I think expressing member interest is a lot like prayer.

i've always enjoyed Ambrose Bierce's definition of prayer, which is:

"To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy."

:D:D:D

i've always liked almost all of Bierce's definitions :D--

religion: a daugther of Hope and Fear explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable

diplomacy: the patriotic art of lying for one's country.

conservative: A statesman who is enamored by existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others

Rob, the general gist is that it will better conform to legal requirements for such things, probably be bylaws not a constitution, probably lose that specific, unworkable language about access to all written communications, and eliminate specific board titles based on "unpaid staffer" roles.

As for why the changes were needed and undertaken, I have posted a lot on that already. I knew they were needed the first time I read it. Basically, it's a 30-year-old document written hastily and by people with little previous experience in such documents, that has been chopped at a number of times, and in its completely unworkable aspects has not been followed for probably most of the past 30 years anyway.

I don't expect that it will be available for member review until - as I also stated before in this thread - the same time at which board and other election candidates' statements will be made available. That will certainly be at the start of voting on June 1, perhaps even sooner.

Now, this is really fun, far preferable to work, but my own employer-nonprofit-association's board of directors start arriving tonight in Ann Arbor for SCUP's next board meeting on Friday and Saturday. I'm likely to be out of communication for much of that time - almost certainly all day Friday and Saturday, and on Sunday I plan to play in a3disc's "No Foolin'" and then on Monday I attend the the board meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, via teleconference, because I could not fit a visit to San Diego into my schedule right now :(

Anyone can feel free to email me, IM me, or phone me - especially if somebody posts something nasty that has to go. Ciao.

Ambrose Bierce for PDGA board!!!!!!!

if and when you get the chance, i'd appreciate hearing one or two specific examples of problems that arose due to the old Constitution. also, i am hopeful the remedy won't open us up to more unforeseen problems downstream than the problems which have triggered the re-write.

i find it unfortunate that as a matter of protocol more time isn't being given between the rewrite being available for member review and the actual vote. wouldn't it be possible to implement interim changes rather that rush through the change(s)?

have fun at No Foolin

The problem with the timing is that while to you it seems like we're rushing through things, to us we're in the final stages of something that's taken years to accomplish.

um, thats the point.

Problem: Members feel like they are being rushed, while BoD feels like its taking forever.

Solution: Include the members throughout the process.

dang, this stuff can be so simple! :cool:

Throughout all of those years, we have made many communications that mentioned to members who might be interested that we were doing a constitutional rewrite, including announcements looking for people to help us do it, articles in DGWN's PDGA Pages, mentions in official, posted minutes, and even in interviews on PDGA Radio News.

Somehow the interest didn't get generated until the past month, when the fact that we're doing it has been out there long enough that anyone who'd been interested earlier could have in fact been the person we picked to do it - like Kirk, and before him, Bruce.

no disrespect intended here at all, but the DGWN is terrible place for distributing serious info cuz its so hard to read. the feature articles are great. lots of other stuff is set so small its almost unreadable. many items are buried inside of fact-after-fact style multiple page "articles".

PDGA Radio News? i know its there, but have never listened to it. i understand thats just me though. however, if you say that PDGA Radio is a valid commuications channel, then you must never ever again suggest that the Message Board is not. deal?

official, posted minnutes? come on, be serious. do you know how hard it is for some to find the current constitution, or the Code of Conduct, or lots of other really useful pieces of info on the website? its like this: get lucky and land on a somehow related page. then click a possibly related link which opens up a PDF file, then read the whole file to get to a reference to the document you seek.
and thats if you are lucky.

there does not seem to be an effort to get the most critical pieces of info out in the most accessible places. or maybe there is... and the stories and links on the front page do in fact represent the best possible use of that page real estate.

um, thats the point.

Problem: Members feel like they are being rushed, while BoD feels like its taking forever.

Solution: Include the members throughout the process.

dang, this stuff can be so simple! :cool:



Depends on what you know about it Pat. I imagine it would be simple for someone just now becoming involved with it. Someone with no understanding of what it has taken us to get to this point. The amount of research, time and effort which actually has a huge price tag on it as you should know volunteering yourself.

I rewrote our clubs current constitution, and it was anything but a simple matter and I wasn't essentially starting from scratch like Kirk had to.

So sure, I can see how it all seems simple to you.

I'd say the call for help on this and all major issues facing the PDGA went out about the same time as the last election. I'm glad you are readying yourself to answer the call, but please be appreciative of those who answered the call and have been working the best they can before you, just as you would have those that come after you treat you.

i didnt say doing it was simple. i said communicating it was simple.

That's a nice picture, by the way, Terry. Much friendlier looking than the last one.

Your post either misses the point or you are trying to change the point. The point is that some people fear that the Board may jam an unvetted, poorly reviewed new Constitution down our throats on short notice. They may feel this way because of the way the Board has disregarded the Constitutional provisions regarding rules changes. They may feel this way because of the way the Board has surprised TDs with format changes, mandatory entry fee changes, non-member fee increases, and other things TDs would be surprised about if they only read their sanctioning agreements before submitting them. They may feel this way if they paid attention during the last Constitutional rewrite before that minor tweak regarding election dates.

It is not a black helicopter conspiracy in the air. It is business as usual. With those other issues over the past few years we've seen the Board surprise us with new stuff, and then there is shock and outrage, and then there are hasty revisions.

The Constitution is too important to subject it to this sort of process. The process does not even allow for that sort of process, unless the new Constitution constitutionalizes that process as the normal means of amending the constitution! :D

bruce when i saw you posted i was sure the absolute irony of this statement by Terry:

"...the general gist is that it will better conform to legal requirements for such things..."

was gonna be examined :D

well, i guess if you cant (or wont) conform to state law in your actual sport, you can at least have a "legal" set of ByLaws! :D

um, thats the point.

Problem: Members feel like they are being rushed, while BoD feels like its taking forever.

Solution: Include the members throughout the process.

dang, this stuff can be so simple! :cool:



Depends on what you know about it Pat. I imagine it would be simple for someone just now becoming involved with it. Someone with no understanding of what it has taken us to get to this point. The amount of research, time and effort which actually has a huge price tag on it as you should know volunteering yourself.

I rewrote our clubs current constitution, and it was anything but a simple matter and I wasn't essentially starting from scratch like Kirk had to.

So sure, I can see how it all seems simple to you.

I'd say the call for help on this and all major issues facing the PDGA went out about the same time as the last election. I'm glad you are readying yourself to answer the call, but please be appreciative of those who answered the call and have been working the best they can before you, just as you would have those that come after you treat you.



No you didn't Pat. Saying, after the fact, that communicating it would be simple is easy. Saying "involving the membership throughout" is next to impossible.

All we can get here is about 10 people with 4 doing 80% of the posting. How easy would it be to get 4000 or 12000 PDGA members involved in this? or even 1200 (10% of our active membership)?

You simply are not being realistic.

I did a legal review of our current constitution in light of Colorado law back when I was working on this project. I did a report on that subject to the Board. I don't recall that there were any significant deviations in the current constitution from the requirements of the Colorado corporations code. I recall one deviation as to form that was not particularly significant.

The problems with our current constitution have to do with the way the PDGA conducts its affairs and the way the constitution requires the PDGA to conduct its affairs. It appears that the rewrite strategy will be to conform the constitution to the way the PDGA actually behaves. Some of those changes I would favor and some not.

My plan is to campaign against the new constitution, vote against the new constitution, and then decide whether it is worth the aggravation to attempt to restore the players' rights. 70% of the membership will approve any constitution put before them without reading it or having any understanding what is in it.

I did a legal review of our current constitution in light of Colorado law back when I was working on this project. I did a report on that subject to the Board. I don't recall that there were any significant deviations in the current constitution from the requirements of the Colorado corporations code. I recall one deviation as to form that was not particularly significant.

The problems with our current constitution have to do with the way the PDGA conducts its affairs and the way the constitution requires the PDGA to conduct its affairs. It appears that the rewrite strategy will be to conform the constitution to the way the PDGA actually behaves. Some of those changes I would favor and some not.

My plan is to campaign against the new constitution, vote against the new constitution, and then decide whether it is worth the aggravation to attempt to restore the players' rights. 70% of the membership will approve any constitution put before them without reading it or having any understanding what is in it.



This similar to your apparent blocking of the rules revisions in 2004.

The BOD has been historically slow to take action, seems like you'd like them to come to a complete and total stop.

Permanently.

Well, at least until they bow to your superior intellect...

statement by Nick: "Well, at least until they bow to your superior intellect..."

hey, weren't we supposed to rise above pettiness and pointless belittling?

Pat,

I am having a very hard time not going into Johnny Storm mode (for those of you that know me I hope you got a laugh out of that).

Are you are trying to tell us that articles concerning this issue in DGWN were not sufficient communication to the Members? Nearly every Member gets DGWN. We can't force the Members to read the information that is there.

Are you trying to tell us that posting the minutes for all Board meetings both on the web and in DGWN are not sufficient communication? Again, we can't force the Members to read the information that is there.

Please tell me where you would post the information that would be more visible than DGWN and pdga.com?

You and everyone else will have 2 months to analyze and digest the new Constitution before you have to vote for or against it. I personally don't care either way.

Here is something fairly amazing: if you take the Board Members out of this discussion, the last 100 posts have been done by less than a dozen people. It certainly seems like there is a vast majority of Members that are very concerned about this issue.

Or could it just be someones soapbox?

Kirk

You and everyone else will have 2 months to analyze and digest the new Constitution before you have to vote for or against it.




Now that's a timeline I can deal with. 60 days to digest something is ample time for me to make almost any decision. That's reasonable and workable.

You and everyone else will have 2 months to analyze and digest the new Constitution before you have to vote for or against it. I personally don't care either way.



even if almost nobody voiced interest that doesn't detract from the responsibility to respond to member interest in the process of re-writing our Constitution. also, it is probably not very accurate to attempt to gauge member interest by the number of posters in this thread. thank you Kirk for inviting emails and also for letting us know members will have 2 months to review the changes before voting. i could have saved a lot of keystrokes if you had told me that earlier :o/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

given your user id and your first name, do people ever say to you: "damnit Kirk, i'm a doctor not a magician!" ?

so you think that the first time we should get to see the new Constitution/ByLaws/whatever is on the ballot???

read bruce's points above for why this is simply incredulous.

how do you suggest we prposes amendments? wait until its adopted then change a bunch of things?

supposedly no one has even seen a written draft yet. that means the BoD itself is gonna have what, maybe a coupla weeks to digest the whole thing before they commit it to the ballot?

to your other questions - NO, i do not feel that those avenues represent sufficient communication given today's technology.

where are these minutes you speak of located on the weebsite? i cant find them. do you think publishing minutes represents sufficient communication?

why do you think communication is a one way thing?

all i can say is that a few people are TRYING to communicate with the BoD, and are basically being told to go away, the BoD has it covered and Members dont matter. that is the perception the BoD and the leadership is creating. whether you realize, accept, or admit it, that is the case.

i have answered every question anyone has asked me regarding the BoD position. i hardly need a soapbox, if that was your insinuation.

are you saying that 60 days does not mean 60 days before the ballot is published? :confused:

I read Kirk's post to mean the ballot will be out for 60 days, with this as one of the issues to vote on.

Here is something fairly amazing: if you take the Board Members out of this discussion, the last 100 posts have been done by less than a dozen people. It certainly seems like there is a vast majority of Members that are very concerned about this issue.


I think BoD members need to refrain from sarcasm in their posts. Especially sarcasm as misplaced as this. It doesn't read well.

read bruce's points above for why this is simply incredulous.



In your opinion Pat. It is the best folks who have been involved from it for some time can manage. Maybe if you had gotten involved earlier you could have made sure there was more time.

And yes, if you find things during the election period you can't stomach because of their total and complete lack of righteousness, then you can vote against it and then if it passes lobby to get it changed.

That way you'll be involved at the earliest possible time.

If Bruce hadn't resigned he could have made sure everything went according to his omniscient omnipotent standards of perfection. As it stands he like everyone else is left to do the best they can.

Would a change to a proposed constitution made before it was adopted be considered and amendment ? Just curious. :confused:

I, for some masochistic reason, have been reading this thread daily.

I have not posted, A) because I have nothing to add to the conversation B) I think Pat is WAY off base on this.

I will vote to change the constitution because I trust the guy that is rewriting it and trust the board when they approve it.

I know they are trying to do the right thing.

The more you (PAT) argue about this; the less and less I would consider voting for you. Your actions/posts tell me you don't have a clue how the board, or any board, works.

I have known about the rewrite for a while now. I read my DGWN. (Cover to cover usually) There is not much I don't know about what the PDGA board is doing or trying to do.

I will vote to change the constitution because I trust the guy that is rewriting it and trust the board when they approve it.


That's good, you should be able to trust the board. And you have every right to vote for something based on whatever principles you might have.

Realize that when other people consider not voting for something, it's not necessarily out of distrust for the board, or because there is doubt for the board's good intentions. I've seen a lot of trustworthy people make well-intentioned mistakes.

I've also seen good, hard-working people burn out over time and take actions and make statements that later, on reflection, they regret. I think I've seen a lot of that in this thread in particular.

So don't doubt the intentions of some of us if we use other criteria upon which to base our vote. I think we all respect the work the BoD has to do. Some of us would like to know what info has been made available. And some of us are wondering if the BoD is in a healthy enough frame of mind for completing such a task. And some of us will want to read the document first, when it's finished, and then vote. To each their own.

That's great. Read the constitution or by-laws when they are available and make comments about what you see that you like or dislike at that time.

Could you please drop it until you have something concrete to discuss ?

Pizza, if you have read this entire thread, you'd know the C is not the only, or most important, issue here.

in fact, you would have read me state that i have nothing against rewriting it, and that i consider some areas of the current C to be unworkable.

the issue is involvement and communication. some on the the current BoD wants to do it all in a vacuum and do not understand that the end product might be better if they'd solicit some feedback from Members.

if elected, i will work and fight to open up two communication channels between the BoD, Committees and the Members. that is not happening now.

we've all seen individuals get disgruntled and leave. in almost every case its been because they were told to shut their trap, the the "leadership" had it covered. the trend is there for anyone to see.

communication. openness. involvement. thats all i want.

I too think some areas of the constitution don't work well. I think all of the areas of the constitution that the board probably wants to change don't work well, but I disagree on the solutions.

The annual audit: Last I knew, we have never ever complied with that provision. Our financial director thought there are less expensive alternatives. I hope that is still on the list of changes.

Roberts Rules of Order: The board does not follow RRO. Theo's Rules of Order work great. They could be summarized in five sentences. Maybe six. I don't really know if this is on the punch list.

The implied right to vote on rules changes: Ever since this right went from being explicit to implied it has been denied. The board wants to write it out entirely. I think it should be made explicit again.

Openness and Access to Documents: These provisions were adopted before e-mail and message boards became a prevalent means of communication. It would be burdensome to try to save, categorize and cross-reference every e-mail or message board communication between two board members. The Board's solution apparently is to abolish the rights. I think it would be better to define the rights.

The PDGA board thinks that the PDGA should be run more like a private corporation. The original drafters of the constitution set up something that functioned more like a village board, where the sheriff, treasurer and clerk were all elected to also serve as board members. Either model can work. It is really an issue about what kind of organization you would rather pay $50 or $75 per year to belong to.

I think the village model of government is somewhat friendlier and more cumbersome than the private corporation model.

statement by Nick: "Well, at least until they bow to your superior intellect..."

hey, weren't we supposed to rise above pettiness and pointless belittling?



You're right Pat. Bruce is a smart guy, it's tough not to poke fun at him from time to time. But you're right. Sorry Bruce.

What can I say, you are just too fun!

communication. openness. involvement. thats all i want.



troublemaker /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Happy B-day AviarX !! :)

Bryan:
The more you (PAT) argue about this; the less and less I would consider voting for you. Your actions/posts tell me you don't have a clue how the board, or any board, works.

I have known about the rewrite for a while now. I read my DGWN. (Cover to cover usually) There is not much I don't know about what the PDGA board is doing or trying to do.



I agree, and appreciate your use of a spelling, punctuation, and grammatical checker. ;)

PaulM:
I've also seen good, hard-working people burn out over time and take actions and make statements that later, on reflection, they regret. I think I've seen a lot of that in this thread in particular.



Don�t be so harsh with Pat and Bruce; like me it�s near impossible to not blow off a little steam here and there. At least it has stayed mostly good natured.

Gary:
That's great. Read the constitution or by-laws when they are available and make comments about what you see that you like or dislike at that time.

Could you please drop it until you have something concrete to discuss ?



Seems like a reasonable request, if debate over the new constitution is the real issue being discussed here.

Pat:
Pizza, if you have read this entire thread, you'd know the C is not the only, or most important, issue here.
�
communication. openness. involvement. thats all i want.




I think you have your answer Gary.

Pat:
the issue is involvement and communication. some on the the current BoD wants to do it all in a vacuum and do not understand that the end product might be better if they'd solicit some feedback from Members.

if elected, i will work and fight to open up two communication channels between the BoD, Committees and the Members. that is not happening now.

we've all seen individuals get disgruntled and leave. in almost every case its been because they were told to shut their trap, the the "leadership" had it covered. the trend is there for anyone to see.



And Bryan, here�s your answer. If this doesn�t clarify that Pat doesn�t know how to work on a disc golf organizational level I don�t know what will. Still, it doesn�t preclude me from voting for him; since I know cruel reality will absolutely, 100%, no way around it without resignation �FORCE� him to learn how it works and what works and what just causes more trouble than any volunteer has time to deal with.

This entire discussion is a prime example of why this message board is such an inappropriate place to do any official communication. There is just no way around having it deteriorate into a �witch-hunt�. Pat wanting greater communication in the past is like your wife getting mad at you for something you did 5 years ago. And him saying you need to do it another way, with no direct knowledge of what is involved, is well, it is less than appropriate.

Happy Birthday Rob! You fellow troublemaker.

I would vote for Pat because I know that he will stick by his convictions and work for what he believes is the correct line of action. He will even occaisionally even listen to opposing arguments long enough to have his opinion swayed. It doesn't happen very often. I think because he considers things well before forming an opinion.

I also think that the current BOD has been soliciting input on this topic for several years now, and this is not the correct time or place to get in on that process. If the rewrite is going to come to a vote before the people that have been pushing to get it done leave office, there is not time to get a committee together. What you are requesting is much more time consuming than just forming a committee. The people on the discussion board couldn't agree that the sky was blue after debating the issue for a month. I can't imagine a worse environment to work out the details of a document that needs to be a compromise of differing opinions by definition.

On the topic of working in a vacuum, I have seen explicit requests for opinions and information from Kirk. I know that I have been hearing about a rewrite since I became seriously involved with disc golf. If you wanted to get involved, the time was a few years ago. Now just make sure there are provisions for amendments and see what the draft looks like. Then start pushing for required changes.

they have not been "working" on it for years. Kirk was appointed when? and he was given the task of the rewrite after he was appointed. so far he has presented nothing in writing to the BoD!

if thats "working for years" then i respectfully suggest that on this single point the BoD has been substantially less than effective.

ps, Nick that was the coolest post i've ever read from you.

This entire discussion is a prime example of why this message board is such an inappropriate place to do any official communication. There is just no way around having it deteriorate into a �witch-hunt�.



<font color="blue"> You seem a bit too inclined to call anything you disagree with a witch-hunt. Can you at least agree that not announcing the actual proposed changes prior to release of the ballot is less than desirable given that the process has evidently been in the works for a long time? i think what Pat is pointing out is that better communication in response to this thread might have gone a long way not to create what you apparently mistakenly perceive as a "witch-hunt." to turn all inquiries into witch-hunts fails to give the inquiring members the benefit of the doubt and creates unnecessary drama. It also fails to appreciate member interest in and concern for our organization. (aka: it's a wasted opportunity) </font>



Happy Birthday Rob! You fellow troublemaker.



<font color="blue"> thanks </font>

Tossing around the topic enough that I would hear about it is pretty close to working on it. Certainly enough for anyone really concerned to have an opportunity to get involved.

How many of the citizens of the US had a chance to see the constitution of the US prior to it's adoption ?

Everyone had a chance to see it when it came down to a vote.

I still fail to see how anyone could expect for it to be done any other way. Do you want each article to be posted for discussion prior to being included in the consitution ?

How many of the citizens of the US had a chance to see the constitution of the US prior to it's adoption ?



how many citizens get to see proposed changes to the US Constitution before they appear on a ballot?

My problem isn't with re-writing our Constitution, it is with not making the new one available for membership review a few months prior to it being placed on the ballot. Even though i don't expect anything untoward in the document that doesn't justify in my mind the failure to release the proposed changes long before the release of the ballot. I think doing so disrespects the role of the membership in the process of being led.

Mainly because it does not exist yet. Then the BOD should get the first chance to review it, and when they are happy with it it will be time to get the ballots printed.

How many of the citizens of the US had a chance to see the constitution of the US prior to it's adoption ?



This is a horrible analogy, Gary. You should liken it more to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution being added today. If this were to happen, we'd get lots of info on the legislation. There's no reason to compare the drafting of the new PDGA constitution in a time when information can be so easily transmitted to an era when communication took weeks to travel the 13 colonies.

OK, it is poor, but why did I elect a BOD ?
Why didn't I push to get on a committee to draft the rewrite of the constitution ?
Why should I have more or even equal access to the process than a member of the BOD ?
Why should we make such a big deal of this before there is a document to get upset about ?

because its a process thing, and this C discussion is simply the latest installment of the same story.

OK, it is poor, but why did I elect a BOD ?


To represent you.

Why didn't I push to get on a committee to draft the rewrite of the constitution ?


Because you didn't want to.

Why should I have more or even equal access to the process than a member of the BOD ?


Sounds like a problem with communication between the BOD.

Why should we make such a big deal of this before there is a document to get upset about ?


We shouldn't. If input isn't wanted, arguing about it won't change anything. It may be the greatest constitution ever written but we won't know until it's time to vote. For the purpose of this rewrite, apparently our vote is our only input.

OK, it is poor, but why did I elect a BOD ?


To represent you.
<font color="blue">Then why don't I let them ?</font>

Why didn't I push to get on a committee to draft the rewrite of the constitution ?


Because you didn't want to.
<font color="blue">Exactly and neither did anyone else that didn't get involved.</font>

Why should I have more or even equal access to the process than a member of the BOD ?


Sounds like a problem with communication between the BOD.
<font color="blue">There is no document to review yet. How is that a communication problem ?</font>

Why should we make such a big deal of this before there is a document to get upset about ?


We shouldn't. If input isn't wanted, arguing about it won't change anything. It may be the greatest constitution ever written but we won't know until it's time to vote. For the purpose of this rewrite, apparently our vote is our only input.


<font color="blue">Exactly, We shouldn't. Input has been requested through channels other than the discussion board. Very little response has been received. It has already been said that it will be made available when it is ready for review. The problem is that it likely won't be ready for review until it is time to vote.

Unless we want to push of the revision for another year, that's pretty much the shape of it. It has also been stated that the revision is a priority of several BOD members that aren't planning to run for office after this term, If I was them I would be pushing to get it done this year just to make sure it got done.</font>

"The problem is that it likely won't be ready for review until it is time to vote."

Eureka!

"Unless we want to push of the revision for another year, that's pretty much the shape of it. It has also been stated that the revision is a priority of several BOD members that aren't planning to run for office after this term, If I was them I would be pushing to get it done this year just to make sure it got done."

if i was them i would be slowing it down so that they are not burdening a bunch of incoming BoD participants and the Members with fixing whatever problems might results from the rewrite, that hasnt yet been written, that must go to presses sooner than you realize.

Kul. I got on the wireless in this meeting room.

Here's a thought on DISCussion, even specifically this thread.

I try to do a PDGA Member News every week during the season. There won't be one this week, because I am too busy and now there is no time left to eke out a way to do it.

If you took all the time I spent posting on this thread and put it together for me in a chunk of time, I could have had PDGA Member News done this week.

Was my time better spent informing the handful of folks here, or preparing the newsletter to many thousands of other members?

This entire discussion is a prime example of why this message board is such an inappropriate place to do any official communication. There is just no way around having it deteriorate into a �witch-hunt�.



<font color="blue"> You seem a bit too inclined to call anything you disagree with a witch-hunt. Can you at least agree that not announcing the actual proposed changes prior to release of the ballot is less than desirable given that the process has evidently been in the works for a long time? i think what Pat is pointing out is that better communication in response to this thread might have gone a long way not to create what you apparently mistakenly perceive as a "witch-hunt." to turn all inquiries into witch-hunts fails to give the inquiring members the benefit of the doubt and creates unnecessary drama. It also fails to appreciate member interest in and concern for our organization. (aka: it's a wasted opportunity) </font>



Disagree with me about what Rob?
That this is not an appropriate place to have serious or official discussions about important PDGA issues?
That we should have some patience and understanding for how our PDGA officers and volunteers work?
That we should wait to see what the constitution actually is before making emphatic statements of support or not?
That we shouldn�t openly or indirectly and repeatedly impugn the character of the folks doing ALL of the work for us?
There is no increase in communication here, just in posturing, there is a difference.
You want me to extend the benefit of the doubt to Pat, Bruce and yourself, fine, then you guys need to start extending that benefit towards those actually involved in the REAL work.
You mistakenly think �giving grief�, �grandstanding� and �posturing� as �member interest�. Real member interest would have been paying attention to all available communications concerning this issue throughout the years and stepped up to do your share; rather than waiting until the last possible minute and making a stink with about 3 or 4 others here on the message board. Real member interest would likely never even appear in this forum.
Lastly, you don�t know where I stand on this issue of the constitution, because as Pat rightly points out, this isn�t about the constitution, this isn�t even about what he says is an issue of more open communication� just apply your suspicious mind as applied to the PDGA BOD to Pat and Bruce and you will have your answer as to what this is all really about.

In the end it is just good entertainment and for that I am grateful to all the miscreants and demagogues here.

depends on what you would have put in the newsletter.

Nick, who is �giving grief�, �grandstanding� and �posturing� as �member interest�?

that is a specific question to you, and given the number of questions you have thrown at me , i believe i am entitled to ask one of you.

Does that mean that you've never read a PDGA Member News, Pat, and don't know what kind of content there is? Or that you think that the content there usually is, is not valuable? (In which case, whence cometh the raves I get from members about them on a regular basis?)

This entire discussion is a prime example of why this message board is such an inappropriate place to do any official communication. There is just no way around having it deteriorate into a �witch-hunt�.



<font color="blue"> You seem a bit too inclined to call anything you disagree with a witch-hunt. Can you at least agree that not announcing the actual proposed changes prior to release of the ballot is less than desirable given that the process has evidently been in the works for a long time? i think what Pat is pointing out is that better communication in response to this thread might have gone a long way not to create what you apparently mistakenly perceive as a "witch-hunt." to turn all inquiries into witch-hunts fails to give the inquiring members the benefit of the doubt and creates unnecessary drama. It also fails to appreciate member interest in and concern for our organization. (aka: it's a wasted opportunity) </font>



Disagree with me about what Rob?
That this is not an appropriate place to have serious or official discussions about important PDGA issues?

<font color="blue"> This is a place where serious discussions about important PDGA issues can take place, if it is allowed to be. (that does not mean it is the only place). are your comments here or in the thread in which you argue for a true amateur division not serious? </font>

That we should have some patience and understanding for how our PDGA officers and volunteers work?

<font color="blue"> i appreciate what they do and am willing to be patient. but i don't agree with the idea that it is okay to release something as important as a re-write of the Constitution so close to the deadline for it to be on the ballot. what is the harm in not rushing? i don't want to sit at the table and help re-write the document -- i just want the re-write to be done in a time frame that gives members time to read and consider the new document before it being put before us for a vote. it wastes potential member suggestions for improvements to throw it before us at the very last minute. human nature being what it is -- even the best leaders are human and may fail to consider all of the ramifications of what they are proposing. releasing the document early would allow a time frame for suggestions to be made. what is the harm in that? </font>

That we should wait to see what the constitution actually is before making emphatic statements of support or not?

<font color="blue"> i am already on record here saying i won't decide one way or the other until i read it. i am saying i don't agree with the proposed process in which the re-write won't be available for member review until it is *already* on the ballot </font>

That we shouldn�t openly or indirectly and repeatedly impugn the character of the folks doing ALL of the work for us?

<font color="blue">you lost me. </font>

There is no increase in communication here, just in posturing, there is a difference.

<font color="blue"> you are again losing me -- how about a specific example? </font>

You want me to extend the benefit of the doubt to Pat, Bruce and yourself, fine, then you guys need to start extending that benefit towards those actually involved in the REAL work.

<font color="blue"> i am happy to extend that and i am not speaking for Pat or Bruce. i am only requesting that the timeline for the re-writing of the Constitution respect the membership enough to give us a few months of time to review the new document prior to it being placed upon a ballot. That seems to me to be in the best interests of our leaders and our non-office holding members </font>

You mistakenly think �giving grief�, �grandstanding� and �posturing� as �member interest�.

<font color="blue"> why are you suggesting that expressing interest in Constitutional changes and the appropriate protocol for such changes is mere "posturing"? </font>

Real member interest would have been paying attention to all available communications concerning this issue throughout the years and stepped up to do your share; rather than waiting until the last possible minute and making a stink with about 3 or 4 others here on the message board. Real member interest would likely never even appear in this forum.

<font color="blue"> real member interest is here to be read as concern that the changes proposed not be put on a ballot prior to being revealed to the membership and given time to be digested. do you have any reason to believe the proposed changes would not hold up to member review? noone i know of is asking for line-by-line input -- they simply want the changes to be made openly </font>

Lastly, you don�t know where I stand on this issue of the constitution, because as Pat rightly points out, this isn�t about the constitution, this isn�t even about what he says is an issue of more open communication� just apply your suspicious mind as applied to the PDGA BOD to Pat and Bruce and you will have your answer as to what this is all really about.

<font color="blue"> don't miss the larger issue here based on any past disagreements you may have had with Pat or Bruce or which they have had with the BoD. </font>

In the end it is just good entertainment and for that I am grateful to all the miscreants and demagogues here.

<font color="blue"> your apparent cynicism is noted </font>

Kul. I got on the wireless in this meeting room.

Here's a thought on DISCussion, even specifically this thread.

I try to do a PDGA Member News every week during the season. There won't be one this week, because I am too busy and now there is no time left to eke out a way to do it.

If you took all the time I spent posting on this thread and put it together for me in a chunk of time, I could have had PDGA Member News done this week.

Was my time better spent informing the handful of folks here, or preparing the newsletter to many thousands of other members?


Two things.

One -- I'd been noticing in this thread that if each time you wrote, you'd omitted one or two paragraphs where you felt obliged to explain that talking to us here wasn't necessary, your posts improved considerably in tone, while their information content remained the same. So you can write less and say more, not annoy readers into asking follow-up questions, and overall spend less time on the message board.

Two -- if you had put the information in PDGA Members News that we were asking for here, and simply referred us to that news bulletin, then that would have been time well spent, wouldn't it? Two birds and one stone, as they say.

Does that mean that you've never read a PDGA Member News, Pat, and don't know what kind of content there is? Or that you think that the content there usually is, is not valuable? (In which case, whence cometh the raves I get from members about them on a regular basis?)

nice try, but its not an either/or thing.

all i said was that it depends on the content you intended to publish. since you didnt publish one, then how in the world could i make any judgements about it?

Hey, now I get the feeling you two are trying to play some kind of " Catch'em Slippin' " game with each other :D

i've gotten that feeling before, but not from Terry. i think Terry is a good guy who enjoys being precise and holding others to the same precision. he and i are a lot alike in that respect.

I do try very hard to be precise and am mortified when I am not. I don't expect that from others like I do from myself, but I am also the kind of person who cannot help but take what people say quite literally, so in an asynchronous conversation, like here, I sometimes can come across as picky when I am mostly just trying to completely understand. I just hate to respond to something when I am not certain what the intent and validity of what I am responding to is.

No doubt I am biased about this, but I happen to think that every issue of PDGA Member News is quite a valuable service to the membership. I am pleased to have developed and implemented it. I am dismayed that I let the conversation here take enough of my time that I ran *out* of time and could not put a newsletter out this week.

Pat says that he can't judge whether my time was better spent here than it would have been working on the newsletter, because he doesn't know what *would* have been in the newsletter. I think that the regular kind of content that is in there, when multiplied by the number of readers, definitely would have been more valuable than my time spent here.

That's a clear difference of opinion.

I think that the regular kind of content that is in there, when multiplied by the number of readers, definitely would have been more valuable than my time spent here.



Make better use of your time, I guess. Perhaps you abstaining from reading or posting on this thread will not only free up time for what you perceive as more valuable, it would finally force those interested in getting answers to see you out on your prefferred (email, telephone) methods of communication. Right? :D

Terry, I'm looking around on the website, and I can't find PDGA Member News. Is it an email newsletter? Do you post it on DISCussion?

I wasn't even aware of this newsletter until a couple posts ago, and re-reading your posts, I understand now that you've been putting this letter together weekly for some time.

I know you like to knock DISCussion ("DISCussion is not all"), but I don't get replies to emails, and I've never seen this newsletter, so my past defense of DISCussion has been partly due to the fact that it's the only connection I have to the rest of the PDGA. I know a few people who play this sport locally, but none of them are in the PDGA, and so, perhaps unfortunately, they've been getting all their information about the PDGA from me. And they get info from the copy of the DGWN magazine that I sometimes circulate around (though lately, people have stopped asking for it, because it doesn't have enough how-to articles in it, they say).

If there's a newsletter out there, I'd be happy to hear more about it and perhaps put this board in better perspective. Maybe it's also something I can pass on to those considering joining the PDGA, but right now they only have me and a locked-out, read-only DISCussion board to help them make that decision.

Thanks!

Paul, when I get a chance I will personally send you the latest newsletter.

Please send me your best working email address. I will also then send that to the PDGA office so that they can ensure you are on the recipient list. I'm guessing that we just may not have a working email address for you.

actually its no difference of opinion at all. its like asking which food is better, but not saying which foods you are choosing between.

tell ya what, send me in a zip file or a batch of emails or whatever you can do it in as many previous newsletters you have and i will get them posted as pages on this site (not the board). with appropriate links leading the way.

that would be great news for me. i was getting three copies of the newsletter emailed to me and i have dial-up. i think the extra copies were for my deleted user name or for the usernames i tried to create after being deleted in the crash but then never received the email from the PDGA to validate those accounts.

for me it would be easier and more convenient to unsubscribe altogether and just access the Newsletters here. thanks Pat.

rob, i forgot to say happy birthday yesterday. please vote for me anyway! happy birthday dude!

Thanks, Terry -- I've PMed my 2 working email addresses to you.

This entire discussion is a prime example of why this message board is such an inappropriate place to do any official communication. There is just no way around having it deteriorate into a �witch-hunt�.



<font color="blue"> You seem a bit too inclined to call anything you disagree with a witch-hunt.</font>



I agree. In fact, I don't think Nick has any clue what the term "witch-hunt" even means. For God sakes, please look up the term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunt

and stop embarassing yourself, Nick.

actually its no difference of opinion at all. its like asking which food is better, but not saying which foods you are choosing between.

tell ya what, send me in a zip file or a batch of emails or whatever you can do it in as many previous newsletters you have and i will get them posted as pages on this site (not the board). with appropriate links leading the way.



Pat, the only reason they are not archived on pdga.com, at least it's my reason, is that I use email addresses for people who do not want their email addresses on websites. (Spam harvesters, etc.) I do not feel that way myself, but I feel I should respect their wishes.

You could easily archive the content without archiving the addresses.

it would take about two seconds to remove all email addresses from all archives. good idea though.

how about we get the people who do out hosting to stop allowing our mail server to be used as an open relay? i am tired of getting spam from it via the PDGA monitor address.

OK, since Nick has me on ignore and cant read the responses to any of the questions he throws at me, does anyone else have some?

btw, have those minutes from Arizona been published yet? how about that draft of the new Constitution?

Pat, have you learned whether the revised version of the Constitution will be on the ballot itself, and what the portion of the ballot regarding the changes to the Constitution will look like? i am wondering whether there will be some link to the changes below a question like: do you support the following changes to the PDGA Constitution: [link to revised Constitution]

or, was the recent E-Newsletter an indication that the question will look like this: do you support the proposed upgrade to our Constitution that recently was proposed by the Oversight Director and was passed by the BoD?

if it were up to you, how would you word or present the changes to the membership ?

rob, no, i dont know anything about that. they promised to send me the draft as soon as it was written, so the lack of anything must mean nothing has been written and/or circulated. i guess one guy is gonna write it and spring it on the whole organization with less than a month to go before the ballot is mailed.

cool, huh! its a good way to make sure you limit discussion and increase your chances of winning.

i read the newsletter, but didnt see anything about the Constitution, just some stuff about the upcoming election and the need for candidates.

if it was me, i would have the election for the BoD spots under the current Constitution, then have a seperate vote later for the new C. it seems odd to vote for BoD positions that might never even exist. and it seems odd to have the first public showing of the new wording on the ballot itself. no public ballot works like that. if possible i would publish the proposed C before the BoD election, and make the candidates state whether or not they supported it.

i read the newsletter, but didnt see anything about the Constitution, just some stuff about the upcoming election and the need for candidates



I don't have the newsletter sitting in front of me, but it DID say we were voting on a new constitution in the newsletter. And I didn't even read the whole thing. :confused:

Pat, i have been getting 3 copies of every newsletter since the message board crash -- here (via cut and paste) is what the recent e-newsletter said about the Constitution (see esp. the bottom most part i have highlighted with italics):


2006 PDGA Membership Elections
Complete information here. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=519412&amp;Main=519412#Post51 9412) The open positions, which include three board positions and half of the state and provincial coordinator positions, are ones for whicH the importance and responsibility has been increasing each year. We/YOU need dedicated, hardworking, talented, and reasonable people in these roles. Please consider running for a position.

The nominating period is already open. It closes on May 15, 2006.
The voting period will be from June 1 through July 31, 2006, and online except for those who cannot vote in that way.
Those elected or re-elected will take office on September 1, 2006.
In addition to voting for elected leaders of various sorts, members will be asked to approve a substantial upgrade to the PDGA Constitution/Bylaws.




did your version have that info edited out? :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :p

Pat, by the way, have you followed the stipulated procedure quoted below to submit your candidacy?


2006 PDGA ELECTIONS

As summer draws near, its time once again to prepare for the annual PDGA elections, and to send out the call for candidates. This year voting will take place from June 1 to July 31, with the elected candidates assuming office as of September 1. Once again the 2006 PDGA Election will be held on-line, with members casting their ballots at www.campus-vote.com. (http://www.campus-vote.com.) In 2005, the transition from mailed paper ballots to on-line voting was successful, and resulted in a doubling of the % of current members who voted.


VOTING PROCEDURES

During the first week of June all current members for whom the PDGA has an email address on file will receive an email from campus-vote.com with their PDGA online election instructions including their own individual ballot passcode. All members whose email bounces back or who do not have an email address on file, will be mailed a postcard by campus-vote.com with their on-line ballot instructions and passcode. On or about July 10, all members with valid emails who have not yet voted will be sent a voting reminder. Those members who do not have any access to a computer or internet capability will also be able to contact the PDGA office and request a mailed paper ballot. Provided this request is received by the PDGA no later than July 10, a ballot will be mailed to the member.


BECOMING A PDGA BOARD MEMBER

A Board of Directors is a requirement for non-profit status and is mandated by the PDGA Constitution. The PDGA Board is comprised of 7 elected members each holding a two-year terms. Every year, half - in the PDGA�s case 3 or 4 - of the Board positions are up for election. In addition to semi-annual meetings, the Board and staff conduct monthly teleconference calls and ongoing communication to accomplish required business, and to conduct ongoing reviews of systems, projects, priorities, and challenges.

Some of the Board�s main activities include: setting PDGA policies; hiring and supervision of an Executive Director responsible for headquarters, staff, and ongoing operations; financial management including annual budget; identification of responsible future Board members; and representing the membership�s visions for the future of the sport and the association.

Prospective Board members should have some of the following mix of skills and qualifications:
- Professional experience, involving management, marketing, financial, strategic planning, entrepreneurship, and/or the non-profit sector.
- Communication skills, in representing PDGA, and in corresponding with members, including access to email
- A passion for disc golf
- Familiarity with and commitment to PDGA

As a member of the PDGA Board, and as someone prepared to seize the day, you will have the opportunity to have direct impact on the growth of disc golf and the PDGA.

The following Board positions will be elected in this year's election:
Communications Director, Competition Director, and Oversight Director. Terms will be September 1, 2006 - August 31, 2008.

Here are the descriptions for these positions:

The COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR is responsible for communicating the news of the association to the membership, and to non-members, through the magazine, the e-newsletter, and other channels. The incumbent is Terry Calhoun #15117.

The COMPETITION DIRECTOR is responsible for ensuring all competitive events are conducted in a professional manner and provide a fair experience to participating players. Specific areas of responsibility include the Tour Standards, major event bids, support to Major and National Tour events, and the Marshal�s program. The incumbent is John Chapman #5559.

The OVERSIGHT DIRECTOR is responsible for ensuring that all Directors and committees are conducting their duties in accordance with the Constitution. The incumbent is Kirk Yoo #6161.


<font color="red"> SUBMITTING YOUR CANDIDACY </font>

If you are interested in running for one of these positions, please submit your candidacy, including platform statement, and a synopsis of your professional and disc golf resume, by email to the PDGA Executive Director at [email protected], by May 15, 2006.

I was "talking" to Pat about that a while ago and I think he was planning on following the procedure set forth in the Constitution, instead of the procedure normally used by the PDGA. :eek: My brother Jon wants to see my name on the ballot again. If I run, I'll use the Constitutional procedure also.

yes, the Constitution describes a different process than what the newsletter and Message Baord thread describe. i will be using the Constitution procedure, just in case the PDGA should decide for some reason to follow their Constitution.

After thinking about it (seriously) and talking it over with my wife, I will not be running for the BOD this year. (she was dead set against it)

We will see next year.

btw, have those minutes from Arizona been published yet? how about that draft of the new Constitution?




btw, have those minutes from Arizona been published yet? how about that draft of the new Constitution?



They can't be posted until they're formally approved by the board at its next meeting, which I hope is pretty soon. I haven't seen a draft of them or a draft of the upgraded constitution/bylaws yet.

I was "talking" to Pat about that a while ago and I think he was planning on following the procedure set forth in the Constitution, instead of the procedure normally used by the PDGA. :eek: My brother Jon wants to see my name on the ballot again. If I run, I'll use the Constitutional procedure also.



what is the Constitutional procedure and what is the gist of the difference? :confused:

C procedure requires 20 Members to nominate you in writing. Published procedures do not include that requirement.

C procedure requires 20 Members to nominate you in writing. Published procedures do not include that requirement.



I can see the C[onstitutional] procedure has the upside of forcing leadership contact with those they seek to lead.

What is the upside of the published (Unconstitutional? :eek:) procedures? less trouble? it seems like it could lead to hundreds of candidates having to be put on the ballot ... :confused:

if you need any more members to nominate you to fulfill Constitutional procedures just let me know.

it seems like it could lead to hundreds of candidates having to be put on the ballot ...




While i understand what you are trying to say....that comment is hilarious....lol

it seems like it could lead to hundreds of candidates having to be put on the ballot ...




While i understand what you are trying to say....that comment is hilarious....lol



Yes it is. :D

You have to be a total [wait, can I say that word?] to want to be on the Board, so that keeps a lot of people out of the race. Usually the Board is searching pretty hard just to fill its slate of candidates.

You can say idiot now, unless you are Nick saying it to Pat. :)

it seems like it could lead to hundreds of candidates having to be put on the ballot ...




While i understand what you are trying to say....that comment is hilarious....lol



contextually it is hilarious. but contemplating worse-case scenarios and creating roadblocks to them is sound practice when writing procedures, by-laws, constitutions, etc. the checks and balances in the US Constitution lasted for quite a while. recently however said checks and balances are being bent to the breaking point by our executive branch and neither the so-called 'free' (read 'corporate owned') press nor the legislative branch seems to be giving it the attention it warrants...

i guess my point is that even when the present context involves leaders who put their personal interests aside for the greater interests of our organization it is always good practice to write by-laws which can deal effectively in potential future situations with leaders who are, or become, corrupt. hence my preference for openess even if it can be a bit of a hassle...

i mean, if after Pat gets elected to the board, all of a sudden we start finding out that all new members are being mailed a free disc with the words "long live the 2 meter rule" stamped on top and "those against the 2 meter rule are idiots" stamped on the bottom -- then we need to be able to request all of the purchase order and idea proposal communication that took place out of Pat's office! :mad: ;) :p :eek: :o:D /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

... back now to questions for Pat ... :p

IF (not when) i am elected, i will do my utmost to make sure every remotely relevant discussion about the PDGA, its policies, etc in which i am involved is published on this website. i'll use the Message Board if necessary (meaning, no page was permitted by whoever runs the website itself).

so you wil have all the gory details abourt those "Viva la 2MR" discs :D

by the way, the one thing i really see as missing fromthe current C is the means to remove a BoD member who goes astray. i support the addition of wording that enables that type of action to the current C., or the inclusion of it wthin the new C.

Does a BOD member need to be current to serve? If so, then any disciplinary action that takes away their current status also temporarily or permanently removes them from the Board depending on the length of the suspension.

does suspension take away current status or simply prevent sanctioned play?

according to Article 7, Section 3, 20 members must submit nominations in writing to the Elections Committee.

now go to the Contact page. there is no way to contact the Election Committee! according to the Committee pulldown, it doesnt even exist!

god bless them for all they do, but i'm not sure everyone in "leadership" positions is fully awake :D

That's what I'm asking.

this is a direct request for your support to get me on the upcoming ballot for Oversight Director.

to do so, please send a short email to [email protected] please CC me at [email protected], and request a return receipt. that'll make sure the propoer documentation exists for the ballot qualification process.

the email can simply say:

"please accept this email as my nomination of Pat Brenner, PDGA #10403, for the position of Oversight Director on the upcoming 2006 ballot. if you would please ensure that this nomination reaches the Elections Committee, I would be most appreciative."

make sure to sign it with your name and pdga number.

the email address is received by Lorrie, who is likely the best thing to ever happen to the PDGA. so if you change the wording, please know that one of the most unfailingly gracious human beings on the planet is on the receiving end.

regardless of whether you plan on voting for me or someone else, i appreciate your help in getting me on the ballot. if you're gonna vote for me, then the reasoning is obvious. if you hate my guts and think i'm an idiot, then relish the rush you'll get voting for someone else :D

thanks!

well, its a good question. the answer is well hidden, if it even exists. maybe it depends on the severity of the crime. like Congress :cool:

Pat, please edit your recent post so that the period does not show up at the end of the email address [email protected]

(i think that may cause a non-delivery). Also, Oversight Director is spelled with a "v" :eek: :D i cut and pasted your sentence only to find the typo.

hopefully the [email protected] address works. i had some trouble with it not too long ago...

btw, my email has been sent. thanks for volunteering to run for, and donate your time and energy to, this office.

thanks for the edits and the nomination. i wish i could type! (oh, thats a different thread :) )

Hint: Re-read Article 4, Section 8 of the PDGA Constitution. It says what to do if the Elections Committee is vacant (which it is). The BoD has prescribed such a path that the Exec.Director (staff) carries out the election process. The BoD has the power to employ said staff under Article 4, Section 3.

The 20 nominations are one way to nominate a Director, but it's hardly necessary. A simple email to Exec. Director by the candidate will do. The Exec. Director with further directions for the nominee, if necessary.

Chap

On March 9th, on the official announcements thread, all anyone needs to know to nominate themselves or someone else for the board was published. Here's part of it:

"If you are interested in running for one of these positions, please submit your candidacy, including platform statement, and a synopsis of your professional and disc golf resume, by email to the PDGA Executive Director at [email protected], by May 15, 2006."

Here's the rest: http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=519412&amp;page=0&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1

As John pointed out, the process described in the Constitution is not only NOT the only way to nominate, but I think - and from talking with old-timers who agree - that the specific provision is there so that someone who feels they are wrongly being kept off of the ballot can insist on being on the ballot.

This is one more example of the confusion and difficulties than can be caused by the current, inadequate and poorly-written document.

Article IV, Section 8: "Nominations of Directors shall be made by the election committee. In the event of a vacant election
committee, nominations of directors shall be coordinated by the Board. Nominations may also be made by Active members as
prescribed in the Constitution."

So, earlier assertions that the board and staff are not following the document with regard to nominations process were wrong, like the vast majority of such assertions on DISCussion.

according to Article 7, Section 3, 20 members must submit nominations in writing to the Elections Committee.

now go to the Contact page. there is no way to contact the Election Committee! according to the Committee pulldown, it doesnt even exist!

god bless them for all they do, but i'm not sure everyone in "leadership" positions is fully awake :D



This is what I mean, Pat. We're awake. We provided instructions. You chose to try to read the tough-to-understand constitution instead (Did you miss the instructions or just don't want to follow them?), and apparently only part of it, and found yet another way to inappropriately criticize current leadership.

I can understand only reading part of the constitution, it can hurt your brain to read it and try to actually understand what it says about nominations and election; in fact my first impetus to change it came from being asked to run the election the year after I was put on the board. I was greatly frustrated when I realized how poorly written it was.

But we did post fairly clear and simple instructions in the official announcements thread.

I think that once you have been on the BoD for a little while so you will look back on a lot of these posts and be quite embarassed by the tone of your criticisms of others.

all of which may be true, but all of those options sure are confusing. when are we supposed to follow the C, and which paragraph should we follow? i';m not disagreeing the current C has tons of holes in it. but it does seem to be followed willy-nilly, and sometimes not at all.

Agreed. However, from what I know, without a single hint of corruption, attempts for political gain or personal advantage, this is just a hard-working board and staff doing what needs and can be done to further the association and disc golf.

At the moment, I do know of at least one good potential board member running for each of the open three positions. That satisfies me. Especially because the only incumbent, Kirk Yoo, has not been on the board for long, so we have "fresh blood" coming through three hard-working and knowledgeable people joining a board and staff that has accomplished a great deal and has taken the governance and administration of the PDGA to its highest-ever level.

Thank goodness.

The Constitution is not tough to understand. It says what it says. Art. 7, sec. 2, requires the Board to nominate one or more candidates for each elected position. Sec. 3 permits nominations by petition. There is no third process.

If the Board wants to solicit candidates in the manner the Board typically does, I suppose it can under sec. 2. But nothing in the Constitution guarantees any of the candidates solicited by that process that they will actually get on the ballot. They'll get on the ballot that way if the Board puts them on the ballot.

The Constitution provides a process for someone other than the Board's candidate to get their name on the ballot. Pat is not the Board's candidate. It is entirely appropriate for him to use the second process.

I think you're proving my point about confusion, Bruce. If you would re-read Article VI, Sections 2-3, you will see that even with the alternative route of having 20 petitioners does not guarantee a nominee getting onto the ballot.

There's no language at all in there that guarantees a nominee, by whatever means, a place on the ballot. That's what I mean by "confusing." You read it and assumed that it did. This is what you just wrote: <font color="red"> "The Constitution provides a process for someone other than the Board's candidate to get their name on the ballot." </font> Not. It provides a process for being nominated, no guarantee of placement on the ballot.

If it confused you, then it's pretty darned confusing. :D

In fact, Article VII, Section 2 provides - within itself - for the board or a nominating to nominate candidates.

Article VI, Section 3 provides for a petition nominating process that requires the existence of a nominating committee for the process to be useable. Since there isn't one, you could easily read the constitution to say that the petition process is invalid in the absence of a nominating committee.

<font color=red>"Section 3. Nominations may be made by petition signed by at least twenty (20) Active members and submitted to the
Election Committee. The petitioners shall be responsible for:
(A) obtaining in writing the agreement of the nominee to serve if elected;
(B) securing the biographical data of the nominee;
(C) submitting the petitions, the agreement, and the biographical data to be received by the Election Committee approximately one (1) month prior to the distribution of the ballot."</font>

Even Article IV, Section 8, supports this: <font color=red>"Section 8. Nominations of Directors shall be made by the election committee. In the event of a vacant election committee, nominations of directors shall be coordinated by the Board. Nominations may also be made by Active members as prescribed in the Constitution."</font>

That latter sentence sure does seem to refer to Article VI, Section 3, which calls for there to be a nominating committee for the petition process to be in play.

Confused-er yet?

Are any positions running opposed? Or is it just the top 3 vote getters get the open positions?

god bless them for all they do, but i'm not sure everyone in "leadership" positions is fully awake



So insulting our leadership is fair game, but stating that folks can still post idiotic statements is not. Is this the sort of hypocracy we can look forward to?

Pat, I find your constant baggering of Terry, Theo and all board members offensive in the extreme, even with little smilie faces in tow.

The only solice in any of this is that you will most certainly, in the end, get what you deserve if you end up serving on the BOD. There will be no escaping it. Well, I guess there is one way. Resignation.

Nick, why dont you run?

Terry, do you feel badgered by me? if so, i apologize.

Kirk should feel more badgered than he does, but thats because i have laid off of requesting that the current C be enforced.

i dont think anyone else on the BoD has been significantly involved in this thread, so i will take the "all board members" segment as message board hyperbole.

Nick, I only know of one person who has been nominated for each of the three open seats on the board, or who I know intends to run. The deadline has not passed for nominations and I cannot imagine a situation where anyone who was willing to run would not be allowed to do so. So . . . .

Unfortunately, it is often true that two candidates cannot be found for each position. Fortunately, to me at least, is that I am very satisfied by the current three candidates.

People don't like to run against other people. I will be pleasantly surprised if there are additional candidates for all of these positions.

peace to all

i'm going to world doubles for the first time since the last time at circle r!

peace to all

i'm going to world doubles for the first time since the last time at circle r!

Play well.

I wish you would reconsider Terry.

Someone I'd like to see run is Dan Doyle. He would be a rock solid addition and someone universally liked and respected. We have a lot of great leaders here in our region, but their plates runeth over. Is JDs seat a Board of Directors level seat?

Gary Duke would make an excellent BOD member too.

I can only hope that Pat will serve well. There is no evidence to know one way or another really. He talks a good talk. He has passion. He has conviction. But he doesn't seem to get how it all fits together(yet).

Then again, there is no way he'll be able to avoid the "Eye Openning" of service once in office.

It's a matter of trust and that has been broken for me. Still, I'll do my best to support him if elected.

Question though, in the future will it just be all candidates running for the BOD and the top vote getters getting the available positions? Is this the sort of thing to be decided in the new constitution?

If I could make my son fly on airplanes, we'd be there. Have fun.

Nick, I would like to see every seat contested. I am content with at least one good person contending for each seat.

It's a matter of trust and that has been broken for me.


This was my initial problem with the banning of all non-members from DISCussion for something only a few non-members did. And they are still banned, while you were banned for only one day for something you did do. I worried that some non-members would see this as punishment for something they didn't do, and with that lost trust, we would lose future members.

You have the control, Nick, to keep yourself on this board by how you conduct yourself in your posts, and you know it. If you give people the opportunity to ban you for something you actually did, then that's your fault, and no one else's.

(Actually, this same thinking has led me to become less concerned about the non-member problem over time. I was actually banned for a month myself, because I hadn't renewed my membership. Not a big deal in the long run -- I had the control to get my posting privileges back, by simply paying a membership fee.

Seeing it that way, I started thinking, you know, non-members are not really being banned for the reason stated. Maybe the trigger was the behavior of a few rowdy non-members, but non-members are truly being banned because they have chosen not to be members of the PDGA, and simply that. If this had been only reason stated, with no reference at all to the poor behavior of some non-members, I think I would have understood better.)

You can go back and see what I posted and answer that question yourself. Also be sure to read the several times Pat said that he is not and would not monitor the board. I'd be fine with being banned for something I did that actually broke the rules of the board and even apologize for it. Is Pat a big enough man to admit when he was wrong? There is nothing gray about this situation.

Beyond this I don't want anyone giving either Rhett or Pat grief about it here. I KNOW how difficult monitoring a board is and I appreciate their efforts to improve the situation here.

I will not respond to this again. My trust for Pat has been broken, that is that.

Look, Nick, as I see it, the reason one monitor banned you is because you irritated him so much with your collection of posts that one more pushed him to finally do it.

The reason the other monitor did not ban you is because you irritated him so much with your collection of posts that he didn't feel objective enough to do it.

You've got to look to yourself about this, Nick, and stop getting mad at others about it. I've done some irritating in the past with some of my posts, too, so I know where from I speak.

Now let's get back to figuring out if a hyzer will become unconstitutional or not.

If I try to be cute or funny concerning this it will only come off as insulting towards you, Pat and Rhett. I have worked hard at not doing that or being "personally" confrontational. At the same time I have not, and will not, shy away from being confrontational when it comes to issues.

Irritating people or posting idiotic posts, so long as they are within the rules of this discussion board, are not grounds for banning from this discussion board. Whether in a single post or over a series of posts.

<font color="blue"> And someone who has explicitly stated on more than one occasion that he would not use his administrative access to monitor or moderate the board, let alone ban users, and then does has broken their trust with all users. </font>

If you truly want to just get back to this topic then send me an email or PM. I don't ask for you to look at yourself personally or morally Paul, just that you consider your statements here and now. You don't know me from Adam and I don't know more than what you post here, and I don't assume to know you from that.

Irritating people or posting idiotic posts, so long as they are within the rules of this discussion board, are not grounds for banning from this discussion board. Whether in a single post or over a series of posts.



WRONG, NICK!

<font color="red">Messages containing inflammatory comments or other offensive content may be removed at the discretion of the board monitors. Individuals who persist in this behavior may be barred from future posting. </font>

The moderators have determined that irritating = inflammatory and name-calling (e.g. your use of 'idiots') is offensive content. Why can't you get that through your thick skull?


I have worked hard at not doing that or being "personally" confrontational. At the same time I have not, and will not, shy away from being confrontational when it comes to issues.



If you continue to be confrontational, I would venture that it's only a matter of time before you are permanently banned from this PDGA Discussion Board.

look, Nick, as I see it, the reason one monitor banned you



The monitor didn't ban me Paul. Pat is not a monitor, his access as he explained it was to resolve the switchover to members only access, NOT TO MONITOR the discussion board (for now obvious reasons). The discussion board monitor said that he wouldn't have done it and so did Terry. It was just Pat spurred on by the clear headed and unbiased Jeff.

Again, irritation is not a basis for banning. Even years of direct flat out personal attacks are not a basis apparently. If they were Jeff LaGrassa would have been banned everytime he posts immediately after me, even under anonymous new user names, right?

'Nough Said...

peace to all

i'm going to world doubles for the first time since the last time at circle r!



It should have NEVER left Round Rock.... :mad:

:p

even under anonymous new user names, right?



You do know the definition of anonymous, right? I suggest you look it up in the dictionary. No one is anonymous on the message board anymore; you have to be linked to a PDGA number, and a user's identity is easily accessed by clicking on a user's profile. You do know how to click on a user's profile, right?

I'd be fine with being banned for something I did that actually broke the rules of the board and even apologize for it. Is Pat a big enough man to admit when he was wrong? There is nothing gray about this situation.



before you could apologize for breaking a rule, and before you could see the gray which escapes the polarized lens that only sees black and white -- you would have to see and consider your own potential to be wrong Nick.

wasn't Pat responding to a pattern of posting behaviors that in his estimation had reached the 'last straw'? a 24 hour ban, it seems to me, is more of a heads up or a wake-up call to take a quick look in the mirror than it is some sort of heavy-handed censorship ;)

question from Nick: "Is Pat a big enough man to admit when he was wrong?"

i already admitted i was wrong when i enhanced the baord to show the rating and rating-rank of the poster without running the enhancement through proper channels.

so you already have your answer.

Nick, 4/7/06 9:26 PM: "I will not respond to this again."
PaulM, 4/7/06 10:27 PM: makes a good point
Nick, 4/8/06 9:33 AM: responds
12616, 4/8/06 10:59 AM: makes another good point
Nick, 4/8/06 12:46 PM: responds again

(and the subject was broken trust )

I'd be fine with being banned for something I did that actually broke the rules of the board and even apologize for it. Is Pat a big enough man to admit when he was wrong? There is nothing gray about this situation.



before you could apologize for breaking a rule, and before you could see the gray which escapes the polarized lens that only sees black and white -- you would have to see and consider your own potential to be wrong Nick.

wasn't Pat responding to a pattern of posting behaviors that in his estimation had reached the 'last straw'? a 24 hour ban, it seems to me, is more of a heads up or a wake-up call to take a quick look in the mirror than it is some sort of heavy-handed censorship ;)



Mike, in Pat's own words it was not his estimation to reach. He is not a PDGA Message Board Monitor, he has stated that he is not and would not exercise those priviledges. That he broke that word and trust is not even up for debate.

Now you say that I should consider, or even be able to consider, my own pattern of abusing users here. First of all I have and continue to do so. I do my best not to instigate any personal arguments and I nearly never respond to intentional provocations. Certainly the post that he deemed "the final straw" was in no way an insult at him anymore than his preceding post was an insult at the PDGA Board of Directors and All PDGA Volunteers.

Pat clearly is in no position to make such judgments and he clearly abused his powers in banning me.

If you find something that I have said here that breaks the rules of this discussion board then by all means report it to the PDGA Message Board Monitor, the PDGA Webmaster and the PDGA Office for disciplinary action. But no one could even do that; all they could point to is that they saw some "pattern", that they couldn't even articulate in real world examples.

Pat and Rhett need to apologize, that is all that is necessary to move beyond this. My emailbox is ready and waiting. I know folks make mistakes, so if they acknowledge their laps in judgment and action/inaction, that will be good enough. I have already forgiven them, but that doesn't mean I am going to permit the false nature of this episode to go unchallenged.

If you find something that I have said here that breaks the rules of this discussion board then by all means report it to the PDGA Message Board Monitor, the PDGA Webmaster and the PDGA Office for disciplinary action. But no one could even do that; all they could point to is that they saw some "pattern", that they couldn't even articulate in real world examples.



If there's one thing that's been discussed ad nauseum over the years, it's your posting pattern - it has been ingrained over the past several years and has caused long running altercations and long running ill-tempered dialogs with many message board users. Given the time and resources, one could find several dozens of real world examples.



I know folks make mistakes, so if they acknowledge their laps in judgment and action/inaction, that will be good enough. I have already forgiven them, but that doesn't mean I am going to permit the false nature of this episode to go unchallenged.



The only laps (sic:D) in judgement is that you clearly have no ability to recognize your own behavior. Fear not, however, every future instance of you breaking the rules of this discussion board will be reported to the PDGA Message Board Monitor.

wow, usually the board is dead on the weekends, and then all of this during the first weekend i've played in quite a while!

i'm not sure if this thread should live under the "any publicity is good publicity" approach, or if i should exercise my monitorness and move the whole thing into the thread graveyard.

btw and for the record, from the start Rhett_the_Admin has encouraged me to become an active moderator, even though when i received admin status in order to do the members-only coding i did state that i would not be actively moderating.

Pat and Rhett need to apologize...


I do not believe that I need to apologize to Nick for anything. I have chosen not to act on matters pertaining to Nick because I am biased. In cases where I believe that Nick has gone over the line, I send requests for action to PDGA officials who can better assess the situation in an even light. If I were to ban Nick for some deserved action on his part, he would throw a holy hissy-fit like he is currently doing. Yet when I choose not to act due to my self-known bias, he also throws me under the bus. As if I should somehow be not biased when it serve's Nick purpose, and therefore I should for some strange reason be compelled to apologize for not acting???????? Give me a break.

Nick also continues to insult me every time he uses the derogotory term "entitlement" to describe what he believes to be my only motivations for playing tournament disc golf. He has no idea why I play. Nick should apologoze to everyone who has ever read the message board and wasted their time on any of his posts.

y'all really should apologize to Nick. He said idiotic, not idiot. Amongst people that argue all the time (me included), is calling something or someone idiotic really all that inflammatory?

If you feel Nick overstepped the bounds dozens of other times, then find those and ban him for those, but not for this one. btw, I feel y'all (meaning Pat and Rhett) have done an excellent job of providing a little clarity through y'alls actions, or inactions regarding what is acceptable. But this quick ban for an insignificant statement is hopefully just an odd outlier.

y'all really should apologize to Nick. He said idiotic, not idiot. Amongst people that argue all the time (me included), is calling something or someone idiotic really all that inflammatory?



No, he said 'idiot.'

Written by Nick Kight on 03/27/06 at 09:40 PM: (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&amp;%20Standards&amp;Number=52 7803&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=522131&amp;Search=true&amp;#65533;P ost527803)


Thank goodness you're still allowed to make an idiot of yourself though

yes, you are right. However, "make an idiot of yourself" ain't that bad. I mean, a lot of us here argue pretty heatedly and occasionally things get said. Big deal. That's part of the game. It's just karma, and nothing to run to the principal over.

Sensitivity is way too abundant these days.

I'm sorry but wow! I'm getting such deja vu. Third grade, Timmy running up to the play ground teacher, "Mikey hit me! Whaaaaaaa!"

Mikey: "He called me a name!"

Teacher: "Now now, lets all calm down and go have some milk and cookies."

Nick,

Some would consider it an honor to be banned for something they believe in.

On the other hand, whether or not the action was appropriate, you are by far the most irritating poster on this board. Let me put it in perspective for you. It isn't that you don't say important things, it's just the way you say them. Basically, you're more full of yourself than Bush is. That is, he thinks he is never wrong... My advice, drink more beer before you post, then none of this will matter nearly as much. On the other hand, you're pretty entertaining the way you are...

Rhett, please don't explain why you don't have to apologize. If sombody out there really thinks that anyone on this board needs to apologize to Nick for banning him or not banning him or complaining or not complaining about him, they must have just joined, or have an agenda, or be focused on the difference between idiot or idiotic... Whatever. :p

Whatever Lyle. Stuff is said around here all the time and then someone is called an idiot and then wham, time for a ban. The truth is that if anyone but Nick had said that same thing, they wouldn't have been banned. Y'all should really contemplate that.

It's really no different than the article I saw on the FCC the other day. Something about #$*&$! people couldn't be aired. Why, because they are #$*&$! and the FCC hates gays. However, "Saving Private Ryan" can cuss like a drunken sailor and nothing. Why? Of course, the FCC loves the military.

Basically, people should stop being so freaking sensitive.

Wow, can't say #$*&amp;$! around here. This is just another example of hyper-sensitivity. What wimp put that word on the list? By the way, if you're going to be overly pc, at least be competently overly pc and ban the plural also. :D

Nick, why are you calling me Mike?

If you could somehow post your ideas without the persona Nick overshadowing them, your posts would probably be a lot more well received -- appreciated even. Here we are on a thread that was about The PDGA Elections and candidate Pat 'sandalman' Brenner, and somehow the DISCussion turns to the topic of Nick Kight.

this is the type of discussion degeneration that evidently leads to the characterization of the members-only PDGA DISCussion board as a place where no serious communication can take place. Let's work to change that, okay?

I don't disagree with you James, in fact I quite agree with you. I do however find the whole thing amusing, the ban and the required apology. As me mudder use ter say, two wrongs don' make a right.

Or in the case of Bush and Cheney, two knuckleheads don't make a smart person!

Question of the day, if the FCC is against gays, how long before they stop liking the military? Answer - don't ask don't tell...

james, it is rather funny when you figure it takes two gays to be #$*&amp;$!, isnt it! :p

what i really want is for Nick to run for the BoD instead of just looking for ways to quiz and/or dis me.

look at who started this thread and the list of questions he posed. now he has me on ignore, so he cant even read my answer. there are two other known candidates for BoD positions - where are their threads? or does nick already know their answers to these same questions? the core motivations at work here, ie the ones that created this thread, seem fairly plain.

I guess there is power in numbers. Alone, they are banned, but together they must be a voting bloc with some pull. :p

Don't worry about the drift, it's nothing but bliss now.

I guess there is power in numbers. Alone, they are banned, but together they must be a voting bloc with some pull. :p


If you think about how terms like "idiot" get bandied about, it's not that difficult to justify the singular but not the plural. The singular is and has been frequently used in a derogatory manner on this DISCussion board. I don't think the plural has suffered that fate yet.

I hope people aren't so lame as to start using the plural in that manner, too.

there are two other known candidates for BoD positions - where are their threads?

Who are they? I must have missed the announcement.

Terry wrote on this thread "...At the moment, I do know of at least one good potential board member running for each of the open three positions. That satisfies me. Especially because the only incumbent, Kirk Yoo,..."

so Kirk is running, but for a different seat. and i forget (or never knew) who the other candidate is.

gee whiz Beaver, how could "idiot" be considered derogatory?

Steve Dodge has posted his candidacy and qualifications for Communications Director on the NEFA website.

now there's an approach thats sure to be constitutionally compliant! :D

actually thats a great idea (along with getting the paperwork to the pdga office)

I think it is great to see Pat and Steve running for (getting) spots on the board. Should put a wrench in anyones thoughts about "brother-in-lawism" on the board. Unless of course they get assimilated ;)

:D

Unless of course they get assimilated... (hehe)

has it been announced yet whether the three open board positions will simply go to the top 3 vote getting candidates regardless of what position they run for since the Constitutional changes apparently will involve making specific BoD titles obselete? it would seem to need to be clarified before the election to pre-empt any tallying conspiracy theories :eek:

Pat, has your candidacy for Oversight Director been confirmed by the PDGA office yet? why don't you run for all three positions just to maximize your chances of gaining a seat ;)

rob, it is not confirmed because i have not yet sent in my resume, etc. yet. thats a project for this weekend.

the current C prevents holding more than one BoD position, so i will only run for one. although i have some solid marketing skills, i feel it is mostly in the areas of oversight and IT that i could make the most significant contribution.

The positions are elected separately. If the runner up for Communication gets more votes than the three people running for Oversight, she still loses.

Until next (2007) election ... i guess (?)

Special thanks go to Pat for helping me make a custom avatar ( <- ) that puts back into place the innovative idea he had to have everyones rating show up underneathe their message board id. :D

i know its 400 posts, but at least the first 50 should give anyone a reasonably accurate idea of where i am coming from, should anyone care to review. i am almost positive it is the most complete and public discussion of a BoD candidates position ever.