
Member A receives communication from the PO stating that the sanctioning request was �properly submitted,� and �approved� by the SC. Furthermore, the event has been �added to the schedule� for the requested date (D). In addition, the PDGA indicates that because it �represents members on both sides of the issues at hand,� it would be �inappropriate� to �take sides or give preferential treatment� in the dispute which it regarded as an �internal club issue.�.

Member B objects to the PO stating: �It was my understanding that the PDGA would not award an event to another club that has been a traditional event for a particular club.� And that, �This email serves to inform the PDGA that my attorney will be determining the individuals, officers and organizations that will be named in the lawsuit.� (Member B claims to have a copyright on a club name.)

26 JAN 2009
The PO issues a communication that removed the tournament from the schedule �until such time that the [club name deleted] can resolve its problems internally. PDGA sanctioning for this event and any other events traditionally hosted by the [club name deleted] will be on hold until such time that the office receives proof of ownership or rights to the club name.�

10 FEB 2009
Member A inquires if a tournament can be scheduled on a different date (D1) via request to the SC. SC responds: �can we assume that your version of the [club name deleted] is no longer trying to run an event in [place deleted] on (D)? Please let Member B know, the last time I spoke with him he still wants to run a tournament that weekend.�

Member A responds to SC and PO: �To answer your question, no. We, first and foremost, would like to run the [name deleted] on (D). This tournament is a 'back-up' if the the [name deleted] is unable to be sanctioned.�

26 FEB 2009
PO responds to member inquiries as to a Tournament being sanctioned for Member B on date (D), stating: �Some time after our announcement that we would not be sanctioning the [name deleted], a sanctioning agreement was submitted to the PDGA office by [Member A] for the [name deleted] B-tier tournament on [date (D1)] in [place deleted].�

It continues: �A sanctioning agreement was later submitted by [Member B] for the [name deleted] B-tier tournament on [date (D)].� This later submission was �approved by the state coordinator and the office.�

It also says that the Board concludes that : �Events are sanctioned by the individual tournament director whose name appears on the sanctioning agreement and not by disc golf clubs.�

As it stands today Member B has the original date (which is a major holiday weekend and when our city traditionally runs it major annual event), while Member A has a date one week later.

Lastly this communication mentions that the PO has �been accused by several people of playing favorites and choosing one side over the other when this is clearly not the case.�
Many of us in [place deleted] are bewildered, and believe that the policies of the PO could be improved.

{Edited I had one B that should have been an A -- sheesh}

tkieffer
Mar 13 2009, 09:38 PM
It sounds like the 'PO' is trying hard not to be drawn into a local club fight mess. There is no win for anyone here, which is usually the case when you are putting people in a position where they have to choose sides. No policy can make it any easier.

Both sides got a tournament. If the rift continues and both continue to run tournaments, the market will decide which one does better. I would put your efforts towards making a great tournament as opposed to wasting energy rehashing a club divorce.

Jebb
Mar 13 2009, 10:01 PM
In which case it would still be fair for the ED to stick to his word and not sanction anything for Memorial Day. To allow the offending TD to have the weekend even while his claims of club ownership have been shown to be lies is favoritism no matter how hard one claims otherwise.

chuckw
Mar 13 2009, 10:17 PM
I prefer not to use the term "offending TD" and the veracity of any claims regarding a local club are not germane to this discussion.

The Board has concluded that:�Events are sanctioned by the individual tournament director whose name appears on the sanctioning agreement and not by disc golf clubs.�
Ostensibly, to stay the heck out of local spats.

gnduke
Mar 14 2009, 03:52 AM
The PO has to rely on the SC for information too.

If I (as an SC) told the PO a date was good for sanctioning, I would expect them to sanction it. If the date had already been contended as this one had I would follow it up with a phone call.

I disagree with the idea that a TD owns a club event. There are too many instances of TDs and clubs having problems or TDs of traditional events changing every few years.

chuckw
Mar 14 2009, 06:06 PM
Hi gnduke,

I agree. The PO relies on the SC for accurate information.

When the Board rules that events are not sanctioned by disc golf clubs, only by individuals, the organization is bound by that decision.

The ruling makes sense to me. The outcome does not, based on the Board's direction; for it begs the question: Why was Member A's sanctioning agreement canceled in the first place?

gnduke
Mar 14 2009, 07:28 PM
I'm not privy to the details of what was considered, by whom, or when. I have seen one side of the story.

The Board says the TD owns the event, to me that is counter intuitive, but administratively it is much easier to manage.

It can be difficult to tell when an event is really a club run event, and when the club is just very involved with an event run by a TD. From the paperwork, there is always at least one name on the line for filing the reports and paying the money. That is the one person the PDGA has on the hook for that event.

chuckw
Mar 14 2009, 07:42 PM
I'm not privy to the details of what was considered, by whom, or when either. You have seen the same side that I have.

Member A was the person on the hook for the event; then the event was canceled by the PO three days later. Why?

That is what no one understands.

room240
Mar 31 2009, 10:58 PM
Member A was the person on the hook for the event; then the event was canceled by the PO three days later. Why ?

That is what no one understands.



I would love to hear an explanation...

Jebb
Apr 01 2009, 03:02 PM
Too bad the explanation will need to come from the ED as he was coerced with bad info and usurped the tour manager's decision. Don't hold your breath, the denial of wrongdoing is entirely too strong.

orotter
Apr 02 2009, 09:47 AM
I established the tournament in [city deleted] as a B-Tier traditionally held on that date starting in 2003. I would think if any TD would have priority for the date it would be me by the board's standard. I personally sent the ED an email stating my support for member A running that event. The message I received back said the PDGA would not "take sides". Yet they pulled sanctioning from member A and subsequently awarded sanctioning to member B on that same date. So why, again did the ED apparently go against the standard that the board says applies?