Doesn't seem to be much opposition to the status quo...you'd never quess that from reading some of the Forums! :o

That's how it always is. Everyone can always do it waaaaaay better, until it's time for them to actually do something. :eek:


Interesting question about shortening Worlds so that the pro side might fill. Terrible idea if you ask me. If it isn't filling, then lower the max entrant requirement so that other areas that people might want to visit can host. It would be nice if PDGA points meant something to the average pro.

Although I get all sorts of e-mail from the PDGA they did not seem to have an address to send my ballot to. But they were good about getting me a paper ballot.

There are about 32 items on the ballot. Of those, about a half dozen have no candidates and all of the other positions have candidates running unopposed. :(

So how is it that four different answers signed up to run for election on the collared shirt question? ;)

I still wonder what it means when the person running for the office entrusted with constitutional oversight is participating in a plainly unconstitutional election. :confused:

Henhouse, meet Mr. Fox. He'll be in charge now. :eek:

Although I get all sorts of e-mail from the PDGA they did not seem to have an address to send my ballot to. But they were good about getting me a paper ballot.

There are about 32 items on the ballot. Of those, about a half dozen have no candidates and all of the other positions have candidates running unopposed. :(

So how is it that four different answers signed up to run for election on the collared shirt question? ;)

I still wonder what it means when the person running for the office entrusted with constitutional oversight is participating in a plainly unconstitutional election. :confused:

Henhouse, meet Mr. Fox. He'll be in charge now. :eek:

Bruce,

Since you were the most recent Oversight Director and ostensibly in charge of constitutional oversight until you resigned, how do you see the election as being "plainly unconstitutional?" The call for candidates was issued, responses came in for some, but not all offices. No Board members were opposed. Some state coordinator positions had no replies.

The ballot for the constitutional amendment to move up the election date was held on your watch. The election is being held to meet that requirement. Do you suggest that the election not be held, as required per the constitution?

'Splain, Lucy. :confused:

I explained it on another thread but Darth Splendorous did mind tricks on the entire reading audience and nobody noticed.

It is not time to elect an Oversight Director. Under the Constitution you [the Board, really] *shall* appoint a person to fill the empty seat until the end of the term. The term ends in the summer of 2006 under the 2005 amendment.

The paranoid part of me is back on his meds, so I really think it was just an "oversight," and not a way of keeping that one issue tucked out of sight until you are all out of "Dodge." But it useful for that too.

As if Idaho does not extradite to "Dodge."

These are not the droids you are looking for.

Idaho extradites to Tacoma.
Sorry.

I explained it on another thread but Darth Splendorous did mind tricks on the entire reading audience and nobody noticed.

It is not time to elect an Oversight Director. Under the Constitution you [the Board, really] *shall* appoint a person to fill the empty seat until the end of the term. The term ends in the summer of 2006 under the 2005 amendment.

The paranoid part of me is back on his meds, so I really think it was just an "oversight," and not a way of keeping that one issue tucked out of sight until you are all out of "Dodge." But it useful for that too.

As if Idaho does not extradite to "Dodge."

These are not the droids you are looking for.



We appointed Kirk Yoo last Wednesday, Bruce. We had made our point about wanting to give others the chance to run for the position instead of us just deciding - but no one did.