Rob, you are clearly just being argumentative.

If you would read the posts you would see that time and again bruce and others have impugned the character of people they likely don't even know and about details they know nothing about.

Consider your own post. You restate hearsay as if it were some actual fact. You expect productive results from a discussion board thread against all evidence and history that such a thing is unprecidented.

Instead, we wind round and round throwing unfounded accusations at folks that have given to this sport as such a high level that you and I will likely never approach. And for what?

Jollies!

There are no meaningful things being discussed here. If there were you would have jumped on my post in response to yours to end the tit for tat and get on with something real.

But you chose something else, didn't you? You chose to attack me and others personally. Why?

Because that is what every discussion eventually de-evolves into here. It is not the message boards fault. It is the nature of blowhards spouting off in a semi-anonymous and impersonal forum. None of this would go on if we were all face to face. If we did there would likely be more than a couple bloody noses.

(whispered) What Nick doesn't realize is that we've switched his posting privileges with Folger's Crystals. Let's watch...



Run, you're good at it.

Rob,

When I replied to you the C that I was writing had that clause still in place. However, if you have been paying attention, the documents you are being asked to vote on are not a C. As for your desire for open communications, it would be nearly impossible for any board to deliver on that requirement (not to mention impractical and time consuming). Please remember, we are a volunteer board.

Paul,

If you search my posting history you will see that I rarely post on the DB. I have a bad habit of saying exactly what is on my mind and for some reason most people can't take my brutal honesty. Another words I tend to pi$$ people off because as Jack Nicholson said "you can't handle the truth".

How many times do I have to say this??? Bruce and Pat got the documents as soon as they were ready, on the ballot.

How many times do I have to say this??? They do have a chance to review the documents. They have the 2 month window for voting. During that time they can make their decision as to whether to vote for them or not.

Here is a news flash for you...it would have been impossible for us to use the DB to get everyones opinion as to what should be included in the new documents. The BOD was elected by the Members to make those decisions for them. We then present you with the documents and you have the option to vote yes or no.

Please don't have a stroke but I did not take into account any of the concerns posted on the DB while working on the project. I did a lot of research. I looked at a lot of other sports (including the UPA bylaws). I looked at our current size and average growth patterns. I looked at what other non-profits our size were doing. I asked the opinions of plenty of folks that I know and respect (I don't know Pat or Bruce) both inside our sport and in the business community. I then gave my recommendations to the BOD. Not once in any of my discussions did Pat or Bruce or the DB play a part in my decision making process.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the DB is not that important to me and does not play a role in any of the decisions that I make about anything.

Kirk

Rob, you are clearly just being argumentative.

If you would read the posts you would see that time and again bruce and others have impugned the character of people they likely don't even know and about details they know nothing about.

Consider your own post. You restate hearsay as if it were some actual fact. You expect productive results from a discussion board thread against all evidence and history that such a thing is unprecidented.

Instead, we wind round and round throwing unfounded accusations at folks that have given to this sport as such a high level that you and I will likely never approach. And for what?

Jollies!

There are no meaningful things being discussed here. If there were you would have jumped on my post in response to yours to end the tit for tat and get on with something real.

But you chose something else, didn't you? You chose to attack me and others personally. Why?

Because that is what every discussion eventually de-evolves into here. It is not the message boards fault. It is the nature of blowhards spouting off in a semi-anonymous and impersonal forum. None of this would go on if we were all face to face. If we did there would likely be more than a couple bloody noses.



Nick, i was giving you an example of what happens when you don't quote but instead characterize. so please quote Bruce impugning the character of others here. i challenge you to find such a quote. in the absence of that it is you who are on a witch-hunt. consider that instead of hearing our concerns you are labelling us as 'whiners' and so it is you that have created the argumentive nature of the responses you're receiving . (ok, i am kind of tired and i am inclined to argue so it may just be i find it a bit outrageous that legitimate concerns about the By-laws are being labeled as 'whining'

this is not about saying anyone in a leadership position at the PDGA doesn't have our sports best interests in mind. it is about the flaws in the proposed by-laws that would define this organization to which we all belong, and the pitfalls that can result from these incomplete defining documents. given human fallibility it is impractical to simply rely upon good intentions.

to first pass the changes and elect new BoD members and then define their roles after the elections raises leitimate concerns -- does it not?

are you this uncritical of leaders in general or is it just that you consider these leaders your friends and thus waive any critical analysis of their decisions? isn't a critical examination of their proposals healthy and isn't having BoD members of different persuasions a good idea? do you prefer a democracy where everyone tows the same line or where differences of opinion get aired and then a mutually agreeable compromise is arrived at?

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the DB is not that important to me and does not play a role in any of the decisions that I make about anything.


Ain't talking about the DB. Understand you think we're just part of a rabble anyway (and now we're voting, so that must be scaring ya to death!)

I was talking about incoming BoD members -- one running unopposed, the other not a shoo-in, but a prior BoD member -- and getting their input, especially when they've already shared their misgivings with you and others on the BoD.

So this is not about getting the temperature of the DB. This is about getting input from potential incoming BoD members, before the document is put on the ballot. How many times do I have to say that?

Rob,

When I replied to you the C that I was writing had that clause still in place. However, if you have been paying attention, the documents you are being asked to vote on are not a C. As for your desire for open communications, it would be nearly impossible for any board to deliver on that requirement (not to mention impractical and time consuming). Please remember, we are a volunteer board.

Kirk



Kirk, i do remember the Board is volunteer, but why make announcements about what you will do and then change them at the very last minute -- especially when it entails a ballot measure as significant as this?

the timeline seems something like this:

announce you will be re-writing the Constitution and putting the changes on the ballot for member approval or veto.

respond to concerns about the changes by requesting private emails.

announcing that while the changes won't be published far enough in advance of the ballot to allow time for a member petition to get an alternate Constitutional change proposal on the ballot for a member vote -- the changes will be made available for member review prior to putting them on the ballot.

changing the gameplan to writing a set of By-laws that give the BoD more power to act independent of the old Constituion prior to offering the membership a new Constitution.

announcing the change of gameplan after placing the new By-laws on the ballot with the recommendation that members vote to approve them

respond to legitimate concerns about the new By-laws more by dismissing the concerns rather than by addressing them directly.

when you look at that chain of events -- is it any wonder why members are expressing concerns? :confused:

as a volunteer board, perhaps it would be better to give things more time to unfold...

...Another words I tend to pi$$ people off because...

yo rhett_the_admin, this looks like a clear case of deliberate thwartation of the bad word filter. according to your policies that is an automatic, instantaneous one day suspension. dont blow this chance to maintain your consistancy :cool:

So I'll ask explicitly: what is the conflict between the current Constitution and the current Articles of Incorporation that prevents the BoD from following the current Constitution?



I would like to know this as well. What is it that prohibits the BoD from following the current Constitution? Is it desire or the manner in which the document is written? Specifics?

but Bruce tried to get the PDGA to fix its felony gambling problem, and they choose to do nothing. he has explained this previously. at least he not only recognized something was wrong but he also tried to fix it! perhaps different from the actions our current OD has taken.



Bruce's differences with the board about the allegededly illegal gambling issue was really a very last-minute issue because (If I remember correctly.) he was concerned about participating in the Summit in Phoenix because he believed that AZ law made The Memorial an illegal gambling event.

I don't recall anyone deciding not to do something about it, it was just that we weren't going to do something URGENT about it and screw up the memorial.

No one on the board did NOT want to address the issue, but we did not feel that with only a month or so to go that it was an important enough issue to try to to anything drastic with The Memorial in that year to address it.

With Bruce, the primary advocate for coping with that one out of many issues to address, resigned from the board, it now has a lower priority than even before.

I, personally, still do not think that it is a high priority issue along the lines of the bylaws, leadership succession among staff, membership recruitment and retention, and the like.

If someone wanted to head a committee to examine the fee and payout structure and the laws of various states and come back with a recommendation that didn't reflect any personal bias about how competition should take place that does not relate to the issue of allegedly illegal gambling, I would certainly welcome that - so long as I am on the board.

LOL, could you have stated this any more demeaningly for the PDGA? I mean, "get the PDGA to fix its felony gambling problem," really. (a) It's alleged, (b) it's not alleged to be a felony in all jurisdictions, (c) practically every disc golf tournament held violates the alleged laws and that means than a good 80 percent of the problem is in fact *outside* the PDGA.

Wow, can I get in on this measuring contest?

I have some suggestions for the New BOD: (Sarcasm On HIGH!!)

As soon as you take office, will you please publish and send absolutely all the day to day financial details of the organization to all 9,000 members so we can help you micro-manage? Please send this to non-members as well because Grunion has some important opinions on how this org should spend money. The membership is interested in finding out why the PDGA frivolously spends $4.00 on a ream of paper when everyone knows you can get it for $2.50 if you just DO your job correctly. And why do they have to keep buying pens and pencils? If only four people work in the office, four pens should last for years, why do they keep buying boxes of 20? Several members want to point out that they could do Chuck's job or John D's job for less than the BOD is paying them for their work - how dare the BOD underpay these overqualified folks when we can get under-qualified folks for even less money!!!


Will you please compile copies of every single email, complete verbatim transcripts of every single phone conversation along with every single post by every BOD member on the Discussion Board along with detailed minutes of every single BOD meeting. Please use the PDGA resources (and 20,000 trees) to mail every single member a copy every single month because we don't want our elected officials to conduct business without our oversight and input? ("We" (all PDGA members) are very good at business even though "we" don't have jobs in any industry that even requires these skills.)


While your at it, please consider my opinions more important than other PDGA members because my post count is higher. Oops, that means Nick is waaaay more important than I am because he has 8,700 posts. (Maybe if I post 1,000 more times on this thread it will make a difference!!)

After you have spent countless hours keeping the membership up to speed, please take care of the other less important business of being on the BOD. (Sarcasm Off!)


I have a feeling our new BOD will be paralyzed. Based on the tone of this entire thread, I do not like the way this organization is heading. Is Jason running for the BOD or his partner Steve? Will Pat find there really is a conspiracy when he takes his seat? Will Bruce be able to take away our all our member rights through the loopholes in the bylaws just to prove he is right?



I really hope the new bylaws don't get voted down simply because a handful of vocal members are having a hissy fit that they didn't get to personally review these prior to being put up for a vote!!! (Which according to Paul, the BOD knew in March that Bruce would announce his candidacy for the BOD in mid May and they wanted to get these passed before he took office. Of course he is running against two other people so they must already know the outcome of the election because they have it rigged.)


THE NEW BYLAWS ARE A STARTING POINT. ONCE PASSED, THE NEW BOARD WILL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO FINE TUNE THESE DOCUMENTS AND CREATE OTHER GOVERNING DOCUMENTS TO HANDLE ISSUES NOT SUITABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE BYLAWS.

okay, then please go back right now and fix your misspelling of Bylaws (your: "Vote NO On the Blaws" -- should be : Re: Vote NO On the Bylaws) thanks in advance ;) it's on page 12 (message #554900) and it's too late for me as a non-moderator to edit it. Maybe doing what Pat does and not posting under a moderator id is worth considering to help avoid such mistakes and to differentiate your personal opinions from your opinions as moderator(?)



Fixed. Note how easily I admit making a mistake and fix it. A rare quality. Too bad I'm not running for re-election, eh? :D

As to two identities, nah, that would just mean that I would never post, as I would get confused about which identity I was using and who I was logged on as. (No, I am not stupid, usually, just have a busier-than-usual life with constant multitasking: 2,000+ emails a day, got 4 AIM windows in action right now, plus two conversations with people actually in my office, writing three different papers, and run or am on more than 200 email lists and uncountable discussion forums.)

I'm the only person in my office allowed to use a nonstandard email address or flow everything into a single account, because they KNOW that is the only thing that would work give my volume of communications.

I'm on MySpace, BTW, and would love to link with other disc golfers.

but Bruce tried to get the PDGA to fix its felony gambling problem, and they choose to do nothing. he has explained this previously. at least he not only recognized something was wrong but he also tried to fix it! perhaps different from the actions our current OD has taken.



Bruce's differences with the board about the allegededly illegal gambling issue was really a very last-minute issue because (If I remember correctly.) he was concerned about participating in the Summit in Phoenix because he believed that AZ law made The Memorial an illegal gambling event.

I don't recall anyone deciding not to do something about it, it was just that we weren't going to do something URGENT about it and screw up the memorial.

No one on the board did NOT want to address the issue, but we did not feel that with only a month or so to go that it was an important enough issue to try to to anything drastic with The Memorial in that year to address it.

With Bruce, the primary advocate for coping with that one out of many issues to address, resigned from the board, it now has a lower priority than even before.

I, personally, still do not think that it is a high priority issue along the lines of the bylaws, leadership succession among staff, membership recruitment and retention, and the like.

If someone wanted to head a committee to examine the fee and payout structure and the laws of various states and come back with a recommendation that didn't reflect any personal bias about how competition should take place that does not relate to the issue of allegedly illegal gambling, I would certainly welcome that - so long as I am on the board.

LOL, could you have stated this any more demeaningly for the PDGA? I mean, "get the PDGA to fix its felony gambling problem," really. (a) It's alleged, (b) it's not alleged to be a felony in all jurisdictions, (c) practically every disc golf tournament held violates the alleged laws and that means than a good 80 percent of the problem is in fact *outside* the PDGA.



I have been lurking on this thread, reading through the all of the posts, and this last one struck me a little bit.

As a newer PDGA member and golfer, I would think that the goal and impetus behind the organization would be to ensure that what the sport is promoting and how it goes about promoting WOULD be legal - viewing it as a minor issue does not seem to fit this idea. And yet there are many who, as is evidenced by other threads, view this sport as a counter-cultural activity. Why would you not try and promote it is a legal (and if it means revising the payout system, so be it) entity? If the PDGA is focused on improving the game, should the perception and perceived illegalities (whatever they may be) not be a focus in terms of gaining acceptance?

I appreciate the work that goes into running this organization, and the annoyances and thankless grievances that come with this, but I do feel that some of the posts are being dismissed. This whole thread started about the bylaw amendments to the constitution, did it not?

PEACH

um, i do not think there is a conspiracy.

no one cares if the pdga spent 4 bux on paper instead of 2.50

are the important points on this thread so well disquised?

while enabling members to request input into every step of every decision the BoD makes would obviously be ridiculous please consider this post from long ago as i think Erik really offered great food for BoD thought when they were in the process of deciding how to best go about changing the Constitution:

Chuck Kennedy wrote:

I wasn't there so I don't know the specifics of what's happening with the rewrite. So these comments pertain to organizations in general. I think it's just the nature of common business practices once orgs get to a certain size. For the best functionality, some things need to be confidential (not secret) versus wide open, especially personnel matters. The difference between confidential and secret is that confidential info and decisions still involve a reasonable sized group of people charged with those decisions. In the case of financial matters, they would still be subject to audit. But I guess we'll have to see what's actually happening with the rewrite and the explanations.




little_erik_wilson wrote:

I work with condominium Boards of Directors and HOA BoDs in my professional life. One of the laws that governs condos and HOAs in my state is the necessity of open meetings before the membership. There are, however, a few exceptions when this can be circumvented by holding an "executive session." There are something like 3-4 specific cases in which you can hold an exec session. They include:


1. Personnel matters
2. Legal strategy (litigation mostly)
3. Accounts Receviable (people in debt)
4. One other that doesn't immediately come to mind.

The trick about these executive session meetings is that they are closed to the membership and open only to Board members and consultants. No decisions can be made in these meetings, they are purely for discussion. Once the decision has been reached via discussion, the exec. session is adjourned, a regular, open Bod meeting is convened, and the decision is made by a motion, seconded and affirmed.

Language similar to this may already be in the constitution (I haven't read the thing) but if it's not, this could be a useful way of amending it to provide a method of confidentiality safe to Board members and members at large alike.

Erik

Ps. Minutes (according to Robert's Rules of Order) are a record of decisions made. Since no decisions are made in executive session, there are no minutes. Perfect, safe confidentiality for dealing with sensitive matters.

[/QUOTE]

[click here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=518470&page=5&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1) to view source thread]

The whole thing went down as if there had been a meeting before the meeting where certain board members were informed and reached a consensus. But it may have been that they were chatting about the issue while they were waiting for everyone to connect to the teleconference.



My god, or, rather, your God, Bruce. That is so offensive.

I don't do "meetings before meetings." In fact, I've been known to fly into a rage - which is very rare for me - when I am brought into a meeting with a pre-determined agenda or direction due to smaller group pre-meetings. (At work, that is, never happened with the PDGA.)

"I remember thinking, 'Ahhh, the meeting before the meeting trick.' That approach to corporate governance had led to the unraveling of the law firm I was with in private practice years ago. But just because I thought it does not mean it was so."

At least the last sentence is correct. But have you considered the effect of your sharing that paranoid thought in this public venue? You can count on a number of people taking it to heart. Thanks.

The real question Discette is why is this so very obvious to some of us, and so unclear to others? Bruce is a sharp guy; why would the idea that micromanagement is a poor way to get things done be so foreign to him?

The deeper underlying issue is control. The people who were voted into office have it, and those on the outside want it.

"I am fairly certain that board meetings have been held and minutes never published. maybe we need a P-span to help us."

Not in the past five years, Pat, and not even before that to my knowledge, but I have first-hand knowledge of these years. If you look at the posted minutes on line - http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php - and then, before that, in your old copies of Disc Golf World News, you'll find the minutes of every board meeting I have ever been to. Then you could be sure, since you appear disinclined to accept the reassurances of others.

Note that *this* board of directors was the board that decided to post the minutes on line where you could find them so easily, instead of having to dig through your old DGWN issues. Just one in a string of positive actions toward better governance that is at this moment represented by these new bylaws.

It's also this board that practically BEGS people to come to the board meetings at The Memorial every late-winter. Almost to no avail. Those who have come, however, have regularly been astonished at how open the board is and how freely the conversations are open to the others in attendance. When we do "straw polls" of voting board members, we even ask everyone else their for their opinion.

We even post the results of email voting when there hasn't even been a board meeting. Check out that URL above, d'oh.

not true lyle. you are going too far overboard on this thread. i dont want control at all. i want to help. i want other Members to help. that is why i want so much to improve communications between the BoD, office, and Members. its really rather simple.

for the record, i subscribe to none of the conspiracy theories.

I honestly think, having read through this thread, that the new bylaws were placed on this ballot by the current BoD because they knew Bruce and Pat were on the ballot, too, and they wanted to get this passed before they joined the BoD.



LOL.

"I have a feeling our new BOD will be paralyzed. Based on the tone of this entire thread, I do not like the way this organization is heading. Is Jason running for the BOD or his partner Steve? Will Pat find there really is a conspiracy when he takes his seat? Will Bruce be able to take away our all our member rights through the loopholes in the bylaws just to prove he is right?"

Discette, there may be some initial parallysis, but either the new members (and they are smart enough to do so) will undergo a transformation when they realize the heaviness of the responsibility, and the nuances that have to dealt with when *you* are the one with the overarching responsibility for important decisions, and that will bring them around. Or they'll resign.

I think that a year from now they will regret the demeanor and a lot of the content of their posts in the past few weeks.

If not, we're in deep doo-doo, but I'm not paranoid enough to give that any real credence. And there will always be another election in the PDGA. I am far more worried about Bush and cronies not giving up power through unconstitutional means than I am about that happening with the PDGA board.

asking Members to travel to a meeting is not gonna get much participation. i wonder if board meetings could be structured in some more modern format that allowed people to participate more easily without incurring the costs to travel to the meeting.

question: do BoD members pay for their own travel to BoD meetings?

"As a newer PDGA member and golfer, I would think that the goal and impetus behind the organization would be to ensure that what the sport is promoting and how it goes about promoting WOULD be legal - viewing it as a minor issue does not seem to fit this idea. And yet there are many who, as is evidenced by other threads, view this sport as a counter-cultural activity. Why would you not try and promote it is a legal (and if it means revising the payout system, so be it) entity? If the PDGA is focused on improving the game, should the perception and perceived illegalities (whatever they may be) not be a focus in terms of gaining acceptance?"

I agree with most of what you say. How it can be a minor issue is very hard to explain without reams of writing about other issues and how it fits in perspective.

We have only allegations and opinions that some tournaments may be technically illegal. We have no police authority telling us that and no authority hassling us about it.

We want to make sure that our events do follow all laws, but addressing a problem that is only a problem in the opinions of some people is a waste of time when we do not have enough dollars, staff, and resource time to spend on things that we KNOW are problems.

I can find you 1,000 problems. One of the primary jobs of a board is to make wise decisions about the priorities for the good of the organization of which ones to spend limited resources on.

I fully expect that, over time, our tournaments will be run so that even those whose opinion is that a few tournaments, in a few states, could possibly some day by someone be considered illegal gambling are dealt with. Just not ahead of the election, the tour itself, the marshals, the course directory, PDGA Radio, newsletters, membership services, membership recruitment, the International Disc Golf Center, and so on.

PG,


Don't let Bruce get you going. While his concern "may" be real, he's playing it up for all it's worth and has been for some time. He's not doing this to gain advantage, but simply because, like many of us, he envisions the worst case scenario when he thinks about possibilities.

Remember that the beauty of the law, is that it's open to interpretation. Assume for a moment that Bruce is correct; just apply some common sense, when the government gets concerned about gambling it's when someone is trying to take someone to the cleaners. While the gov might become aware of the issues that Bruce has raised, it is clear the intent is not illegal or to take advantage. Typically, the government tends to turn a blind eye to such things and when they do get involved they simply ask you to clean it up or to change your behavior. This is the reason that the guy running the local office pool doesn't get arrested at payout. He's not taking his cut and making a living at other people's habits. Neither is the PDGA.

I admit this comes from my perspective of working in the Insurance business; in this area, the government often goes with intent. If it is clear you are taking advantage they'll slap you hard. If you made a mistake, or even worked under the intention of helping your customers, they tend to be very forgiving and ask\tell you to fix the problem.

Caveat, all too often the intent is to take advantage, pretty sad.

Also, remember that this issue came to light some time ago, and as pointed out, Bruce has not stepped up to the plate to help resolve the issue, despite resigning over the risk presented by it. Now he's running for office again; yes, in a different position, one that presumably lowers his risk. Does that sound like he really thinks this is that big of an issue?

Terry, that issue arose one or two meetings after after all of you double crossed Wertz and I on the two-meter rule issue. Remember?

At the meeting before USWDGC Theo said y'all were only going to discuss noncontroversial rules changes at the next meeting, so if I had to be in Court, I could skip that part of the meeting. Then Theo ascertained that the two-meter rule was controversial among members of the Board and he said it was off the agenda. So Wertz and I did not attend that session, and the rest of you voted in a Constitutionally irregular way to abolish the two meter rule. Men of their word, men of honor, would have abstained from that vote and would have deprived Theo of a quorum. I cut you some slack because I thought maybe you weren't paying attention at the previous meeting. It was late, for you, with your early to bed, early to rise lifestyle.

So when the thing arose with the TD one or two meetings later, and most of everyone else seemed to be familiar with all the details, I already had reasons to be cynical about how the Board was conducting its business.

I don't want to bring up all this stuff, but you keep mocking me and calling me paranoid, and i'm sensitive about that. It is not paranoia to cease trusting someone after they've demonstrated themselves not to be trustworthy. I trusted Theo when I did not know him, and I immediately regretted it.

asking Members to travel to a meeting is not gonna get much participation. i wonder if board meetings could be structured in some more modern format that allowed people to participate more easily without incurring the costs to travel to the meeting.

question: do BoD members pay for their own travel to BoD meetings?



(a) Well, there are usually a few hundred PDGA members a quarter-mile away during the Summit. Tough walk, that quarter-mile :)

(b) My employer's board meetings are open to members - just like all the PDGA face to face ones are - but not the phone conferences. I'm something of an expert and get paid big bucks on the side to write about this kind of stuff and I know of no functionality that I think would work to allow non-board members to fully participate in teleconference meetings on the scale suggested.

You seem to forget that this is *representative* governance. No board member travels in isolation. Each has lots of disc golfing friends and acquaintances. Hundreds if not thousands of PDGA members around the country know darned well that they can email, IM, or call me with ideas or issues.

(c) PDGA policy allows for reimbursement of board expenses to travel to and from face to face meetings, including accommodations.

Some of us do that. Personally, I only do when my wife notices and makes me, which is uncommon. So, in the past five years I am certain that I have easily spent more than $10,000 of personal money (not just time) on the PDGA, including travel to face to face meetings.

That reimbursement needs to continue, unless we want only relatively affluent BoD members, which is not a desireable goal in my eyes.

while enabling members to request input into every step of every decision the BoD makes would obviously be ridiculous please consider this post from long ago as i think Erik really offered great food for BoD thought when they were in the process of deciding how to best go about changing the Constitution:

Chuck Kennedy wrote:

I wasn't there so I don't know the specifics of what's happening with the rewrite. So these comments pertain to organizations in general. I think it's just the nature of common business practices once orgs get to a certain size. For the best functionality, some things need to be confidential (not secret) versus wide open, especially personnel matters. The difference between confidential and secret is that confidential info and decisions still involve a reasonable sized group of people charged with those decisions. In the case of financial matters, they would still be subject to audit. But I guess we'll have to see what's actually happening with the rewrite and the explanations.




little_erik_wilson wrote:

I work with condominium Boards of Directors and HOA BoDs in my professional life. One of the laws that governs condos and HOAs in my state is the necessity of open meetings before the membership. There are, however, a few exceptions when this can be circumvented by holding an "executive session." There are something like 3-4 specific cases in which you can hold an exec session. They include:


1. Personnel matters
2. Legal strategy (litigation mostly)
3. Accounts Receviable (people in debt)
4. One other that doesn't immediately come to mind.

The trick about these executive session meetings is that they are closed to the membership and open only to Board members and consultants. No decisions can be made in these meetings, they are purely for discussion. Once the decision has been reached via discussion, the exec. session is adjourned, a regular, open Bod meeting is convened, and the decision is made by a motion, seconded and affirmed.

Language similar to this may already be in the constitution (I haven't read the thing) but if it's not, this could be a useful way of amending it to provide a method of confidentiality safe to Board members and members at large alike.

Erik

Ps. Minutes (according to Robert's Rules of Order) are a record of decisions made. Since no decisions are made in executive session, there are no minutes. Perfect, safe confidentiality for dealing with sensitive matters.



[click here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=518470&page=5&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1) to view source thread]

[/QUOTE]

Wow, so you don't see a difference between a home or condo owner and a PDGA member. The level of obligation, and financial committment is hugely different. What happens in a condo is very different in scope from what is happening here, at every level. Furthermore, I'd bet a couple of gentlemen that there isn't that kind of citizen involvement at the level of ordinances defining condo building and structure at the city level. Not because it's not open, but because most citizens don't take the time. Kind of like people not calling in to listen in on the open Board meetings the PDGA has.

Finally, I sit in on government meetings that define how the insurance industry operates all the time. On many issues they take input from citizens, hospitals, and carriers. In the end it is the legislature and their people who decide what goes into the law. Public input doesn't occur because of the law, but because of common sense. One only has to look at the Bush Administration to realize that our government can act without our input. The reason the government does get our input is because common sense tells them that if they don't, they'll get booted. The same goes for the PDGA Board.

"Terry, that issue arose one or two meetings after after all of you double crossed Wertz and I on the two-meter rule issue. Remember?"

No. I've never in my life been involved in a double cross. And I am flabbergasted that that statement was in you to be written.

If you think that was the case I am shocked that you were able to stop by, unannounced, at my home last Sunday and enjoy dinner with us, with your daughter.

I am certain that if someone had been involved with a double-cross on me in like circumstances, I certainly could not be their friend nor enjoy dinner at their home. They would do that to me once, and never get another chance.

This is getting weird. I recommend some cooling off time for those making the most extreme remarks. Especially those running for the board.

not true lyle. you are going too far overboard on this thread. i dont want control at all. i want to help. i want other Members to help. that is why i want so much to improve communications between the BoD, office, and Members. its really rather simple.

for the record, i subscribe to none of the conspiracy theories.



And you think that implying Theo did something wrong because he paid you a reasonable price for your services isn't? And that furthermore you think that is a problem because he didn't run it by the membership when he took that action. That seems to be about control to me. You think the membership should be in control and I think that is not only foolish, but a great way to make sure nothing ever gets done. Lets make sure we're clear on this Pat, since most of the membership doesn't get involved, that means that a handful of non-voted vocal members will be having significant input on the decisions made by the Board. That worries me.

You guys are playing hard ball Pat. You're working on the premis that someone is trying to pull a fast one when it is amply clear that they aren't. You want me to stop. Then stop yourself.

Here's an example. "I'm against the proposed By-law change because I think it is inherantly flawed. It does not put in place enough controls to prevent someone taking advantage of the lack of time that player-members have to police the Board."

Period.

To which I can simply reply. The By-laws have clear provisions that allow members to vote on any changes that are not to their liking. Furthermore, the By-laws have a simple procedure for removing any Board member who does not act in the best interests of the sport and PDGA members. Pat is correct that the Board has the ability to remove those rights from members, in which case the members may remove their financial support from the PDGA and shut it down. It would not seem a wise course of action for the Board to take such an action.

That's what I'm lookin' for baby!

"I have a feeling our new BOD will be paralyzed. Based on the tone of this entire thread, I do not like the way this organization is heading. Is Jason running for the BOD or his partner Steve? Will Pat find there really is a conspiracy when he takes his seat? Will Bruce be able to take away our all our member rights through the loopholes in the bylaws just to prove he is right?"

Discette, there may be some initial parallysis, but either the new members (and they are smart enough to do so) will undergo a transformation when they realize the heaviness of the responsibility, and the nuances that have to dealt with when *you* are the one with the overarching responsibility for important decisions, and that will bring them around. Or they'll resign.

I think that a year from now they will regret the demeanor and a lot of the content of their posts in the past few weeks.

If not, we're in deep doo-doo, but I'm not paranoid enough to give that any real credence. And there will always be another election in the PDGA. I am far more worried about Bush and cronies not giving up power through unconstitutional means than I am about that happening with the PDGA board.



Never were truer words written. Well O.K. so others have said this before but still. :D

gosh Lyle, if thatwas all we said this thread would be one-half post long :) if have said those things. other people responded. so i said more. oh well.

i am NOT suggesting Theo did anything wrong. as a matter of fact, the person who first told me not to say anything about the dollars was not even Theo!

nor do i think he did anything evil or dastardly by putting the bylaws on the ballot. i think it was a misinformed and counter-productive decision. thats all. i would like to see it fixed somehow, and right it appears that the fixing will happen after the election. i'm ok with that also.

Just an observation:
This thread is getting idiotic; nothing is getting accomplished with this petty bickering.
People, please re-read this thread and see just how much of it is pure conjecture. And the conjecture I see here is based in fear.

definitely getting silly with some of the namecalling. its a great idea to reread the whole thing. perhaps some of the assumptions that have been made after various poster's feelings and positions can be corrected thatway.

I just did a quick analysis of the bylaws thread:

* Less than 40 posters
* 90 percent of all posts from about 15 people

Given that most "views" are probably avid posters, wanting to see what's new or re-read something so as not to post about it incorrectly, certainly DISCussion fails as an important communication tool.

Most members do NOT WANT to be involved in decision making. They elect representatives to engage in that. Some members - a handful - think that they should be engaged in decision making at the same level as the board members the entire membership elected. They're wrong.

I know its been stated else where by someone, but if everyone (I know some do and are) would put only half of the time and energy into disc golf as a whole that they put into these long, elaborate and impassioned responses.....man, what could we accomplish!!

btw, I agree with Chuck, James, et al......I am voting YES.

nor do i think [the BoD] did anything evil or dastardly by putting the bylaws on the ballot. i think it was a misinformed and counter-productive decision. thats all.



that summarizes my perspective as well. it is reassuring to know that Pat is likely to be on the BoD soon and will add his perspective to the decision making process.

does anyone know how it will be decided which BoD members will be assigned which duties if the roles are indeed going to be redefined after the election?

Members who support the 2MR will get first choice when choosing their primary area of responsibility.

that should work :D

I just did a quick analysis of the bylaws thread:

* Less than 40 posters
* 90 percent of all posts from about 15 people

Given that most "views" are probably avid posters, wanting to see what's new or re-read something so as not to post about it incorrectly, certainly DISCussion fails as an important communication tool.

Most members do NOT WANT to be involved in decision making. They elect representatives to engage in that. Some members - a handful - think that they should be engaged in decision making at the same level as the board members the entire membership elected. They're wrong.



So what? None of this is important. Darn, my mother always said I'd come to nothing... :D

Some members - a handful - think that they should be engaged in decision making at the same level as the board members the entire membership elected. They're wrong.

this is a gross misrepresentation of what is going on here.

asking for the opportunity to provide input prior to a decision is NOT asking to be engaged in the decision making process at the board level. it is asking to be involved in the DISCUSSION process. let the BoD make its decisions. thats fine and desireable. just provide methods for Members just engage in an open discussion. and encourage them to do so. nothing too complicated.

that "handful" that you disparage and dismiss are probably the next generation of leaders for our sport. it would be nice to make them feel like the pdga was interested in deploying their interest and talent towards pdga goals.

Wow. I was asked to take a look at this thread. While there is a lot of boisterous blabber here, there are a few issues. First, as a past Commissioner, let me provide some perspective:

1) The PDGA is an organization that has done a LOT of growing in the past several years, so too has the sport of Disc Golf grown. While it is still very small in the grand scheme of the sports and rec world, our continued growth year after year will eventually reach a critical mass where exponential growth will occur. This phenomenon is heavily documented � �The Tipping Point� by Malcolm Gladwell comes to mind.

2) Exponential growth is generally what attracts capitalistic (commercial organizations) to the fore. These are not the �Mom and Pop� companies who have grown with and currently serve the sport. As the market grows, participation is a function of risk � first there will be entrepreneurs then some heavy corporate muscle will weigh in. I firmly believed that keeping the voice of the players through this growth was something the board had to strategically plan for ( I had personally witnessed the negative impacts of this effect as a NORBA member and Mtn. Bike racer in the early 90�s)

3) When I joined the board in 2000, I felt the PDGA was in a very unique position � it needed to prepare for this growth, further engrain the players organization into the sport and take steps to help the PDGA be able to quickly react to our changing sport so that the players voice would continue to have a role in the sports growth and direction.

The board and organization I was asked to join as the Financial Director was quite a bit different then. The board was at odds with the administration, there was a informal, sub-current amongst the board that was fighting to retain �what it was� (sometimes referred to then as the Good �ol Boys network on this board � in my eyes this intangible effort was drastically inconsistent with the purpose of the PDGA), necessary legal and financial reporting documents had not been filed for several years which caused the state of Texas to revoke the PDGA�s status as a non-profit.

Think about that one for a moment� hey, welcome to the board! Btw, we�ve lost our incorporation status so, as a director, you are personably liable!

It was somewhat startling. Out of concern for my own behind, I took a half-time leave from my job for two months to remedy the situation and the then-current Commissioner (Jim Challas) and I worked with Brian Murphy from Colorado (legal support to the UPA) to reincorporate there. There are two legal documents required for incorporating the organization that we worked on at that time (one could argue this was done with haste):

1 � Articles of Incorporation, which refer to By-Laws
2 � By Laws of the corporation

The By Laws referred to the constitution � making it a legal document of the organization.

I believe that the current advice from Brian Murphy, still the PDGA's lawyer, was to re-write the by-laws to remove the constitution reference so that the conflicts between the two documents could be minimized from a legal stand point and the constitution addressed between the board and the membership.

The constitution is really an organically developed hodge-podge of legal language (that should be in the By-Laws and not duplicated), operating requirements, organization, membership rights, financial and process requirements. Items of process, operating requirements and organization are details that were written at a different time when the organization was much different � these have no place being a legal document of the organization (particularly one that needs flexibility to continue its validity in a rapidly growing sport).

So, what we have put in front of us, the membership, today is a vote on new By-Laws of the organization, which:
- revises and replaces much of the legal language in the constitution
- de-links the constitution as a legal document of the organization
- in doing so, makes the current constitution blatantly invalid � rather than increase its amount of inherent conflict as a document between the membership and the board that is not relevant, it seems the current board chose to put its demise to the membership for a vote.

These are issues that are relevant to the legal organization of the PDGA � you can make your own call as to whether it makes sense to vote for it.

BTW- Bruce�s argument is �It�s still in there!� as everything he has stated is a current possibility today. With the current by-laws, the board could have easily exercised their power to make the constitution irrelevant with out putting this to a membership vote � it seems they chose not to.

With regards to character, I�ve worked with both Bruce and Theo. Bruce has a tendency to chase his tail and not work well with others, which he seems to be doing now. Theo has a tendency to get things done, with integrity.

Re-writing the constitution is neither an easy or welcomed task � particularly if you�re a volunteer board member who wants to be involved with stuff that is much more exciting and relevant to the purpose of the organization. Theo and I tried several times when I was Commissioner, the 2003 revision took out most of the conflicting language but also helped us realize it was a much bigger task. Since then, two board members have been assigned the job - both efforts were unsuccessful.

I see these new By-Laws as an effort by the current board to further clean up some of the accumulated baggage of the organization and leave behind a clean slate for new leadership (it looks like the entire board will turn over in the next two years) to effectively address these issues without a legal axe hanging over their head (or worse, a non-existent legal entity).

I voted for the changes.

I would encourage incoming board members to take this issue on earlier in your tenancy while your energy level is high. For what it�s worth, I would recommend the following:

1) Exercise the board�s capacity to change the By-Laws and add the following phrase back into the purpose of the organization (Article 2, Section 2 of the current Constitution) � �To maintain an organized framework for representative government by the members of the association�

2) Then distill the current Constitution down (remove the conflicting legal language and operating detail) to a list of Membership Rights (or something similar) to include:
* election of board members
* process to have an issue formally addressed by the board
* process to have an issue brought to vote by the membership
* financial, legal and auditing practices
* the state coordinator network
* the role of the collective board and additional roles for specific board members (on top of Bylaw responsibilities)
* discipline of active members and directors
* procedure for membership referenda of the document

The essence of these items, ie the fact that they have to exist with some basic structure, would need to be captured and the changes of such a document should be subject to membership input.


Could this whole process have been handled better? Sure. Many times an urgent issue is addressed appropriately to start, however, particulary when it isn't a slam-dunk, the process can drag out (through the tenancy of two board members) as we have seen here. Much of this, if not all of this, process goes on unseen by the membership. Come deadline time - things have to get done. Not optimal, but effective at a time when the organization needs to be.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,

Pat Govang
#13902

Man, if were that smart we wouldn't have had to go through 30 pages of thread to get here.

I would be guessing if I said the Board is indeed putting processes together to address all of the issues commented on by Pat. I can say that as the DC Chair I have been given clear instructions to address the disciplinary issue. The process put together, and in review with the PDGA leadership, is in my opinion clear, fair and open. Furthermore, the intent is to publish that process here so it is accessible to the membership.

As has been pointed out, the job of a Constitution or By-laws is not to address each issue that confronts an organization. Each issue should be dealt with on it's own and should be presented to the membership in a clear and succinct fashion.

The proposed changes make the By-Laws what they should be. They also allow the leadership to move on and address other issues, like the disciplinary process, in an efficient and fair manner.

Thanks for the elegant explanation Pat. Thanks also for the hour or so of your valuable time.

I really hope the new bylaws don't get voted down simply because a handful of vocal members are having a hissy fit that they didn't get to personally review these prior to being put up for a vote!!! (Which according to Paul, the BOD knew in March that Bruce would announce his candidacy for the BOD in mid May and they wanted to get these passed before he took office. Of course he is running against two other people so they must already know the outcome of the election because they have it rigged.)


I thought your sarcasm was "off". Too bad, you got a lot wrong. I said Bruce wasn't a shoo-in, just a potential incoming member. And the timeline of March and May makes no sense to me; I received my ballot in June, with everything on it at the same time. I have no idea what the sequence was that led to everything being on the same ballot, but it makes no sense that that's how it turned out. How can people run for positions that would be made obsolete if I voted for the current by-laws? It's nonsense.

THE NEW BYLAWS ARE A STARTING POINT. ONCE PASSED, THE NEW BOARD WILL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO FINE TUNE THESE DOCUMENTS AND CREATE OTHER GOVERNING DOCUMENTS TO HANDLE ISSUES NOT SUITABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE BYLAWS.


Stop shouting. The bylaws were not presented to me on my ballot as a "starting point". The current members of the BoD did not say this was just a starting point when they were asked about it initially -- they just attacked the critics. So you can defend them now, but I remember what I read at the outset, and I am reacting against that. I find the current members of the BoD to be poor communicators to those of us who are asking for just a little info. I don't like seeing others belittled for making criticisms, and I will step in and say, "wait a minute", when that happens. Fully expecting, of course, to get the same slams from the same people, but hoping maybe that the person under attack doesn't feel like no one is listening.

And maybe, after tempers cool, the current BoD will say to themselves, "that didn't go well," and think about how they would change the bylaws again, if they had to, without getting into all this mess. Because it doesn't look good from where I'm sitting, and it would be wrong to notice that and say nothing.

I honestly think, having read through this thread, that the new bylaws were placed on this ballot by the current BoD because they knew Bruce and Pat were on the ballot, too, and they wanted to get this passed before they joined the BoD.



LOL.


You and Kirk are laughing at your own expense, not mine. You communicated the reason for the changes to the bylaws so poorly that you are allowing my interpretation to exist. So maybe you're laughing at the mess you've made...

But I take it from both your laughter and Kirk's that you want to convey (in a belittling way) that it wasn't intentional to rush the bylaws out just because the current BoD was worried that the future BoD would not be of the same mind to make the same changes. But if that was the case, what was the rush to the ballot for?

Even people voting for the new bylaws now say this document is just a starting point and needs to be amended. These people are acting as if that might have been the point-of-view the current BoD had at the time, when this was placed on the ballot -- that this was just a starting point. (Of course, they're not sure, because the current BoD communicates so poorly on the matter, but they have hope.)

If that's the case, why wasn't it presented that way by the current BoD? And why instead didn't the current BoD just take this "starting point", pass it to the future BoD, have them attach the still-needed amendments, and then put the whole thing out on the next ballot. Why was an incomplete set of bylaws sent out on this ballot?

In short, again, what was the rush? You laugh at the idea that the makeup of the future BoD could have been part of your consideration to rush the new bylaws out. So what was it that made the decision for you to rush out the door what many now admit is an incomplete document?

P.S. I still have not read a specific about why the current Constition could not be followed, except that it conflicted with the AOI, but no more than that. Mike August seconded my question, but still no specifics are mentioned -- just more LOL'ing.

Thanks for the post Pat, and the input into what has been going on for the last 6 years.

I for one voted for the change already. I even voted for one of the posters on this thread today.

As someone who has been a PDGA member longer than almost EVERY ONE OF YOU, this is a change that NEEDS TO BE DONE.

I am sure that at the next BOD meeting in October, that any holes will be plugged in the bylaws.

No matter how one interprets growth data, it has nothing to do with the proposed bylaws.

I also think Theo's attorney response needs to be addressed by the anti-crowd. It appears that members have additional rights under these bylaws: namely the right to petition change to the laws, and the right to recall BOD members. The attorney's third point, also discussed by Chuck earlier, seems to counter the radical conspiracy themes, assuming one buys into those sort of things anyway.

So, if we have the right to recall members, the right to petition for change of bylaws, and the "right" to moon the organization on our way out, what is this battle about?



No, no, no, no... It's an unmitigated grab for power. BTW - you do know the governmint brainwashes us through the T.V. right?

Why is it that something this simple is receiving so much flack? Who is really grabbing for power here and what method is being used? Isn't it bad enough that we have to put up with high levels of fear mongering from our politicians? Why in the world do we have to put up with it here?


I don't think anyone's talking about conspiracy, whatever that means. Personally, I'm talking about mismanagement, poor communication, and an incomplete document that leaves open too many questions. (And these questions only seem to get answered by insults when they are asked, and then with belittling laughter when conclusions are drawn as a result of witnessing all the insults between both current and aspiring BoD members. If I see antagonism between current and aspiring BoD members, I think maybe it's been around a while and didn't form overnight. And I think maybe it had something to do with what I now see on the ballot. Silly me for thinking that.)

I am far more worried about Bush and cronies not giving up power through unconstitutional means than I am about that happening with the PDGA board.


I find this remark interesting. I think Bush is a good man, but with tender feelings, and because of that, he tends to insulate himself from criticism. And I think people who disagree with him notice how he insulates himself and react to that with distrust.

Do you, Terry, see any similarities here? If you so dislike Bush's behavior, please re-examine your behavior and that of others who currently lead the PDGA. If you don't like how Bush leads, try not to be so much like him.

No one likes it when a leader insulates himself from criticism, especially when there are many who strongly disagree with him and feel they are not being heard at all.

By the way, getting rid of this discussion board, which I know you're thinking about, would be another example of trying to insulate yourself from criticism, I think. Disparaging the DB is an even more subtle way of avoiding criticism. It's just like Bush avoiding press conferences, or not reading the opinion pages in newspapers. Nice for the "leader", maybe, but lousy for the rest of us if we disagree with him -- and in the long run, it'll lousy for the leader, too.

Some members - a handful - think that they should be engaged in decision making at the same level as the board members the entire membership elected. They're wrong.

this is a gross misrepresentation of what is going on here.

asking for the opportunity to provide input prior to a decision is NOT asking to be engaged in the decision making process at the board level. it is asking to be involved in the DISCUSSION process. let the BoD make its decisions. thats fine and desireable. just provide methods for Members just engage in an open discussion. and encourage them to do so. nothing too complicated.

that "handful" that you disparage and dismiss are probably the next generation of leaders for our sport. it would be nice to make them feel like the pdga was interested in deploying their interest and talent towards pdga goals.



excellent post Pat! i guess your support for the 2MR just proves you can't be right about everything. better that than something bigger :p :D

while enabling members to request input into every step of every decision the BoD makes would obviously be ridiculous please consider this post from long ago as i think Erik really offered great food for BoD thought when they were in the process of deciding how to best go about changing the Constitution:

Chuck Kennedy wrote:

I wasn't there so I don't know the specifics of what's happening with the rewrite. So these comments pertain to organizations in general. I think it's just the nature of common business practices once orgs get to a certain size. For the best functionality, some things need to be confidential (not secret) versus wide open, especially personnel matters. The difference between confidential and secret is that confidential info and decisions still involve a reasonable sized group of people charged with those decisions. In the case of financial matters, they would still be subject to audit. But I guess we'll have to see what's actually happening with the rewrite and the explanations.




little_erik_wilson wrote:

I work with condominium Boards of Directors and HOA BoDs in my professional life. One of the laws that governs condos and HOAs in my state is the necessity of open meetings before the membership. There are, however, a few exceptions when this can be circumvented by holding an "executive session." There are something like 3-4 specific cases in which you can hold an exec session. They include:


1. Personnel matters
2. Legal strategy (litigation mostly)
3. Accounts Receviable (people in debt)
4. One other that doesn't immediately come to mind.

The trick about these executive session meetings is that they are closed to the membership and open only to Board members and consultants. No decisions can be made in these meetings, they are purely for discussion. Once the decision has been reached via discussion, the exec. session is adjourned, a regular, open Bod meeting is convened, and the decision is made by a motion, seconded and affirmed.

Language similar to this may already be in the constitution (I haven't read the thing) but if it's not, this could be a useful way of amending it to provide a method of confidentiality safe to Board members and members at large alike.

Erik

Ps. Minutes (according to Robert's Rules of Order) are a record of decisions made. Since no decisions are made in executive session, there are no minutes. Perfect, safe confidentiality for dealing with sensitive matters.



[click here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=518470&page=5&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1) to view source thread]



Wow, so you don't see a difference between a home or condo owner and a PDGA member. The level of obligation, and financial committment is hugely different. What happens in a condo is very different in scope from what is happening here, at every level. Furthermore, I'd bet a couple of gentlemen that there isn't that kind of citizen involvement at the level of ordinances defining condo building and structure at the city level. Not because it's not open, but because most citizens don't take the time. Kind of like people not calling in to listen in on the open Board meetings the PDGA has.

Finally, I sit in on government meetings that define how the insurance industry operates all the time. On many issues they take input from citizens, hospitals, and carriers. In the end it is the legislature and their people who decide what goes into the law. Public input doesn't occur because of the law, but because of common sense. One only has to look at the Bush Administration to realize that our government can act without our input. The reason the government does get our input is because common sense tells them that if they don't, they'll get booted. The same goes for the PDGA Board.

[/QUOTE]

Not trying to draw perfect lines of similarity from condo owner to PDGA member. But I do think that something along the same lines as the Oregon Open Meeting Laws (which govern many government organizations, not just condo meetings) are a reasonable way to achieve openness, while preserving the idea that not every detail and offhand remark needs to be published to the membership.

Oregon Open Meeting laws merely lay out a set of standards for what is an open meeting (and what needs to be published as a result of that meeting) and what kinds of meetings can be closed.

I think that Executive Session meeting standards for some of the meetings that the BoD has to hold would suit the purposes and goals while not fostering paranoia from the members, simply because decisions cannot be made in executive sessions. This preserves the right of the BoD to have "off the record" (ie non published) discussions and make "on the record" (ie published in minutes that are available to membership) decisions in open session immediately following.

Erik Wilson

Ps. I'll be leaving the condo job in August to begin law school in Oregon, and I'll likely let my PDGA membership lapse as a result of diminished spending money. I'll still lurk on the board, but y'all will have to do without my occassional commentary. ;)

Pps. Rob (AviarX) thanks for reintroducing that thread. I thought it was a useful suggestion. It's nice to see that you did too! :D

Every so often we must establish that fact that this DB is utterly useless.

Funny really that any of us forget this fact.

Every so often we must establish that fact that this DB is utterly useless.

Funny really that any of us forget this fact.



You're the only one that seems hell-bent on trying to establish that fact, which, I'm not sure a significant number of people agree with in the first place.

And again, if you don't like this discussion board, then don't use it!

Jason,

I was not on the BOD when that happened to you. Please don't make it sound like I had anything to do with that.



My apologies Kirk. I didn't know that. I should not have said that without knowing who the Oversight Director was at the time.


Hmm, if it wasn't Kirk, then wasn't it the previous Oversight Directory, Bruce Brakel?

Usually this board is amusing, but I find it sad that good folk feel it necessary to defend themselves against innuendo and hearsay in a forum devoid of the possibility of fact or truth finding.

Worse is that Pat, Bruce and others have made this some sort of standard for message board behavior. They say things here that they would never, ever (example of Bruce to Terry), (Paul to Kirk), (Paul to Suzette), (Pat to Theo), etc. say to others faces.

That is as pure a form of cowardice as is possible here on the mess bored. And I believe that more good people of the PDGA should stand up and let them know that such bold faced and meanspirited attacks are unacceptable, anywhere!

Admittedly, I don't know Pat or Bruce personally or on a face to face basis, I am basing my opinions purely on their behavior here and on what I know about their organizational participation on a worldwide level.

There is nothing productive or beneficial to the PDGA going on here; if there were then folks would have seized the opportunity to discuss "what is possible" to do going forward, rather than the old wives trick of complaining about long past actions that no one can do anything about short of owning a time machine.

If you believe that something of value can come from these discussions, then start PROVING it, by pledging to quit with the witch-hunting (which accomplishes only further petty mistrust and marginal truths) and get on with discussing what we can do going forward.

Jason,

I was not on the BOD when that happened to you. Please don't make it sound like I had anything to do with that.



My apologies Kirk. I didn't know that. I should not have said that without knowing who the Oversight Director was at the time.


Hmm, if it wasn't Kirk, then wasn't it the previous Oversight Directory, Bruce Brakel?




There is nothing productive or beneficial to the PDGA going on here; if there were then folks would have seized the opportunity to discuss "what is possible" to do going forward, rather than the old wives trick of complaining about long past actions that no one can do anything about short of owning a time machine.



Let me just put those together for you, Nick. Don't twist an ankle as you get off your high horse.

Admittedly, I don't know Pat or Bruce personally or on a face to face basis, I am basing my opinions purely on their behavior here and on what I know about their organizational participation on a worldwide level.



Don't know Bruce or you for that matter, but as for Pat, he is a good guy.................... most of the time :D

I don't know why Bruce or Pat's behavior should even be relevant. Our behavior has nothing to do with whether the Bylaws strip the membership of every right they've ever had. If you want to be a member of that kind of organization, by all means, vote YES.

And why the double standard? Why is it o.k. for Terry to say I'm paranoid but not o.k. for me to relate incidents where Board members behaved like weasels?

This thread has been about Jon and I telling you what is and is not in the new Bylaws, and PDGA insiders hurling personal attacks at us and anyone who agrees with us.

That really should be all you need to know. They cannot defend this sham document on the merits. All they can do is attack the prople who might tell you the truth about it.

Every so often we must establish that fact that this DB is utterly useless.


Useless? This thread will probably influence ten whole votes! :)

The sad part is that 10 votes is a measurable percentage...

Board members behaving like "weasels"!!!

And there it is ladies and gentlemen the gauntlet has been thrown down.

What about the "give the assets to another c3 or c6" amendment? Why is that there and what other cX groups are in the hunt? Does the current language require distribution of assets to the current members at time of dissolution?

I'll see your gauntlet and raise you a lance.

Let me just put those together for you, Nick. Don't twist an ankle as you get off your high horse.



And your point? My point is that even attempting to answer these accusations here is pointless. If anything your combination proves my point.

What high horse? The one where members don't call other members "weasels" or question their honesty.

I think I'll stay up here.

A lance you say?

Are you crazy?

Jousting is dangerous!!!

You have the best posts Pat. It's the strangest feeling being informed. A completely new sensation for me.

Exactly.

Nick, read the Bylaws and answer this question:

When a Director is elected under these Bylaws, when does his term expire?

Here's another:

Once an entire Board is elected under these Bylaws, when is the next election?

I don't know why Bruce or Pat's behavior should even be relevant. Our behavior has nothing to do with whether the Bylaws strip the membership of every right they've ever had. If you want to be a member of that kind of organization, by all means, vote YES.



Well, then Bruce, Pat and you might want to stop behaving so poorly; I�d be glad to discuss the issues concerning our new bylaws. If you�d stop being so openly hostile and insulting to Theo, Terry and all those who simply see this differently than you.

Problem is, that is not what this is all about. Is it? It seems pretty clear that you are going for your pound of flesh here; this issue of bylaws is secondary at best.

Even now, there is nothing stopping you from switching to a discussion of the bylaws, is there?

I.E.: Can you dispute that the bylaws provide the membership with the all powerful right to amend the bylaws? I asked this before and you couldn�t bring yourself to acknowledge that in fact this is the case. Why is that? Is it a discussion you are interested in, or do you just want to lecture us about this?


And why the double standard? Why is it o.k. for Terry to say I'm paranoid but not o.k. for me to relate incidents where Board members behaved like weasels?



What double standard? You HAVE BEEN PARANOID right here, right now, right in this very thread, for all to see; whereas the things you accuse Terry and Theo (as well as the other BOD members) of are all �hearsay� and he said she saids.

Again, if you want this to be about the bylaws vote, then you should make it about the bylaws vote, and not about something that need not be discussed here (your personal feelings towards each other).


This thread has been about Jon and I telling you what is and is not in the new Bylaws, and PDGA insiders hurling personal attacks at us and anyone who agrees with us.



I�m not going to say what I think this thread is really about, but anyone reading your posts would likely guess that it is about some personal spat you have with Theo and Terry; not about the bylaws.

�PDGA Insiders� LOL! So you don�t consider yourself a �PDGA Insider�!?! LOL! That is rich.

You want the personal attacks to cease? You want us to have a serious and indepth discussion of the bylaws? Great! Me too. Shall we begin, cause that is not what has been happening to this point.


That really should be all you need to know. They cannot defend this sham document on the merits. All they can do is attack the prople who might tell you the truth about it.



All folks have to do is read your words quoted here, Bruce, to know that you are not in the least interested in discussing anything related to the truth.

I�d just as soon give you a pat on the back and an �atta boy!� as point out where you are utterly failing in this thread and for your organization. All you have to do is start discussing the bylaws and stop the witch-hunting.

Exactly.

Nick, read the Bylaws and answer this question:

When a Director is elected under these Bylaws, when does his term expire?

Here's another:

Once an entire Board is elected under these Bylaws, when is the next election?



Are the bylaws my only source or may I look at policies beyond them?

When a Director is elected under these Bylaws, when does his term expire?



Currently, BOD members are elected to two year terms. That will not change unless the new board votes to change it.



Once an entire Board is elected under these Bylaws, when is the next election?



The next election will be one year from now, unless the BOD Changes it again like they did this last year.

the Bylaws strip the membership of every right they've ever had.


Are you talking about these??????

� To vote and hold office
� To receive a membership package and official PDGA communications
� To earn points in PDGA sanctioned events
� To obtain a player rating
� To qualify for and participate in championship events
� To become Certified Officials and Tournament Directors
� To have comments to committees duly considered and acted upon
� All other privileges as may be established by the Board of Directors



None of these are changing, unless the BOD does that last bullet "All other privileges as may be established by the BOD" or they excersise there CURRENT right


Article 3: Section 2. Active members must meet all the requirements as established by the Constitution and the Board of Directors.
Failure to maintain the obligations for Active membership will revert the member to Non-Active member status, and cause the
member to lose all rights and privileges for Active membership for the period in question.



so NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!!!

Pizza, are you finding these answers in the new bylaws? Because I'm finding them only in the old Constitution, which would no longer be in effect if the new bylaws are voted in.

Or are you saying the yet-to-be-written document that Pat Govang is proposing (in an excellent post) should have these elements? It's the fact that this document (call it a new Constitution) doesn't exist yet that has people saying that there has been a change, and they want the new bylaws voted down until the new C is in place. Voting for the new bylaws and eliminating the old C now seems premature without having a new C already written and on the same ballot. This is the concern I'm reading that people have on this thread.

Me, before I even got to this thread, I couldn't get past voting for somebody in a position that gets eliminated by the new bylaws, so just on that basis, I couldn't vote for the new bylaws. I requested in the comment field that the new bylaws be placed on a later ballot. That seemed more reasonable to me.

What I am saying is that the bylaws will be replacing the old bylaws. The old bylaws refer back to the constitution. Yes, I quoted the constitution, but almost everything the constitution says will stay in effect till the BOD sets up new guidelines.

I honestly don't think the new BOD is going to change much from what we have now. I just wanted to point that out.


Also, I wanted to point out that the BOD can already do what some people have been the new bylaws would let them do.

One thing that has not been mentioned about the new bylaws is that it calls for a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 9 BOD members.

BTW, when I say "guidelines" I mean "PDGA Policy"

The PDGA BOD had problems with discipline section of the constitution a few years ago. Some of you know what I am talking about.

The constitution only gives the PDGA one option, "the death penalty" for the player. The BOD elected instead to change this to what we have now, players or TD's being put on probation, banned from PDGA events or from running PDGA events based on there actions.

Before this, the only option was to kick them out of the PDGA. (and techicaly, I think that is still the only written option, however the BOD has egnored this only option by supending players and TD's)

Personally, I agree with the PDGA on this.

Is it more reasonable to have a constitution that is not able to be followed or bylaws that do function and allow us to maintain all of the rights and benefits that really matter?

I know Pat, Bruce and you do not trust the current BOD members to do the right things in continuing to provide membership with the essential rights; but the absolute remains: why would the PDGA BOD do anything to risk the continued support and participation of their membership?

If you can find a single reason, I'm all ears?

What I am saying is that the bylaws will be replacing the old bylaws. The old bylaws refer back to the constitution. Yes, I quoted the constitution, but almost everything the constitution says will stay in effect till the BOD sets up new guidelines.


Pizza, the old Constitution will no longer be in effect if the new bylaws are voted in. That's the point of the new bylaws. That's why the BoD is putting the new bylaws out for a vote, because they say the old C can't be followed (still don't know why, except that it conflicts with the Articles of Incorporation somehow -- have you read anywhere what the nature of the conflict is?).

Now if you're saying that even without a Constitution of any sort, the PDGA will probably keep going as it has been -- I may not fully agree with that, because I don't yet know what specific part(s) of the old C they feel is in conflict with AOI. What part of the old C do they want to stop (or have already stopped) following?

But say that most of the old C will continue to be followed, even if it's no longer in effect (???). If by and large that is correct, then I don't understand the rush to vote for new bylaws now, which is all about eliminating the old C. Why not wait for the new C to be written and then vote for the whole set of documents when they're both ready?

I mean, I know human nature. If we try to do this piecemeal, then we might end up with only one piece, and that means we could end up with new bylaws but never have a new Constitution, or whatever is still needed in another document, according to Pat Govang.

What if we vote in the new bylaws now and because of other difficulties, the new C is never written or voted on? Won't that be a long-term problem for this organization, brought about by trying to vote for and approve the new bylaws in the short term?

The new bylaws have been a working progress of the last 6 years.

It only seems a rush because they were not published till this last week.

You can argue back and forth that they are not complete, however they are what is needed for now.

Then, at the next board meeting in October, the NEW BOD can start setting policies for the PDGA to follow.

I will assUme that the PDGA will keep doing what they are currently doing.

It may no longer be in writting, however you could argue that it is a policy like the discipline section I already posted about. The BOD had to stop following that section otherwise they would have to revoke a lot of memberships INCLUDING THE MEMBERSHIPS OF THOSE THAT HAVE EVEN HAD ONE DAY BANS FROM THIS BOARD.

maybe it is because I am already on a BOD (actually a Board of Franchisees) but I know what the PDGA board is going through. We had some of the same issues too. We actually rewrote a section of the Franchisee agreement and gave it to all the franchisee's to sign. Those that refused were made aware if the problem and at least one Franchisee was pulled because of it. (he was not in compliance with the franchisee agreement and the only option without signing the agreement was to pull his franchise. He lasted 2 months as an independent after 12+ years as a franchisee)

The new bylaws have been a working progress of the last 6 years.

It only seems a rush because they were not published till this last week.

You can argue back and forth that they are not complete, however they are what is needed for now.


I am not arguing the new bylaws are not complete. I'm quoting a board member (Pat Govang) that they're not complete. Apparently, Dave Nesbitt also says they're not complete. Suzette Simons calls them a starting point. You seem to think so, too. I think that means we're all in agreement on this point.

Then, at the next board meeting in October, the NEW BOD can start setting policies for the PDGA to follow.

I will assUme that the PDGA will keep doing what they are currently doing.


I don't understand what you're saying here. The new BoD will start setting new policies, but everything will continue to stay the same? If there are new policies enacted, won't there be some things that will be different?

It may no longer be in writting, however you could argue that it is a policy like the discipline section I already posted about. The BOD had to stop following that section otherwise they would have to revoke a lot of memberships INCLUDING THE MEMBERSHIPS OF THOSE THAT HAVE EVEN HAD ONE DAY BANS FROM THIS BOARD.


Why is that last part in all caps? Are you trying to scare Nick?

I'm quoting a board member (Pat Govang) that they're not complete.




I was a board member from Sept. 2000 to August 2003 and am not a current member of the BoD. My comments were those of a member of the PDGA. The By Laws may very well be complete - only time will tell. I was suggesting a change to reinstate what I believe, as a member, is a key part of the purpose of the organization.

Pat

And why the double standard? Why is it o.k. for Terry to say I'm paranoid but not o.k. for me to relate incidents where Board members behaved like weasels?




Please vote for Cris Bellinger for Competition Director. It should be evident by now to anyone reading this thread that having Bruce Brakel on the Board is likely to cause more problems than it will solve them. I believe, as someone who has had to work with Bruce on the Board in the past, and who has worked closely with Cris on many competition and organizational issues (he's also one of the people runnign the whole Oregon Series), the PDGA and it's members will be better served with Cris Belling as a PDGA Board member.

-Theo

What I am saying is that the bylaws will be replacing the old bylaws. The old bylaws refer back to the constitution. Yes, I quoted the constitution, but almost everything the constitution says will stay in effect till the BOD sets up new guidelines.

I honestly don't think the new BOD is going to change much from what we have now. I just wanted to point that out.


Also, I wanted to point out that the BOD can already do what some people have been the new bylaws would let them do.

One thing that has not been mentioned about the new bylaws is that it calls for a minimum of 7 and a maximum of 9 BOD members.



Finally, some reason! Someone who's not paranoid about the Board intentionally doing stupid things that harm the organization. As someone who has spent 5 years now working hard and dedicating a large amount of my time (with no compensation) on helping this organization grow, I'm astonished at times at the accusations and implications that are fired at us, usually by people that have no clue at what goes on behind the scenes, and what we're all like as individuals.

I'll go over this again.

As a Board, we have been trying to get the Constitution overhauled for more than two years. When we finally recruited Bruce Brakel, it was with the hopes of having a better chance of getting done, by someone with a legal background, which we thought would be a benefit. Bruce never got things off the ground, and quit before his term ended.

After Kirk spent some time researching other similar types of organizations, he came back to the Board and noted that one of his observations was that most organizations didn't include a lot of what we have in our current Constitution in their legal documents. We discussed it, and agreed that we were going to take the same approach, and replace the Constitution with the Bylaws, plus future policies and procedures documents to cover those things in the bylaws that we feel need to be documented. Note that these will not be legal documents filed as part of being incorporated as a non-profit. They will just be PDGA documents that the Board approves, which document how certain things, like the disciplinary process, are done.

We now that those documents will need to be developed, and some of them sooner than others. Some of them are under way (for example, Lyle Ross and I have been working on the disciplinary process since he took over chairmanship of the Disciplinary Committee).

Obviously, it would have been nice to get everything done at once, and put it out there for review before replacing the Constitution. However, there are too many things in the Constitution that need addressing immediately (like removing the Board titles) that we felt we needed to move ahead in this voting cycle, and put ourselves in a position where we can move ahead in the future without necessarily having to wait another year before changes can be made.

So, could the current Board abuse the membership and make decisions that would cause harm to the future of the organization? Sure, we could! But guess what - there are plenty of ways that we could do that under the current Constitution, and if we ever do, now or in the future, the individual Board members could become legally liable for those actions. Why would we ever do that, as volunteers? Think about it.

What we're asking you to do is to trust the elected Board to represent the members and run the organization. We will continue to respect member's rights. We will continue to develop and refine our organizational policies and procedures. We want this sport and the PDGA to grow as much or more than any of you do, and we have a track record of doing a pretty good job of it.

Thanks for listening.
Theo Pozzy
Commissioner
PDGA Board of Directors

For those of you who don't read long posts, this quote is one you should read and what I have been trying to say.


What we're asking you to do is to trust the elected Board to represent the members and run the organization. We will continue to respect member's rights. We will continue to develop and refine our organizational policies and procedures. We want this sport and the PDGA to grow as much or more than any of you do, and we have a track record of doing a pretty good job of it.



I agree 100%

Obviously, it would have been nice to get everything done at once, and put it out there for review before replacing the Constitution. However, there are too many things in the Constitution that need addressing immediately (like removing the Board titles) that we felt we needed to move ahead in this voting cycle, and put ourselves in a position where we can move ahead in the future without necessarily having to wait another year before changes can be made.


I just don't get this part. One of the reasons for doing this now rather than later was to remove Board director titles? Why was that so urgent? To me, that was the biggest flaw on the ballot. I just couldn't vote somebody for a board title that would later be made obsolete by the new bylaws (I know I sound like a broken record on this, but no one's responding to me on this point).

What were the other "things in the Constitution that [needed] addressing immediately"?

For those of you who don't read long posts, this quote is one you should read and what I have been trying to say.


What we're asking you to do is to trust the elected Board to represent the members and run the organization. We will continue to respect member's rights. We will continue to develop and refine our organizational policies and procedures. We want this sport and the PDGA to grow as much or more than any of you do, and we have a track record of doing a pretty good job of it.



I agree 100%


Even with all the disparaging remarks made by BoD members regarding this DB, even with rule changes I don't fully understand and disciplinary actions which seem inappropriate and ballots that don't make sense to me, all of which shakes my confidence a bit, I have always thought that the BoD had the best interests of the PDGA at heart.

But having said that, why does anything go out for a vote? If the BoD always has our best interests at heart, why question anything they do? Why don't we just stop voting for anything but them, and allow them to do whatever they want, with the full knowledge that they always have the best interests of the PDGA at heart?

Because that's not enough. That's not enough to ensure that they will always make the right decision. And even if they consistently make the right decision all the time, we need to stay informed just to know what those decisions are. Part of how we stay informed is by taking the time to learn about what we're voting on. And if we can't make heads or tails of what's being voted on, or why it's being brought to a vote, then we have the responsibility to remind the board that they need to communicate better the decisions they are making, in a more timely fashion. This is not about good versus evil here -- usually it's just about what's understandable and what isn't, whether or not everything's been properly communicated, or it hasn't. If we vote no, we might be simply reminding the BoD to get it right before we see a document like this, that's all.

Obviously, it would have been nice to get everything done at once, and put it out there for review before replacing the Constitution. However, there are too many things in the Constitution that need addressing immediately (like removing the Board titles) that we felt we needed to move ahead in this voting cycle, and put ourselves in a position where we can move ahead in the future without necessarily having to wait another year before changes can be made.


I just don't get this part. One of the reasons for doing this now rather than later was to remove Board director titles? Why was that so urgent? To me, that was the biggest flaw on the ballot. I just couldn't vote somebody for a board title that would later be made obsolete by the new bylaws (I know I sound like a broken record on this, but no one's responding to me on this point).

What were the other "things in the Constitution that [needed] addressing immediately"?


Most Boards don't have specific titles for each board position, other than the Chairman/Chairperson - for the PDGA, that's me, and we call it the Commissioner (I'm also the President, but we don't use that title except in legal documents). The titles were developed way back when the Board was responsible for a lot of the organization's business and operations. It doesn't work that way with larger organizations. Our Bylaws don't have titles for the Board members. That's an example of a conflict, in my opinion.

The reason we don't want titles is that it makes it harder to recruit Board members. People are always asking: "What does the <insert title here> Director do"? Most of what the earlier Board members did is now being done by Committees or staff. We want to recruit competent Board members with a broad range of backgrounds, and we don't want to "pigeon-hole" them into roles. Once Board members are elected, if we want to assign specific tasks or duties, we can vote among ourselves for who's the best qualified to do it - or delegate it to staff or consultants.

Removing titles from the positions is one of the things that would require a pretty hefty overhaul of the Constitution. We figured it would be more expedient to have the Bylaws define the Board positions (without titles), and then we can put into place more formal documents describing the Committees, relationships between them and the Board, relationships between the Board and the staff, etc.

In the meantime, we're going to continue to operate the same way we have, successfully, for the last few years, regardless of whether the changes are approved. If they're not, we'll have to live with the titles for another year. If they are, the titles are going away. And for the next election cycle, where we will need a new Commissioner, we'll have a lot more flexibility in recruiting candidates. We can get the Board members together and choose the Commissioner if we want, rather than having the members choose him/her through a popularity contest (or because it's the only person willing to run in the first place - a sorry state for us).

Hope that gives everyone some insight into this key issue. Feel free to reply with comments or counterpoints.

-Theo

while enabling members to request input into every step of every decision the BoD makes would obviously be ridiculous please consider this post from long ago as i think Erik really offered great food for BoD thought when they were in the process of deciding how to best go about changing the Constitution:

Chuck Kennedy wrote:

I wasn't there so I don't know the specifics of what's happening with the rewrite. So these comments pertain to organizations in general. I think it's just the nature of common business practices once orgs get to a certain size. For the best functionality, some things need to be confidential (not secret) versus wide open, especially personnel matters. The difference between confidential and secret is that confidential info and decisions still involve a reasonable sized group of people charged with those decisions. In the case of financial matters, they would still be subject to audit. But I guess we'll have to see what's actually happening with the rewrite and the explanations.




little_erik_wilson wrote:

I work with condominium Boards of Directors and HOA BoDs in my professional life. One of the laws that governs condos and HOAs in my state is the necessity of open meetings before the membership. There are, however, a few exceptions when this can be circumvented by holding an "executive session." There are something like 3-4 specific cases in which you can hold an exec session. They include:


1. Personnel matters
2. Legal strategy (litigation mostly)
3. Accounts Receviable (people in debt)
4. One other that doesn't immediately come to mind.

The trick about these executive session meetings is that they are closed to the membership and open only to Board members and consultants. No decisions can be made in these meetings, they are purely for discussion. Once the decision has been reached via discussion, the exec. session is adjourned, a regular, open Bod meeting is convened, and the decision is made by a motion, seconded and affirmed.

Language similar to this may already be in the constitution (I haven't read the thing) but if it's not, this could be a useful way of amending it to provide a method of confidentiality safe to Board members and members at large alike.

Erik

Ps. Minutes (according to Robert's Rules of Order) are a record of decisions made. Since no decisions are made in executive session, there are no minutes. Perfect, safe confidentiality for dealing with sensitive matters.



[click here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=518470&page=5&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1) to view source thread]



Wow, so you don't see a difference between a home or condo owner and a PDGA member. The level of obligation, and financial committment is hugely different. What happens in a condo is very different in scope from what is happening here, at every level. Furthermore, I'd bet a couple of gentlemen that there isn't that kind of citizen involvement at the level of ordinances defining condo building and structure at the city level. Not because it's not open, but because most citizens don't take the time. Kind of like people not calling in to listen in on the open Board meetings the PDGA has.

Finally, I sit in on government meetings that define how the insurance industry operates all the time. On many issues they take input from citizens, hospitals, and carriers. In the end it is the legislature and their people who decide what goes into the law. Public input doesn't occur because of the law, but because of common sense. One only has to look at the Bush Administration to realize that our government can act without our input. The reason the government does get our input is because common sense tells them that if they don't, they'll get booted. The same goes for the PDGA Board.



Not trying to draw perfect lines of similarity from condo owner to PDGA member. But I do think that something along the same lines as the Oregon Open Meeting Laws (which govern many government organizations, not just condo meetings) are a reasonable way to achieve openness, while preserving the idea that not every detail and offhand remark needs to be published to the membership.

Oregon Open Meeting laws merely lay out a set of standards for what is an open meeting (and what needs to be published as a result of that meeting) and what kinds of meetings can be closed.

I think that Executive Session meeting standards for some of the meetings that the BoD has to hold would suit the purposes and goals while not fostering paranoia from the members, simply because decisions cannot be made in executive sessions. This preserves the right of the BoD to have "off the record" (ie non published) discussions and make "on the record" (ie published in minutes that are available to membership) decisions in open session immediately following.

Erik Wilson

Ps. I'll be leaving the condo job in August to begin law school in Oregon, and I'll likely let my PDGA membership lapse as a result of diminished spending money. I'll still lurk on the board, but y'all will have to do without my occassional commentary. ;)

Pps. Rob (AviarX) thanks for reintroducing that thread. I thought it was a useful suggestion. It's nice to see that you did too! :D

[/QUOTE]

Erik, thank you for posting it back when the BoD said they were looking into the best way to re-write our Constitution. Yours was a great example of how to compromise between overly idealistic requirements for openess and practical ways to ensure openess without implying we need watch the BoD's every move and know even what they ate for breakfast. Unfortunately they apparently decided to just pass Bylaws that would allow them to not worry about re-writing the Constitution -- enabling them pretty much do what they want without troubling themselves to listen to those who they are elected to lead. If we elect Pat Brenner and Bruce to the BoD -- hopefully it will help mitigate that disconcerting direction in which the BoD has started to move. i think electing someone like Bruce who is at odds with some of the directions things are headed is the perfect way to force them to look before they leap... they in turn i suppose will keep Bruce from giving the members too many rights so all sides should end up happy that way /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Theo, sence you are reading this thread.

For our BoD (or BOF), we are elected in this manor. (Mr Jim's Pizza Inc. that is)

About a month before the election, Corporate office sends out a letter asking all the Franchisee's that are interested in becoming Board members to send in a campain speech. (or Resume') then on the election day, all Franchisee are sent a package with all the letters and we are to fax in our top 8 votes. (we had 12 run this last time)

The top 8 are elected to the board for the next 2 years. (I have been on the BoD for 12 years now, 1994 to 2006)

We do not have a "Director" because Mr. Jim's fills that 9th position as the tie breaker. He does not vote unless there is a tie. (however, he is the president and owner and can out vote us at any time)

When it comes down to voting for new members under a new ByLaws WITHOUT titles, the voting prosses should be more like what I just said. Anyone who wants to be elected to the board send in there resume and let the top 4 on the board each year. (re-elect 1/2 the board each year) as far as the BoD director (or President) that position could be elected by itself OR voted on by the BoD after each election. (I do recomend 9 members)

I considered running for the BoD this year. Two things kept me from it. #1 I am busy with my current BoD possition plus running my store. #2 I really want to compete in the Masters division this year, being my Rookie year and all.

If the new ByLaws are passed and the titles are gone, I will run in the future.

No matter how much I like new blood, sometimes we need an old fart to help out. :D

Theo, a lot of what you say sounds like you don't even believe it. In my few dealings with you I had the impression you were uncomfortable doing some of the things you did, saying some of the things you had to say, but you were doing it out of a sense of larger purpose that I could never figured out, because I can never figure out why the PDGA just doesn't reveal what it does.

Since the PDGA isn't real fond of letting its members know what's going on, I and many others have had to rely on our gut instincts, and there always seems to be something fishy when you can't get straight answers to very simple questions.

To me, being a large, complex, rich, successful organization does not preclude "conducing all your affairs in the open."

The PDGA, the way it has acted towards me and others that I know, gives me the creeps. We ask and ask and don't get answers. Instead we get deflections, diversion, obfuscation, and often we just plain get ignored.

I get the impression, Theo, that you're a little too concerned with getting the job done, getting along, and not rocking the boat. I'd rather see more lively discussions like this one, some good old fashioned painful truths, like a couple of stories Pat and Bruce told.

I see you're getting your cheap shots in on Bruce, making it sound like he can't get along. This makes me think he's desperately needed, because he's someone less concerned with getting along (which, in the extreme, is a form of spinelessness) than he is in doing what's right.

We can only hope that the new leadership, with the help of the new BoD members, can do a better job of communicating what makes the PDGA tick than the current one.

Theo says:
And for the next election cycle, where we will need a new Commissioner, we'll have a lot more flexibility in recruiting candidates. We can get the Board members together and choose the Commissioner if we want, rather than having the members choose him/her

There you have it. Vote Yes and you never have to be bothered with voting again.

Bruces last post was a bad attempt at a joke. Voting yes for the new bylaws is not going to result in no new elections. Bruce knows this, he just likes to mislead you all.

Theo: Thanks for taking the time to address the bylaw issue here. You aren't required to do so, yet you seem to be trying to disclose and clarify the points behind the issues. As a member, I value and appreciate that.

PDGA members: Read "Disc Golf World". Read the official posts on this forum. All you have to do is READ to find that the PDGA BOD does share information with its members. The PDGA BOD invites discussion. The PDGA BOD is NOT getting rich off of us. Stop impuning the BOD with frivolous charges and fear-based assumptions.

I love the PDGA and support its endeavors. However, if Bruce Brakel is on the BOD, the tumult will only increase. We will be mired in baseless arguments until Bruce crowns himself King. Bruce is a meglomaniac. Although some of his ideas seem good and fair, his past behavior (in person and online) demonstrates an eager drive to divide and conquer.

Whatever your views are, please take the time to VOTE!!! each member has a voice and a chance to be heard and make a change. So VOTE!!!

Stop impuning the BOD with frivolous charges and fear-based assumptions.

....if Bruce Brakel is on the BOD, the tumult will only increase. We will be mired in baseless arguments until Bruce crowns himself King. Bruce is a meglomaniac. Although some of his ideas seem good and fair, his past behavior (in person and online) demonstrates an eager drive to divide and conquer.



First, learn how to spell "impugn" before you use it again.

Then, take your own advice and stop impugning everyone, not just BOD members, with frivolous charges and fear-based assumptions.

Inappropriate things have been said on both sides of this argument. Terry's advice to take a breather is a good one. However, nothing can replace learning how to negotiate and discuss without offending.

Stop impuning the BOD with frivolous charges and fear-based assumptions.

....if Bruce Brakel is on the BOD, the tumult will only increase. We will be mired in baseless arguments until Bruce crowns himself King. Bruce is a meglomaniac. Although some of his ideas seem good and fair, his past behavior (in person and online) demonstrates an eager drive to divide and conquer.



First, learn how to spell "impugn" before you use it again.

Then, take your own advice and stop impugning everyone, not just BOD members, with frivolous charges and fear-based assumptions.

Inappropriate things have been said on both sides of this argument. Terry's advice to take a breather is a good one. However, nothing can replace learning how to negotiate and discuss without offending.



This is the best post on this thread. Impune. Impunje. Impunge.

Since when is advising members to read and speak factually 'impugning'? And you should stop impugning me for not using spellcheck. :D

Whatever your views are on the candidates or the Constitution issue, I hope you all vote.

Pizza God, check your ovens for a gas leak. What part of this is fuzzy?
And for the next election cycle, where we will need a new Commissioner, we'll have a lot more flexibility in recruiting candidates. We can get the Board members together and choose the Commissioner if we want, rather than having the members choose him/her

Bruce,

I believe what Theo was referring to was choosing the Commissioner from the pool of elected board members. To clarify that would be board members elected by the PDGA members.

Kirk

Theo says:
And for the next election cycle, where we will need a new Commissioner, we'll have a lot more flexibility in recruiting candidates. We can get the Board members together and choose the Commissioner if we want, rather than having the members choose him/her

There you have it. Vote Yes and you never have to be bothered with voting again.


Nice try, Bruce. Pardon me if I was unclear on my wording here - I'm not a lawyer. What I meant is that the specific roles and responsibilities for the elected Board members should be determined by those Board members themselves. Both the current and proposed Bylaws let us vote for who is the President each year. And the President is the real chief executive officer. So it's not up to the members at all who is in charge. The members pick the Board, the Board figures out who's going to do what. The way it should be.

-Theo

However, nothing can replace learning how to negotiate and discuss without offending.



Agreed. Too bad that has never been accomplished here on the board, ever. If you lead I will follow. I seriously doubt it is even possible for certain users; so if we start down this "discussion" path that will mean that we will have to stand united on inappropriate behavior, even if it crosses issue boundaries. It could mean telling Bruce or Pat that they are behaving inappropriately, even though you might agree with the non-offensive fragment of their posts. Same for Theo and Terry.

Are you ready to do that? Is anyone?

"[G]etting rid of this discussion board, which I know you're thinking about . . . ." classic example of a posting that is flat-out wrong and contributes only to confusion.

Really, you know things about what I am thinking that even I don't know about. I haven't given that topic a thought for months. Don't give up your day job for Tarot readings.

If you read any back postings, you would know that I personally am probably the biggest supporter of DISCussion among the current board members and if I had backed down at any time in the past year, it could easily have been turned right off.

"Disparaging the DB is an even more subtle way of avoiding criticism."

classic example of a posting that is flat-out wrong and contributes only to confusion.

Criticize me: 734.883.4407, splendid@umich.edu, AIM = "splendid1" . . . . I'm waiting. Doesn't satisfy? Ask yourself why? Afraid? I've always welcomed criticism - just wonder why no one will do it face to face. I'm truly not that terrifying a figure.

Or do you have nothing that can be said and defended in a quiet, one-on-one discussion and prefer to just blast out criticism to the world?

Reminds me of the people who think you can't pray in school - I've prayed in hundreds of schools over the past 30 years and no one ever stopped me.

Of course, I didn't do it in a way that made everyone else stop what they were doing, pay attention to me, and do what I say when I say it.

It's still amazine to me that I get maybe one call or email per-several-thousand-posts-here. Not a single person has phoned me to talk about the bylaws - despite this ongoing thread for months and months: Maybe I should offer to pay the long distance charges?

I am one of the biggest fans of DISCussion. However, as a communications device it deserves disparagement. It is the preferred method of a handful of people, who wrongly try to use it as a governance tool.

as a communications tool it is the greatest untapped resource the pdga has. most cost-efficient also. communication is different from governance. increased communication might go a long way towards better governance.

"And why the double standard? Why is it o.k. for Terry to say I'm paranoid but not o.k. for me to relate incidents where Board members behaved like weasels?"

Bruce, Mike August called you paranoid at one point in this discussion, but I have not done so. Please stop repeating that false claim. <font color=red>And, yes, this once again proves how pointless DISCussion as part of the governing process is</font> - how do I correct your erroneous accusation in a way that ties up all the loose ends? Obvious, I cannot.

I wrote: "But have you considered the effect of your sharing that paranoid thought in this public venue? You can count on a number of people taking it to heart. Thanks."

I called the thought a "paranoid thought." Everyone has paranoid thoughts. Even you, and certainly me. That doesn't make us, ourselves, as a label, "paranoid" - paranoia is a medical determinnation.

Most of us can also distinguish between a modifier applied to a behavior or thought, versus name-calling or labeling.

Example:

Person A: "Terry, you are an idiot."

Person B: "Terry, that was a pretty idiotic idea."

A is name-calling; B is not.

so if i said something like

"ya know terry, that was a completely vacuous post" then it would be ok? because you seem to be picking on miniscule non-topics and deliberately clouding the issues lately.

Yes, I am guilty of using the term "paranoid" to describe Bruce's descriptions of life after the new bylaws. In retrospect, that word choice was inappropriate, and I apologize.

The thought I was trying to convey was that I understand where Bruce is coming from, but that I don't think the BOD has illusions of grandeur. Bruce appears to be merely pointing out what he perceives as the shortcomings of the drafted document.

Bruce appears to be merely pointing out what he perceives as the shortcomings of the document drafters.

Pardon my correction.

so if i said something like ya know terry, that was a completely vacuous post" then it would be ok? because you seem to be picking on miniscule non-topics and deliberately clouding the issues lately.



Pat, it means a lot to me that a friend is saying that I called him paranoid. That affects, if nothing else, my credibility with people here I do not know, personally.

I am just trying to set the record straight. Apparently you think that is vacuous?

Implicit in your comment is that you do not care whether people on here are expressing themselves accurately, or about setting records straight. Which is in fact true of DISCussion in general and <font color="red"> proves once more that this is not a place for governance and governance discussions</font> .

Oh, yeah, you can call it a vacuous post all you want, just don't call me vacuous.

Really, you know things about what I am thinking that even I don't know about.



That more or less sums up Paul in a nutshell.

However, nothing can replace learning how to negotiate and discuss without offending.



Agreed. Too bad that has never been accomplished here on the board, ever. If you lead I will follow. I seriously doubt it is even possible for certain users; so if we start down this "discussion" path that will mean that we will have to stand united on inappropriate behavior, even if it crosses issue boundaries. It could mean telling Bruce or Pat that they are behaving inappropriately, even though you might agree with the non-offensive fragment of their posts. Same for Theo and Terry.

Are you ready to do that? Is anyone?



That (preaching from a high horse against the very same behavior he himself exhibits) more or less sums up Nick in a nutshell.

Bruce appears to be merely pointing out what he perceives as the shortcomings of the document drafters.

Pardon my correction.



That's a revision, not a correction. :D

i didnt call you vacuous. thkis is meaningless symantics. if you can think that i am implying i do not care if people express themselves accurately from my post, i think it is rather reasonable for bruce to feel a statement that his thoughts are paranoid implies that he is paranoid.

again, this is discussion, not governance.

I just don't get the disconnect?

What in the friggin' world is the advantage that Theo or some other group might get from taking over the PDGA? How in the world would they gain when the By-laws clearly state they can get no real financial compensation from such an act?

Cripes, if they really wanted something, I would have thought they would structure the By-laws to read... and 10% of all revenues shall be paid to Theo into perpetuity.

How paranoid is a conversation built around the notion that a few people might want to take over the PDGA? This is sort of like the girls wanting to take over the all boy's tree house fort thingy. Yeah it might make them feel good, but the boys will stop coming pretty darn quick and will build a new tree house fort thingy called the Southern Nationals.

There just isn't any value in what Bruce is claiming. That is so obvious it is laughable.

How am I supposed to view this as any thing else but a way to try and invigorate voters to vote for the guy who is going to save the PDGA from those power hungry mad men?

Bruce appears to be merely pointing out what he perceives as the shortcomings of the document drafters.

Pardon my correction.

it appears an apology is in order.

You bet it is! :cool:

Keep DISCussion for discussion; and keep governance for elected, serious, intelligent, hard-working, responsible, non-bigoted members for the PDGA Board of Directors!

I didn't say you said that; read it again. I asked you not to call me vacuous - didn't say that you did it. But it is oxymoronic to say that semantics can be meaningless. By definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics, if it is semantic in nature it has meaning.

Calling something "meaningless semantics" often means, "I don't want to take the time to understand what you are trying to say. Or to try to say things clearly, myself." But, of course, not in this instance.

well, now i get to finish the story...

shortly after i accepted the webmaster position i created some code that displayed the poster's player rating under his avatar on this board. i put the code on this board without running it by certain people first.

ya know what happened when i made this un-vetted change. one BoD member got really mad that "his" private data was being shown so publicly. another BoD member got mad because i published an enhancement that had not been vetted to the users and hadd not been sanctioned by the BoD. yes, these very same BoD members are now trying to get an unvetted Bylaws passed! (talk about inconsistency , Lyle)



Nice revisionist history.

I got several large complaints from members (by phone) about the ratings being posted with the DB the same morning it went into place, in addition to my rather large objection. My understanding was that Theo's main complaint was not that it wasn't vetted with the members, but because it using a double query, which in turn put extra stress on the website, in fact causing downtime later that same afternoon. (At least that's the way I understand what Theo and Steve Ganz told me later at the summit...I admit I'm no IT genius)

My complaint was simply that I would refuse to use the discussion board until the ratings were gone. I was voicing my displeasure as a member, just as you are here. You chose to quit as webmaster, rather than to try and work with the BoD, presumably because you didn't get your way. That was your choice to do so. My choice would have been to never use the message board again had the ratings remained there. So perhaps we're alike in that fashion.


well when this happened i admitted that i was wrong to publish the feature without vetting it first. i should have done so. i admit i was wrong on that. i took a bunch more flack.

due to the nature of my flacking, and the fact that i was still a bit disillusioned about the requirement to keep secret that i was to get paid for being the Webmaster, i decided to resign the webmaster position immediately. i made it clear that i was available to help in any capacity just like before, but i was refusing to take any money for my servies. the office has contacted me since then on several tasks, and i have gladly assisted. and will continue to do so.



If someone told you to keep you the details of any contract a secret, I don't feel they should have done that, but I'm also not an attorney, so perhaps there's a legal reason for doing so that I'm not aware of. PDGA definitely should keep those details secret, as that protects you. If you wish to break the silence and announce the contents of your contract, more power to you.


so, you've got a BoD that wants to control the details of what is displayed where on the website



And that's a bad thing exactly how? Seems like there was room for creativity there, but you quit rather than trying to work through it with us. I think a lot of the Rules Committee would like to handle all of the potential rules changes on their own as well, but the BoD has the final say on those things, as they rightly should. The RC are not elected officials....the BoD is elected and empowered by the members.


and requires at least some select circle of Members to approve any changes. but the same BoD will not release proposed revisions to the heart and soul of the legal entity to which we all belong.



Seems like you have your wish in the ballot, and Theo posted it elsewhere on this site...or did you need something else? You were always welcome to submit any suggestions in the process along thew way, and whether you got rough drafts or not is no guarantee that anything in the current document would be any different. Bruce is no longer a BoD member, but he probably should be able to provide any notes on work he did on the constitution when he was on the BoD, at least in the spirit of all of this, since he was on the BoD and all back then. For the record, I would have liked to see those notes as well, because I never received anything from him on that, but perhaps he vetted it through someone else on the BoD. It certainly was never discussed at the teleconference more than, "I'm working on it", as far as I recall. I admit I never really asked for them then...I was told by Theo that Bruce didn't provide any such notes when he resigned before the 2005 summit.


isnt that the classic definition of micro-management? refuse input on the big things and demand consultation on the little.



Who decides what's little, and what's big? I had a BIG problem with having the ratings on the DB, but I didn't get to vote on that, although in fairness my way eventually won out (although that was probably more of a bandwidth issue than any undue influence on my part). Also, it seems like a constitutional vote by the members is going to be either a big thumbs up or thumbs down by the members. That's the ultimate input from the members. That seems pretty big to me.


i have not accepted a single nickel for any work i have done on the website. i did accept a gratis membership in 2005. i accepted one in 006, but when all this went down i wrote a check for $150 for the membership (ace club) so that i would have a clean slate.



That's admirable, but hardly relevant to what we're discussing here. Many members of the BoD have donated at least as much sweat, hard work, and sometimes $$$ to the PDGA. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate anything our volunteers can give to the PDGA. You can't allow volunteers to just do whatever they want, however, just because they're not getting paid. Volunteers still have to be managed.

For the record, I am the only person in the PDGA that will have voted no on this constitution twice. Once at the board level to put it on the ballot in it's current form, and once as a member. I have a couple of issues with it, both of which have been echoed in this thread by multiple others, so I see no need to belabor those points. My only wish is that all members take the time to read the actual document themselves, and vote their conscience on it.

Good luck to all of you in the election.

Chap

...

I got several large complaints from members (by phone) about the ratings being posted with the DB the same morning it went into place, in addition to my rather large objection.

Chap



John, can you be more specific than the vague term 'several'?

since the ratings of you and everyone else are only two clicks away i don't get it. the majority of people here appreciated the player rating appearing directly below our user id's. if people should have the option to opt out of making that info public they should be able to opt out of having it published here (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php) on the ratings page. (though that would be as absurd as letting major league baseball players opt out of letting their batting average stats be made public...)

my biggest concern regarding the calls for pm's and private phone calls to voice dissent is that this forum (if used) provides for a public way to do that and so when private communiques are requested that defeats the beauty of the DISCussion Board. Terry and Theo you could publicly state your responses to criticisms and thus give everyone entertaining similar concerns but not expressing them more information about what is going on behind the scenes and you could also quell any false assumptions by answering such criticisms publicly. It seems like a wasted opportunity to prefer to handle such things privately by default and miss the chance to get things out in the open so all can appreciate your position and your leadership as well as the concerns of individual members. :confused: It would also increase the informative component of this message board...

Your optimism about the capabilities of this board, in the bold face of all that has gone on here and elsewhere, is admirable Rob.

The fact remains, so long as there is a greater tendancy towards witch-huntery and kangaroo court tactics, this board is nearly the single worst place to try and do anything productive.

It has failed at every level; from the simple to the complex, it fails every time without exception.

Face it, it is a form of mild entertainment, nothing more.

The effort involved to make it anything greater is beyond our capacity.

If these guys quit so easily on miniscule issues, should we start taking bets on how fast the door will be banging when someone questions their honesty, work ethic or intellegence?

I'm all for second chances, they just need to start proving they have a single leadership bone in their bodies first...

nick after you read a post you really oughta reflect on what is actually being said before you make antagonistic comments filled with your typical innuendos. your repeated failure to grasp the core concpets in these discussions is really starting to reflect poorly on you.

why arent you jumping all over john chapman for voing against the new bylaws? you sure have jumped over everyone else for doing the same thing.

this was posted by john chapman

"For the record, I am the only person in the PDGA that will have voted no on this constitution twice. Once at the board level to put it on the ballot in it's current form, and once as a member. I have a couple of issues with it, both of which have been echoed in this thread by multiple others, so I see no need to belabor those points. "

a board member voting against the bylaws for basically the same reasons as mentioned here. or at least some of the reasons.

its gonna be really hard for you guys that are enjoying bashing bruce and i for questioning this document to continue to pursue your campaign to trash our credibility when real, current BoD members think the document is worthy of being discarded.

Your optimism about the capabilities of this board, in the bold face of all that has gone on here and elsewhere, is admirable Rob.

The fact remains, so long as there is a greater tendancy towards witch-huntery and kangaroo court tactics, this board is nearly the single worst place to try and do anything productive.

It has failed at every level; from the simple to the complex, it fails every time without exception.

Face it, it is a form of mild entertainment, nothing more.

The effort involved to make it anything greater is beyond our capacity.



Nick, you are giving inertia to your self-fulfilling prophecies by what you have posted above. This DISCussion Board is members-only (though i oppose that exclusivity) and therefore it is the voice of the dues-paying PDGA membership that it contains. if you believe disc golfers are capable of educated, intelligent, and considerate behavior then quit posting things like what you said above since it suggests you believe otherwise.

it starts with you and i and we can control our own behavior. The leadership of the PDGA can likewise raise the tenor of the DISCussion Board first by treating it with respect rather than by denigrating it. It truly is what we have made it and will make it in the future by our posting behavior. Look at the example of say Chuck Kennedy and you can quickly see the advantages this Board gives members. If Chuck demanded private messages for any questions about ratings or concerns about the ratings system (or if Chuck denigrated this forum as a "discgusting board") that would be a tragedy because many people have the same questions whether they later voice them or not. Chuck's leadership in the use of this DISCussion Board clearly raises the bar from how BoD members have used it heretofor while it also shows what is both preferable and possible from each of us!

this was posted by john chapman

"For the record, I am the only person in the PDGA that will have voted no on this constitution twice. Once at the board level to put it on the ballot in it's current form, and once as a member. I have a couple of issues with it, both of which have been echoed in this thread by multiple others, so I see no need to belabor those points.



I am shocked, shocked, I tell you! I thought we always voted unanimously!?!?!?!

John and I talked by phone after he voted and before I did, because I wanted to take the time to hear what he had to say before casting my vote.

I respect his opinions on the couple of issues he disagreed with, but I felt it better to vote "Aye" and move it to a membership vote and then deal with the issues later. He didn't. Yawn.

Did anyone else notice that he also said that he saw no need to "belabor those points?" :cool:

P.S. This is what I mean by semantics being important: Pat, the "heading" you put on your last post is in fact a lie: "BoD says NO to new bylaws!!!" The BoD has recommended approving the the bylaws. The fact that it was a 6-1 instead of a 7-0 vote doesn't change the fact that the board of directors wants the bylaws passed, officially.

I'd rather discuss things in a venue where people can be held to task for the truth and where we can go back and forth and eventually understand what each other means. That is not DISCussion.

John and I talked by phone after he voted and before I did, because I wanted to take the time to hear what he had to say before casting my vote.

I respect his opinions on the couple of issues he disagreed with, but I felt it better to vote "Aye" and move it to a membership vote and then deal with the issues later. He didn't. Yawn.

Did anyone else notice that he also said that he saw no need to "belabor those points?"



are you uncomfortable with dissent? isn't it better to vote down proposals that you are not sure about until the problems are ironed out?

i read his comment about seeing no need to 'belabor those points' as indicating that he felt several posts in this thread have conveyed well the problems he sees with the proposed new Bylaws... ;)

That's right. But I know which ones, and you don't. :D

If you had been in a fraction of the board meetings I have with the PDGA, you'd be cracking up at yourself regarding "dissent." I love dissent.

I can think of one face-to-face where I thought I'd maybe gone over the line and Jon Lyskett would never talk to me again. Unfortunately for him, he did.

John, can you be more specific than the vague term 'several'?



John Whinery, Rick Rothstein, myself, and two or three others that I don't remember the names of offhand, but that was just in one morning. Several people I talked to at the summit in Arizona had similar reservations.


since the ratings of you and everyone else are only two clicks away i don't get it. the majority of people here appreciated the player rating appearing directly below our user id's. if people should have the option to opt out of making that info public they should be able to opt out of having it published here (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php) on the ratings page. (though that would be as absurd as letting major league baseball players opt out of letting their batting average stats be made public...)



If you remember what I wrote back then, then you will remember I don't have an issue with ratings being made public, so your baseball analogy is flawed. I've never objected to ratings being published either in DGW or on this website, in the proper place, which is in the PDGA Tour/Membership section. Placing someone's player rating in their discussion board profile can be prejudicial, as if your player rating might possibly have anything to do with what you're saying is intelligent or important. I think posting your IQ instead of player rating would have been more informative, but just as prejudicial. The ratings just didn't belong on the DB. I had no issue with the ratings being where they are currently. If people want to take the 2 extra clicks to find out my rating, more power to them.


my biggest concern regarding the calls for pm's and private phone calls to voice dissent is that this forum (if used) provides for a public way to do that and so when private communiques are requested that defeats the beauty of the DISCussion Board. Terry and Theo you could publicly state your responses to criticisms and thus give everyone entertaining similar concerns but not expressing them more information about what is going on behind the scenes and you could also quell any false assumptions by answering such criticisms publicly. It seems like a wasted opportunity to prefer to handle such things privately by default and miss the chance to get things out in the open so all can appreciate your position and your leadership as well as the concerns of individual members. :confused: It would also increase the informative component of this message board...



Remember that a very small percentage of PDGA members read this message board with any regularity, and a yet much smaller percentage than that post here regularly, and when we do have important things to say, we typically post them in the PDGA Announcements section on this DB. Frankly, there are far too many threads to go through, and it's a completely inefficient use of my time to wade through all of them and try and answer them all. It would probably take me 3-4 hours a day to read through the entire message board. If people want to email me or PM me I've always answered those.

Chap

Nick,

I would disagree with you. The DB is usually a great source of information about upcoming tournaments. Since I play so many events I refer to it nearly daily for tournament information.

As for the rest of the DB I tend to ignore it for 2 reasons: either someone says something that aggravates me and I respond with a flame or just the opposite.

It does amaze me how many spineless people there are on the DB. Rarely has anyone had the intestinal fortitude to say anything to me in person that compares to some of the things that have been said to me and about me on the DB.

Maybe my reputation precedes me....lol

Kirk

Sorry to burst your bubble, Kirk. I'm no one's Mr. Tough Guy, and they seem to be afraid to call and talk with me, too.

It's all gotta be this "post it out there and say it loosely" stuff. Sigh.

Nick,

I would disagree with you. The DB is usually a great source of information about upcoming tournaments. Since I play so many events I refer to it nearly daily for tournament information.

As for the rest of the DB I tend to ignore it for 2 reasons: either someone says something that aggravates me and I respond with a flame or just the opposite.

It does amaze me how many spineless people there are on the DB. Rarely has anyone had the intestinal fortitude to say anything to me in person that compares to some of the things that have been said to me and about me on the DB.

Maybe my reputation precedes me....lol

Kirk



I echo what Kirk says here, but not totally. The DB is an excellent place to get flamed, and flame back. People will say something here that they would never have the chutzpah to say to your face. As I have said before, answering some questions in here is like answering the question, "Are you still beating your wife?" There's only one right answer to that question, and it doesn't work for everyone.

For the record: "I've never been married" is the correct answer.

As far as tourney info goes, the DB can be a good place to go, except that sometimes someone will get on the thread and give out totally bogus information, possibly becasue they're trying to help, but unfortunately they don't know the whole story or are themselves misinformed. If the TD uses the DB judiciously, it can work, as long as that's not the only place he posts his/her official info. There is always potential for some idiot to gum up the works with misinformation, however. I would agree with Kirk that normally the tournament info section is pretty useful.

Chap

Your optimism about the capabilities of this board, in the bold face of all that has gone on here and elsewhere, is admirable Rob.

The fact remains, so long as there is a greater tendancy towards witch-huntery and kangaroo court tactics, this board is nearly the single worst place to try and do anything productive.

It has failed at every level; from the simple to the complex, it fails every time without exception.

Face it, it is a form of mild entertainment, nothing more.

The effort involved to make it anything greater is beyond our capacity.



Then don't use this message board if you don't like it.


If these guys quit so easily on miniscule issues, should we start taking bets on how fast the door will be banging when someone questions their honesty, work ethic or intellegence?

I'm all for second chances, they just need to start proving they have a single leadership bone in their bodies first...



As if you have a single leadership bone in your body, Nick.

I remember at one point, Nick thought the data was coming in too high and threatened to withdraw from his role as Course Evaluation Program Director unless the data came down. And he got his way.

Kinda sounds like the exact same behavior.

Some of the members of the BOD seem to scoff at this discussion board. For whatever reasons: it's unrepresentative, it's inefficient, it's impolite, etc. Even if all those things are true, it is also a way for the BOD to sell their decisions and in some cases, gain input they had not anticipated.

Take this issue for example. A nice offensive sales pitch could have forestalled a lot of criticism, and cynicism, and steered the debate in a more productive direction. The BOD puts out a statement stating why new bylaws are needed, why they have chosen the ones they did, what they perceive the strength and weaknesses are, and how they plan on minimizing the weaknesses and using the strengths. I mean, if this is really critical for the PDGA, seems like the very best effort should be made to insure its passage.

Basically, I wish some of those guys would see it as more of an opportunity, rather than a thorn in their side.

James,

As a method of communication the DB is woefully inadequate.

Very few members read it and even less post on it.

So, we would be marketing to an extremely small subset of the entire population of members. Then we would have to justify what we have done to that same small subset.

That seems extremely inefficient to me.

Kirk

I agree in part. Most don't read the board. Most care less about this issue. Most care less about almost every issue. But, those that do read the board, and read the pros and cons, talk to others, who in turn talk to others, etc. Since some people realize I spend too much time here, I occasionally get asked "what is that discussion about this or that rule or this or that topic?"

Last weekend, two people asked me what this debate was about. Frankly, I could not really answer the question with confidence. However, it would be nice if I could point them to a thread, started by the BOD, that laid out the issue, as they see it. It would have satified their curiosity, and if the BOD reasons were convincing, created a solid yes-voter with the potential of more down that person's circle of influence.

Another thing about a proactive, offensive approach. It sends a message that "We have thought it out. You may disagree, but we did our homework." For the majority of members, that alone would go a long way.

Nick,

I would disagree with you. The DB is usually a great source of information about upcoming tournaments. Since I play so many events I refer to it nearly daily for tournament information.

As for the rest of the DB I tend to ignore it for 2 reasons: either someone says something that aggravates me and I respond with a flame or just the opposite.

It does amaze me how many spineless people there are on the DB. Rarely has anyone had the intestinal fortitude to say anything to me in person that compares to some of the things that have been said to me and about me on the DB.

Maybe my reputation precedes me....lol

Kirk



Like I said:


Your optimism about the capabilities of this board, in the bold face of all that has gone on here and elsewhere, is admirable Rob.

The fact remains, so long as there is a greater tendancy towards witch-huntery and kangaroo court tactics, this board is nearly the single worst place to try and do anything productive.

It has failed at every level; from the simple to the complex, it fails every time without exception.

Face it, it is a form of mild entertainment, nothing more.

The effort involved to make it anything greater is beyond our capacity.



I wasn't talking about informative, I was talking about "productive". The tourney threads are more about foolin' around than tourney info; we can get most of that from the schedule or event website. And don't get me wrong, I like the DB, even with the rude boys, there are still enough folks with enough smarts and etiquette to occasionally have some meaningful discussions, rare though they may be.

I'm just agreeing with you and Terry that the DB is a joke as far as getting anything of a real and productive nature done; it's entertainment.

It is next to impossible to avoid the smack and flaming if you are a regular user of the DB. It usually starts with some good nature kidding from someone you DO know and then quickly degenerates into folks who DON'T know you chiming in with their "tripe".

All I can say is to use that great feature called the "Ignore this User" option in their profile. It makes reading threads a much faster and more pleasant experience.

Your optimism about the capabilities of this board, in the bold face of all that has gone on here and elsewhere, is admirable Rob.

The fact remains, so long as there is a greater tendancy towards witch-huntery and kangaroo court tactics, this board is nearly the single worst place to try and do anything productive.

It has failed at every level; from the simple to the complex, it fails every time without exception.

Face it, it is a form of mild entertainment, nothing more.

The effort involved to make it anything greater is beyond our capacity.



Nick, you are giving inertia to your self-fulfilling prophecies by what you have posted above. This DISCussion Board is members-only (though i oppose that exclusivity) and therefore it is the voice of the dues-paying PDGA membership that it contains. if you believe disc golfers are capable of educated, intelligent, and considerate behavior then quit posting things like what you said above since it suggests you believe otherwise.

it starts with you and i and we can control our own behavior. The leadership of the PDGA can likewise raise the tenor of the DISCussion Board first by treating it with respect rather than by denigrating it. It truly is what we have made it and will make it in the future by our posting behavior. Look at the example of say Chuck Kennedy and you can quickly see the advantages this Board gives members. If Chuck demanded private messages for any questions about ratings or concerns about the ratings system (or if Chuck denigrated this forum as a "discgusting board") that would be a tragedy because many people have the same questions whether they later voice them or not. Chuck's leadership in the use of this DISCussion Board clearly raises the bar from how BoD members have used it heretofor while it also shows what is both preferable and possible from each of us!



OK Rob, let's stop talking about exemplary use of the DB and start doing it. It would be reassuring to know that we have a DB Monitor or group of monitors similarly dedicated to carving the tripe out of our DB. None the less, all we can control is ourselves.

I agree in part. Most don't read the board. Most care less about this issue. Most care less about almost every issue. But, those that do read the board, and read the pros and cons, talk to others, who in turn talk to others, etc. Since some people realize I spend too much time here, I occasionally get asked "what is that discussion about this or that rule or this or that topic?"

Last weekend, two people asked me what this debate was about. Frankly, I could not really answer the question with confidence. However, it would be nice if I could point them to a thread, started by the BOD, that laid out the issue, as they see it. It would have satified their curiosity, and if the BOD reasons were convincing, created a solid yes-voter with the potential of more down that person's circle of influence.

Another thing about a proactive, offensive approach. It sends a message that "We have thought it out. You may disagree, but we did our homework." For the majority of members, that alone would go a long way.



He's not just old, he's old and wise.

We board users are few, compared to the entire membership, but we could be the PDGA's best messengers, if the BoD would read McCaine's last two paragraphs and realize the potential for positive promotion there.

If you had been in a fraction of the board meetings I have with the PDGA, you'd be cracking up at yourself regarding "dissent." I love dissent.

I can think of one face-to-face where I thought I'd maybe gone over the line and Jon Lyskett would never talk to me again. Unfortunately for him, he did.



Terry, if you love dissent (and i suspected you probably did -- hence ask yourself the question in the context) why not welcome the negative feedback the board receives here and at least take it as a sign some of the membership the BoD is charged with representing cares enough to weigh in on an issue? when the dissent is misinformed -- provide information. this isn't about reading every post on the board -- its about the ones in the PDGA topics sections. this thread would be a lot shorter if instead of denigrating its detractors on the issue of the new By-laws, the BoD had sought to acknowledge member concerns and admit the By-laws have their drawbacks.

it would also help if you would explain when the next elections will be or what the time-frame is to decide when the next elections will be. also, what member rights the BoD desires to retain and which ones it feels hamstring it too much. leaving things like that unclear seems a haphazard approach. taking a participative management approach would seem to best align the BoD with its members and its roots.

The next election will be in 2007 on the exact same schedule as the 2006 election. There will be no change to the election process.

Do I need to make that any clearer?

Kirk

Let me make this even clearer. The process will not change. Just the titles or lack thereof.

You will still elect Board Members. Their roles will be decided among the Board Members once they are elected.

If the changes pass and Bruce gets elected he could be the next PDGA Commissioner. That would be up to the new Board.

Kirk

thanks for the info, although i remember being told the Constitution was being rewritten and the new draft would be available for review prior to this election, so while i want to take your word for it, i am a little bit skeptical /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

to clarify: i do believe you thought you were giving me accurate info when you informed me the Constitution would be re-written for this ballot and that the openess clause would not be removed, so i am not suggesting you can't be trusted. I've heard good things about you and though you do seem to disparage this DISCussion board more than i'd like you to -- i think having you on the BoD is an assett to the membership*. Thank you for your work for disc golf.

* it is very helpful that one BoD member have a high player rating because while not being a top Pro in no way precludes anyone from being a great PDGA BoD member -- having at least one high-rated player i believe does give the BoD a perspective that is important to have at the proverbial table.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Why mince words Rob. Just call Kirk a liar. And you want to know why this DB is a joke as far as getting anything of substance done?

Just look to your own posts.

and dont forget rob, that it will only happen that way if the future board decides it should. the future board might decide to make the next elections in october 2006, or january 2010, or anytime else. kirk may or may not have any influence over it, depending on whether he is elected or not.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. Why mince words Rob. Just call Kirk a liar. And you want to know why this DB is a joke as far as getting anything of substance done?

Just look to your own posts.



good god Nick. you have just read into my post so much that isn't there that even to address your false assumptions risks giving them more credence than they're worth.

i'll leave it at this: your reading of what i meant is noted, and it is off the mark. i'd call you for a foot fault but i am not sure we can get a majority group ruling since it's hard to say how small/large the group truly is...

your last line brings to mind the famous line:
"physician heal thyself!"

Rob,

I never said it would be available prior to the election. Please go back and read my posts. I said it would be available for review. You have the right to review it and either vote for or against it. If you read my posts I made it clear that you would have 2 months to review the documents before you had to vote. You don't have to vote the same day you receive your ballot.

As for the "openess clause" that was actually written into the C that I presented to the BoD. However, even that reworked and rewritten C had to be thrown on the scrap pile.

It would have been impossible to present the documents to the entire Membership (which can't be done on the DB) and filter out all of the responses. Considering how few players frequent the DB it is hard for me to believe that they represent a true cross section of the PDGA.

I do tend to disparage the DB. Because I have seen way too many instances of people flying off the handle without the facts. I have personally been accused of a number of things that were so far from the truth it was ridiculous. I have been so angered by some posts that years ago I asked my wife to edit some of my more extreme posts.

Believe me, I think the DB has its merits. I do have my doubts as to its usefulness for a meaningful and informative discussion of anything. All too often people start calling names. I can assure you I don't appreciate being called a weasel. Like I said earlier it is rare for someone to have the intestinal fortitude to say something like that to my face. And then it only happens once.

If I thought the new Bylaws weren't a good step in the right direction I wouldn't be here defending my actions. Please remember, I am a player, a TD and a promoter of the game. If I am wrong about the Bylaws I will be the first to help all the players form a new organization. I doubt I am wrong.

Kirk

Rob,

I never said it would be available prior to the election. Please go back and read my posts. I said it would be available for review. You have the right to review it and either vote for or against it. If you read my posts I made it clear that you would have 2 months to review the documents before you had to vote. You don't have to vote the same day you receive your ballot.

<font color="blue"> Kirk, originally Pat brought up the concern of whether the re-written Constitution would be made available for public review long enough in advance to give the membership an opportunity to review it and then create a petition and try to get enough signatures to get an alternate version of the re-write on the ballot if the BoD's suggested re-write did not seem up to snuff to a significant enough sub-group of our membership. the reply i remember getting (not from you) was that while the re-write would be made avaialble prior to its placement on the ballot there would probably not be the requisite amount of weeks in advance necessary to allow interested members to draft an alternate re-write and attempt to petition to get it also put on the ballot thus giving voters a choice. Also, waiting till it is on the ballot pre-empts the capacity of members to contact other members in the interest of discussing the changes prior to some casting their ballots. </font>

As for the "openess clause" that was actually written into the C that I presented to the BoD. However, even that reworked and rewritten C had to be thrown on the scrap pile.

It would have been impossible to present the documents to the entire Membership (which can't be done on the DB) and filter out all of the responses. Considering how few players frequent the DB it is hard for me to believe that they represent a true cross section of the PDGA.

<font color="blue"> by the same logic -- considering how few members vote it must be hard for you to believe they represent a cross-section of the PDGA. What i would have liked to have seen was a link posted here on the website that published the proposed changes and then a post and inclusion in a PDGA newsletter of the site at which the changes could be viewed. while not everyone is online even in 2006, everyone can visit a public library or knows someone who has internet access. </font>

I do tend to disparage the DB. Because I have seen way too many instances of people flying off the handle without the facts. I have personally been accused of a number of things that were so far from the truth it was ridiculous. I have been so angered by some posts that years ago I asked my wife to edit some of my more extreme posts.

<font color="blue"> i am sorry to hear that. i too have been shocked here and elsewhere on the internet -- and being 44 i am a bit shocked as to what passes as acceptable on TV and elsewhere. but the good posts here, like my tournament birdies, though they are rarer than i'd like -- are still remembered and appreciated. </font>

Believe me, I think the DB has its merits. I do have my doubts as to its usefulness for a meaningful and informative discussion of anything. All too often people start calling names. I can assure you I don't appreciate being called a weasel. Like I said earlier it is rare for someone to have the intestinal fortitude to say something like that to my face. And then it only happens once.

<font color="blue"> well, sometimes too it is hard to read the inflection through which something is being said and it may sound harsher than it was meant to be. meaningful, informative exchanges can take place here and one shining example of that was Felix Sung. for some reason many of the same people who argued against non-member rights to post here becuase they said it made the place too vulgar now continue to denigrate this place despite its being members-only. </font>

If I thought the new Bylaws weren't a good step in the right direction I wouldn't be here defending my actions. Please remember, I am a player, a TD and a promoter of the game. If I am wrong about the Bylaws I will be the first to help all the players form a new organization. I doubt I am wrong.

Kirk



<font color="blue"> i could vote no and it doesn't mean i am saying you are wrong. it might mean i object to the switch from an announced re-write to a By-law change as well as to the time-frame under which that switch was conducted. i would like a Constitution and i think there are good models out there. i fear the BoD is rushing to the evil we know not (corporate by-laws) in order to flee the evil we know (open democratic Constitution). given the "just-in-time" rush to get these by-laws published and passed i would rather them not get passed and give the changes a year of time to be worked out. imo, membership rights and written election procedures should not take a back seat on the proverbial bus for they are the foundation from which the authority of the BoD rises </font>

I agree in part. Most don't read the board. Most care less about this issue. Most care less about almost every issue. But, those that do read the board, and read the pros and cons, talk to others, who in turn talk to others, etc. Since some people realize I spend too much time here, I occasionally get asked "what is that discussion about this or that rule or this or that topic?"

Last weekend, two people asked me what this debate was about. Frankly, I could not really answer the question with confidence. However, it would be nice if I could point them to a thread, started by the BOD, that laid out the issue, as they see it. It would have satified their curiosity, and if the BOD reasons were convincing, created a solid yes-voter with the potential of more down that person's circle of influence.

Another thing about a proactive, offensive approach. It sends a message that "We have thought it out. You may disagree, but we did our homework." For the majority of members, that alone would go a long way.



He's not just old, he's old and wise.

We board users are few, compared to the entire membership, but we could be the PDGA's best messengers, if the BoD would read McCaine's last two paragraphs and realize the potential for positive promotion there.



This is one truth that the BoD and other leaders in the PDGA should pay attention to. The board readers and posters may be few, but they can spread information and opinions further and faster through the diverse family that is disc golf than any other group. Equip them with good and relevant information and it will be disseminated to many that don't read the board. Force the to live on gossip and innuendo, an that is what is spread.

I like reading the widely varying opinions on this thread and threads like this. It solidifies my belief that the PDGA is a healthy member-driven organization.

It's this dissent and (some of) this discussion that I believe makes the process thrive and sets the standard for leadership and decision making so high (IMO).

Your optimism about the capabilities of this board, in the bold face of all that has gone on here and elsewhere, is admirable Rob.

The fact remains, so long as there is a greater tendancy towards witch-huntery and kangaroo court tactics, this board is nearly the single worst place to try and do anything productive.

It has failed at every level; from the simple to the complex, it fails every time without exception.

Face it, it is a form of mild entertainment, nothing more.

The effort involved to make it anything greater is beyond our capacity.



A band is only as good as it's worst musician.

Similarly, this discussion board is only as good as its least capable participant.

It's entertaining as Nick has said. It also contains some useful information, as Kirk has pointed out. But meaningful discussion is often ruined by those who have no idea how to debate a topic without casting aspersions or making personal attacks.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled topic.......

"it would also help if you would explain when the next elections will be or what the time-frame is to decide when the next elections will be."

The 2007 elections will parallel the same time frame as the 2006 ones, only a year later. I'd be glad to take cash bets.

let's get some real, verified facts out there about message board use:

total current PDGA Members: 9,637 *
unique message board users since May 1, 2006: 734
percent of DB users of total Membership: 7.6%

unique message board users since January 1, 2006: 1,096
percent of DB users of total Membership: 11.4%

* includes all Members with an expiration date of 12-31-2006 or later... including deceased Members.

these numbers came from the message board database. i will publish the SQL statements here is anyone wishes to validate the accuracy of this data.


sooooooooooo...

this tool allows you to reach fully 10% of the Membership for zero incremental cost, and to solicit input from those Members.

they come here proactively, because they want to
they come here to contribute and participate
they come here to gather information and to learn
they come here to be a part of the disc golf community and the pdga


if i was on the BoD i would be kissing the DB's donkey whenever i could. it does provide incredible contact with a significant number of Members. contrast this to the attitudes of some of the current BoD. they seem to rank the DB a bit south of Al-Queda on its chances making a worthwhile contribution to society.

how many Members voted in the last election?

fellow disc golfers, PLEASE get real facts. several people have said this DB is worthless (or worse). the FACTS show otherwise. how can people who skim over the facts or do not even bother with facts be trusted to provide reliable, unbiased input into your decision on the Bylaws?

"it would also help if you would explain when the next elections will be or what the time-frame is to decide when the next elections will be."

The 2007 elections will parallel the same time frame as the 2006 ones, only a year later. I'd be glad to take cash bets.

there might be an election, but what will it be for, and who will be allowed to vote?

i have a $100 donation to EDGE that says the following will not occur:

on June 2, 2007 a pdga election will be taking place;
the election will allow all current Members to vote for all open positions on the BoD.

Pat,

Not that I want you to lose $100 but if I am elected this time around I will be happy to see you pay that money to EDGE.

If I am elected and there is discussion of abolishing or altering our current election process there will be another position available on the Board.

To give you a little more reassurance I originally suggested that we form a document outlining the election process and procedures. That will be done.

THE ELECTION PROCESS WILL NOT CHANGE!!! We will not redefine active members. We will not change the voting process. As I have said previously the only change will be the titles or lack thereof. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? You are starting to sound like Chicken Little.

Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this further: 919-219-4613

Give me a few minutes to go down to my truck and get my cell phone.

As for your numbers about DB users can you please narrow that down to actual visitors to this thread? I would bet it is significantly less than the numbers that visit the DB.

I am a prime example. I don't look at every thread. Until I was on the Board the only threads I ever frequented were the PDGA Tournament Info and the Raleigh Area Disc League threads. I can't even remember looking at any other threads.

Kirk

Kirk, i hope to make that contribution, believe me.

your behavior on this DB actually proves my point. some threads are of interest and others arent. you spend your time on the ones that are. we are all the same.

if the office/board posted lots of intriguing stuff about their thoughts on upcoming issues, interested Members would seek out those threads. its a "post it and they will come " thing.

re doing stats for a single thread, unfortunately it is not possible. the DB tracks the ID of a poster, but not of a viewer. so there is no way to glean the number of unique viewers a thread has received.

even if we could though, it is not the full story. since the official policy of the pdga is to NOT pay official attention to the discussion board, some Members who otherwise would visit might not visit. why should they when the organization doesnt care what is said, and only infrequently and even then unofficially, bother to read and/or comment in this forum.

btw, you just threatened to quit if anything changes regarding elections. within the last couple days both bruce and i have been under attack by people who claimed we "quit" things. i am about to go back and see if you were one of those accusers. i honestly do not remember, and i do not want to impugn (!) you. but if i find that you did rag on me for what happened with the webmaster position, please be assured it will be duly noted.

and now for Nick... are you really gonna vote for a guy who threatens to quit the BoD if he doesnt get his way? if bruce or i did that you would be screaming for our heads.

Pat,

You are welcome to check but I have not given anyone a hard time for quitting.

I believe we should keep the election process as it is. I believe that so strongly that I could not actively participate in a BoD that would consider voting otherwise. We (the BoD) are elected by active PDGA members. I see no reason that this process should change and I seriously doubt anyone could give me a convincing argument to change it.

Kirk

we are in complete agreement about that :D

Pat,

Just to make myself clear. I didn't threaten to quit. I don't typically make threats. That was a promise.

Kirk

ah, ok, thanks for clarifying. i feel so much better now ;)

this tool allows you to reach fully 10% of the Membership for zero incremental cost, and to solicit input from those Members.

...if i was on the BoD i would be kissing the DB's donkey whenever i could. it does provide incredible contact with a significant number of Members.



I do not view 10% as significant. I would hope the BOD doesn't start directing more time and money toward this fraction of the membership. The BOD should direct certain communications here, and not kiss up to the digital portion of membership. I just don't get your line of thinking.


how many Members voted in the last election?



I can't find the thread and I do not have my DGWN handy, but I think it was around 25%. It would be interesting to find out how many of those voters use the message board frequently. However, guessing at any possible correlations here would not yield solid data for futute marketing efforts.

"this tool allows you to reach fully 10% of the Membership for zero incremental cost, and to solicit input from those Members."

#$*&$!: One of the biggest issues to manage in nonprofits is the fact that many people consider the staff and volunteer time to not be costs.

DISCussion is addictive, yes, that's why I end up here more than I should.

But in the time I spend following and responding to one thread I can instead create a newsletter that gets to 90 percent of the membership and another one that reaches 10,000 non-members. Time much better spent!

Add to that the unverified accusations that get made and never cleared up satisfactorily - like I called someone "paranoid" even though I did not - and the angst factor makes it far more work than using other methods.

I will take any forum seriously where people do not call names, do not make up facts, apologize, admit mistakes, and where it can be parsed out what is exactly being said. DISCussion doesn't hack that criteria.

jim, thats fair enough. please understand i dont want the pddga to give up all other forms of communication. i'm just hoping the pdga begins to proactively work this venue into its communication plans and strategies. reaching 40% of your voting base is enticing.

"I have a $100 donation to EDGE that says the following will not occur: On June 2, 2007 a pdga election will be taking place;
the election will allow all current Members to vote for all open positions on the BoD."

Kul. I'll match that $100 on the other side, even though you have a conflict of interest in this in that you will be on the board and thus able to have an impact and I won't :)

(a) However it should be "active" members - meaning dues-paid" rather than "current."

We must define and agree on what "all open positions on the BoD" means.

(a) I think that the new bylaws create anywhere from 7 to 9 BoD positions (as opposed to 7 now), but there does not have to be as many as 9. So, "all open positions on the BoD" might have varied meanings. We may keep it at 7, so those extra two are not "open."

(b) As with my employer-organization, I think that (at least it's what I wanted) the two additional spots can be appointed by the board, without an election. This is often to bring in special expertise: We have a "visiting" board member from another association this year, for example. We also have our Professional Development Committee and Membership Committee chairs as appointed board of director positions.

You see why DISCussion is not a good place for this kind of discussion? This one bet has so many nuances that few will follow it, yet unbased allegations can carry on for months.

"I have a $100 donation to EDGE that says the following will not occur: On June 2, 2007 a pdga election will be taking place;
the election will allow all current Members to vote for all open positions on the BoD."

Kul. I'll match that $100 on the other side, even though you have a conflict of interest in this in that you will be on the board and thus able to have an impact and I won't :)

(a) However it should be "active" members - meaning dues-paid" rather than "current."

since the BoD can change the definition of "active" anytime, let's agree for ourselves that it means simply "dues-paid".

We must define and agree on what "all open positions on the BoD" means.

(a) I think that the new bylaws create anywhere from 7 to 9 BoD positions (as opposed to 7 now), but there does not have to be as many as 9. So, "all open positions on the BoD" might have varied meanings. We may keep it at 7, so those extra two are not "open."

fine, 7 it is. and the Members are voting for any other open positions that they voted for in the past. that way we are betting on the pdga election policies to remain unchanged.

(b) As with my employer-organization, I think that (at least it's what I wanted) the two additional spots can be appointed by the board, without an election. This is often to bring in special expertise: We have a "visiting" board member from another association this year, for example. We also have our Professional Development Committee and Membership Committee chairs as appointed board of director positions.

You see why DISCussion is not a good place for this kind of discussion? This one bet has so many nuances that few will follow it, yet unbased allegations can carry on for months.

the same kind of problems occur in face-to-face communications. i had a cardmate go completely off on me this weekend when i told him he needed to finish the hole. he had missed a 30 footer and then simply picked up his disc and walked away. when i told him that he went nuts, flipped me off, and his head almost exploded. when we got to the next tee (he did finally walk all the way back and dropped his putter in the basket) i told him we were playing a sanctioned event and he needed to finish the hole or the TD could go as far as DQing him. he was shocked by my explanation! he thought my original comment was a nasty slam about him missing the putt - he thought i meant somethign like "dude, ya gotta make those putts" instead of "dude, get back there and drop your putter in so you dont get DQ'd". my exact words were "you need to make that putt".

i completely understand how someone, especially someone who had just butchered a hole at a crucial time, could take it that way. he completely understood what i intended after i explained it. we ended up friends.

The discussion board has its points - personally I check it most every day and I often learn lots of useful things. But I can't agree that the PDGA should spend any particular kind of effort trying to reach folks through this board, except perhaps for repeating information that is in fact available elsewhere (a "newsletter" thread might be nice for tracking down something that you think you read in a previous newsletter). In addition, I'm sure you've spoken with the the many many PDGA members who simply avoid the board because of the tone of discussions and the fact that you've got to wade through a lot of irrelevancies to get to the interesting nuggets of information.

And while I'm on my high horse, the members of the PDGA would do well to remember that non-profit organizations are businesses first, and if they don't succeed as businesses, they can't achieve their objectives. Though many of us came of age as frisbee players with a great feeling for the "spirit of the game" (and I believe that's where that doggone "transparency" language comes from!), that's not a very firm foundation on which to build a successful organization of the scale of the current PDGA.

That's why the board members of the current board stay on good terms, despite some fractious disagreements.

One more caveat: There may be an "open" position on June 2 that is not being voted for because a board member may have recently resigned. That one should not count either.

Getting the info to the members IS a critical issue. And yes, 10% would help, but the messboard can't be relied upon as a primary channel.

On another thread in a discussion far, far away, someone suggested that the PDGA might provide info handouts at all sanctioned events, distributed by the state reps.
That would create an additional channel of communication with minimal cost (compared to mass mailing). I thought this idea had merit, especially since voter turnout has been so low.

Now, back to your regular bylaws mud-slinging.... :p

Thanks, Vanessa.

And that reminds me of something I thought might be nice.

You all know that no one person can cover every thread?

I would love to link each newsletter to a recent *useful* and *non-offensive* DISCussion thread or two. The problem is finding one.

Maybe if folks could start sending me emails with links to the beginnings of decent DISCussion threads, with a brief description of the thread, then I could use those items in the newsletters.

I would give a byline to anyone who submits one that I actually use.

That's why the board members of the current board stay on good terms, despite some fractious disagreements.

One more caveat: There may be an "open" position on June 2 that is not being voted for because a board member may have recently resigned. That one should not count either.

agreed on the condition that should the BoD change election policies for that late-resigner it counts as a miss. basically we are saying that for at least 2007, all BoD positions are to be elected as they are in June 2006. sound right?

The Bylaws do not provide that Directors serve for two years, or any other term for that matter. Once a Director is elected under the Bylaws he serves until a majority of the Directors says otherwise. And then, the Bylaws don't require an election to replace him. Like Theo mentioned in his earlier post, the Board could decide to replace a Director without an election.

The Board might hold elections a year from now. The problem with the Bylaws is that they are not required to. And if they were required to, they could change the requirement by a simple majority vote.

The Bylaws also eliminate every member right enumerated in the current Constitution.

Under the proposed Bylaws, if a majority of the Board gets tired of having to debate stuff with Pat, Jason and Kirk, they can just vote to have the power to remove Pat, Jason and Kirk, and then exercise that power.

The Bylaws are a sham.

"agreed on the condition that should the BoD change election policies for that late-resigner it counts as a miss. basically we are saying that for at least 2007, all BoD positions are to be elected as they are in June 2006. sound right?"

Well, since the same positions are not up then, that's not quite right.

In the regular rotation, there should be four board positions up next year. I expect there to be an election for all four. So that would be my bet.

So, yeah, maybe we have agreement on the terms. Want to restate it to see if we agree on the restatement? (This sounds like a BoD discussion, BTW.) What fun.

"in 2007, all BoD positions that become vacant or are up for election will be filled according to the same procedures in place in June 2006."

this would cover the "normal" elections, and also include any resignations, etc that happen in 2007. (if they happen early enough for an election to be held in 2007. that way a resignation on December 27 wont make you lose the bet.)

and its straightforward. whatcha think?

Bearing in mind that until the past year, practice was to immediately fill a vacant position by appointing someone. (If you could talk someone into it.)

Last year was the first time I know of that instead of doing that we actually held the position vacant for a while so that the members could vote, instead. (That's a pretty good indicator of something.)

So, what you said, plus the caveat that a vacant position created by a resignation could either be in the election or appointed. Okay?

And while I'm on my high horse, the members of the PDGA would do well to remember that non-profit organizations are businesses first, and if they don't succeed as businesses, they can't achieve their objectives. Though many of us came of age as frisbee players with a great feeling for the "spirit of the game" (and I believe that's where that doggone "transparency" language comes from!), that's not a very firm foundation on which to build a successful organization of the scale of the current PDGA.



yeah, Enron was done in by too much transparency -- if only they could have kept things less public ... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think the discussion board is meant to provide PDGA members a place to discuss issues related to both disc golf and unrelated to disc golf. I enjoy discussing things like my reality TV show thread with other disc golfers.

This is also a usefull place to read about local events as well as major PDGA events. However, if you use this as your major form of information from the PDGA, you aren't using much common sense. This is why I like Terry's newsletter.

I feel that when it comes to things directly involved with the PDGA, the newsletter is the best palce to go, b/c I know for a fact that it comes directly from terry.

The Bylaws also eliminate every member right enumerated in the current Constitution.
...
The Bylaws are a sham.



Bruce, you should be ashamed.
I've never seen anyone try to hard to confuse the issues.

Bruce,

Do you really believe the stuff that you write?

What Theo said and what I clarified was that the Board would choose from those individuals elected by the active PDGA membership. Not selected by the Board. Selected by the active Members.

You are right that the rest of the Board could vote to have me removed. And they could then take away the election process. If anything like removing or altering the election process were hinted at I would be on here, on the phone and on email pitching a fit to everyone that I know and don't know.

You really are sounding like Chicken Little. You are envisioning and propagating an absolute worst case scenario that we (the PDGA membership) won't let happen.

Kirk

Bruce, you should be ashamed.
I've never seen anyone try to hard to confuse the issues.


Bruce is in a tough race for PDGA BOD, and is running for the only contested position up for election, which just so happens to have *3* candidates.

if i was on the BoD i would be kissing the DB's donkey whenever i could. it does provide incredible contact with a significant number of Members. contrast this to the attitudes of some of the current BoD. they seem to rank the DB a bit south of Al-Queda on its chances making a worthwhile contribution to society.



I sure hope you're not including me in this group. In addition to having put in many hours as the primary person responsible for the message board for over 4 years, I have defended it many times. I have always been one of the board members at board meetings that has worked to pursuade other board members not to shut it down. I realize its value as a communication medium.

-Theo

this tool allows you to reach fully 10% of the Membership for zero incremental cost, and to solicit input from those Members.

...if i was on the BoD i would be kissing the DB's donkey whenever i could. it does provide incredible contact with a significant number of Members.



I do not view 10% as significant. I would hope the BOD doesn't start directing more time and money toward this fraction of the membership. The BOD should direct certain communications here, and not kiss up to the digital portion of membership. I just don't get your line of thinking.



10% of the active members are registered to post. The ratio of viewers to posters is going to be at least 2 to 1, if not higher. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the number of active members viewing the message board is 20% or more. And that would be considered a significant percentage for any type of media (check with Terry on this).

-Theo

Bearing in mind that until the past year, practice was to immediately fill a vacant position by appointing someone. (If you could talk someone into it.)

Last year was the first time I know of that instead of doing that we actually held the position vacant for a while so that the members could vote, instead. (That's a pretty good indicator of something.)

So, what you said, plus the caveat that a vacant position created by a resignation could either be in the election or appointed. Okay?


okay, its a deal.

congratulations for proving the discussion board can be a useful tool for discussion and compromise!

i wasnt including you, Theo, but defintitely thank you for pointing out that you were on the side of keeping it running. that is good to have in the public record. i was mostly picking on Terry and Nick (even tho nick isnt on the board... he is just one of the most vocal in disparaging the usefulness)

btw, is it converted to the new server? it seems to be running pretty good lately.

btw, is it converted to the new server? it seems to be running pretty good lately.



I was planning on doing it last Saturday, but at the last minute decided to play a local B-tier, only my second tournament of the year. It was nice to play for a change!

You are welcome to check but I have not given anyone a hard time for quitting.

i didnt think you did, but for the record i checked and as far as i could tell Kirk is completely correct that he has never not even once given anyone a hard time about quitting.

Pat,

We all have reasons for doing the things that we do.

Without all of the facts it would be difficult for me to disparage what you and Bruce have done.

I wasn't there so I don't know the facts.

Kirk

I just wish Yoo and Belinger weren't running against each other. I'd like to vote for both of them.

Rhett,

I'm sorry that I'm making it difficult for you.

No matter how the election comes out, I'm not going away.

I will still:
play 25 - 40 events per year
run the Pro Crosstown
work on local courses
lobby local park & rec to put in more courses
help out RADL as much as I can
help out the PDGA as much as I can

And, if need be I will be a thorn in the side of those that I strongly disagree with.

Kirk

In addition to having put in many hours as the primary person responsible for the message board for over 4 years, I have defended it many times. I have always been one of the board members at board meetings that has worked to pursuade other board members not to shut it down. I realize its value as a communication medium. -Theo



Theo, thank you for your work to prevent the Discussion Board from being shut down by the BoD. i think you are quite right about its potential value and i think its value could be elevated if BoD members used it more often. to that end, the posts of you, Terry, and Kirk here in this thread are helpful.

too often a few complainers carry more weight than the sizable number of people who stand by without praising or criticizing the PDGA on any given issue. to over weight the negative voices than don't voice criticisms constructively could lead to the idea that this DB is worthless as an effective communication tool. but in actuality nothing could be farther from the truth.

as we move further into the 21st century the importance of this website to the PDGA both as a communication tool and as a recruitement device for new members will undeniably grow. let's start and engage in constructive discussions -- rather than pull the plug on this site -- if we as members feel the bar here is being set too low by what tends here to go on ;)

one request i would like to make is that BoD members differentiate between those who denigrate the PDGA's moves without offering constructive criticism, and those who voice honest dissent to a given direction they see the BoD moving. respecting and listening to those with whom you/ we disagree will go along way to improving the meaningfulness of this site. but those who say this site can't be helped have already given in to the very voices they shouldn't be giving credence to in the first place...

The ratio of viewers to posters is going to be at least 2 to 1, if not higher. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the number of active members viewing the message board is 20% or more. And that would be considered a significant percentage for any type of media (check with Terry on this).


I was wondering about the reading/viewing ratio. And I wouldn't balk at 20%, especially when you're distributing news info (as long as other channels are utilized to try to cover the other 80%).
Thanks for the response.

The ratio of viewers to posters is going to be at least 2 to 1, if not higher. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the number of active members viewing the message board is 20% or more. And that would be considered a significant percentage for any type of media (check with Terry on this).



I'd guess the ratio of at least semi-active registered viewers to the number of registered viewers is about 1:2. I'm sure there are people registered on this board that rarely , if ever, read or post on this board. While 10% is not an insignificant number, I think the 20% of active members that read this board proffered by Theo is a very optimistic number.

And it pales with the 90% we can reach by direct email, not to mention the member doesn't have to go wading through the DB every day.

Chap

The amount of information on many different topics on this discussion board that get spread thoughout the entire DG world is arguably the most useful tool that the PDGA offers. If one cannot see that then they must not spend very much time actually out in the DG world.

IMO, it would be in the best interest to disc golf to have those in charge use the DB regularly on minor and major issues in an attempt to get out the most accurate information as possible to those who read and then spread the word out to the rest of the world.

the only problem is that when people come here they do so proactively. when you direct mail someone you can feel good about putting something in their mailbox, but you have no idea if they read anything at all. still valuable, but just sending mail is not enough either.

this is just me, but i almost never read Terry's newsletters. not becasue they are no good - in fact they are wonderful. but i would rather read just about anything than email, especially a long email. many times a fair amount of the content is already familiar to me, so those newsletters are not new news. i prefer to stay current in a different manner. thats just me... other like the newsletters. again, to reach as many as possible we need to continue to use all the tools available.

oh btw, just to be competely accurate...

active members: 9637
message board authorized: 1342

so it is 14% of the current active membership that is authorized to post. in the absense of any web log analysis, estimates of what percentage of the membership reads the message board can be nothing more than a complete guess.

i know of a few, so i am sure there are quite a few PDGA members who visit here and read the DB but have never registered to post.

Pat i agree about the newsletter. reading a newsletter in email form isn't my cup of tea and while i have browsed through the contents i have never given reading the newsletter much time like i would if it were posted here in the read-only PDGA announcement thread for example -- perhaps merely as a link
(such as: "Here is a link to the latest PDGA newsletter which was published today:" <font color="blue"> <u> link </u> </font> )

it just feels so much easier to access info on a webpage than via an email. Terry if you are averse to making the newsletter available via link here how about emailing it out as a pdf file?

I just wish Yoo and Belinger weren't running against each other. I'd like to vote for both of them.



Once the new Bylaws are passed, we'll have a situation that would let you - the five current candidates would all be running against each other, and you would pick the top three that you thought would be good on the Board. That's one of the key reasons these changes are being made.

-Theo

Once the new Bylaws are passed



Do you have overwhelming numbers voting yes? Seems to me that you are premature in saying that. I've only heard of 'NO' votes personally.

not to shock anybody, but i voted No (to the new By-laws)...

i would bet that yes gets eighty-five percent of the vote. most mMembers wont read the stuff or seriously reflect on it. thats why its important that even if you have only the slightest hesitation about the bylaws you vote no. its far better to do things right the first time than take this crapshoot approach and hope it works out right.

i'll bet it's less. i think a larger portion of the DB posters vote than is the norm for a random sub-group of the population of current members... and though you have those who feel the BoD can do no wrong and thus will vote yes, you also have many who won't want to vote yes and risk approving of the way this went down. i could see the new By-laws being defeated. i think that would send a very healthy message to the BoD

...and though you have those who feel the BoD can do no wrong and thus will vote yes....


Ya gotta love how this is constantly twisted like that. "Only a sycophant could possibly vote yes."

I voted yes, knowing full well that I can personally take sandalman to task to get the bylaws amended by the BOD to include a "Members Bill of Rights" that is only itself amendable by a 2/3 majority of voters in a future election. Should be a piece of cake since it will only take a simple majority vote of the BOD to make that change.

Rhett you are doing the twisting if you are implying i was saying only those who feel the PDGA can do no wrong will vote yes.
i am surprised you misread me so easily...

I just wish Yoo and Belinger weren't running against each other. I'd like to vote for both of them.



Once the new Bylaws are passed, we'll have a situation that would let you - the five current candidates would all be running against each other, and you would pick the top three that you thought would be good on the Board. That's one of the key reasons these changes are being made.

-Theo


I don't think this has been explicitly stated before. Has it?

Should be a piece of cake since it will only take a simple majority vote of the BOD to make that change.


A majority might agree that member rights are needed, but they might not as easily agree what those member rights should be.

Small groups don't mean that majority votes are easy. Remember how long it took for a simple thing like the 2MR rule change to pass.

I voted yes, as you can see, those that vote NO are setting the PDGA back a few years.

In other words, I would rather the new bylaws pass and then the BoD set up rules and procedures for everything than the status quo.

I would even trust Pat and Bruce to help set that up.

However, if you vote NO, the new BOD, whomever it may be, is going to have to spend even more time doing this crap that has been going on for 6 years now.

If you vote YES, the BoD can get down to business and get things set right.

Bryan,

If I am lucky enough to win the seat on the Board that will be my first priority.

We need multiple documents defining different areas. The election process will be the first.

It would be nice to prove to the Chicken Littles that we aren't taking all of their rights away.

Kirk

the BoD can get down to business and get things set right

now thats PHUNNY!!!!

In any case, the BOD can get around to making it the way they really do it.

I also think that the member's rights, election procedures, and operational parameters should be in separate documents with the member's rights being the hardest to change and the operational parameters being the easiest.

Except these separate documents, as I understand it, aren't going to be referred to by the bylaws, which makes them documents that aren't legally binding. Do I understand this correctly?

If I'm right, I can understand why that would be good from a lawyer's point of view, but why is that good for the organization? What is the concern we have about not being held to these documents in a legal sense? If we follow them, we're never in trouble, so are we trying to give ourselves some latitude so we can choose not to follow the documents occasionally and not be legally liable? I don't get this.

And some people are making the election document and the member-rights document sound so easy to do, it's a wonder it wasn't already done before the ballot. But it wasn't done before the ballot, so that begs the question about how easy it will be. (But if the documents are not legally binding, and we don't have as much fear about not following them, maybe it will be of little concern now, what's in them...)

It would be nice to prove to the Chicken Littles that we aren't taking all of their rights away.


Well, you took the Constitution away, and you replaced it with nothing so far. And you made the new bylaws something that doesn't refer to any other document (it used to refer to the Constitution, but no more). So I tend to vote on what is, not on what will be.

"What will be" is a platform that makes me vote for a person. "What is" is a document that I'm either voting for now, or I'm not. Documents don't have platforms on what they will be, so I tends to takes them as I sees them.

What is the concern we have about not being held to these documents in a legal sense?



McDonald's or any other workers legally don't have to be courteous to their customers. But do they still strive to do it? Would they vote not to do it?

However, if you vote NO, the new BOD, whomever it may be, is going to have to spend even more time doing this crap that has been going on for 6 years now.

If you vote YES, the BoD can get down to business and get things set right.


This doesn't seem to be consistent from sentence to sentence, to me.

You're saying if voted down, the BoD will take forever to write the new documents needed to make the bylaws complete. But if the bylaws are approved, the BoD will then be able to "get down to business" and write the same new documents that are needed to make the bylaws complete?

In my mind, the BoD has the same work to do, regardless of the vote. The pressure to replace the bylaws will be higher and the work on the new documents should get done quicker if we vote no now. And we will also still have some voice on what the new documents will look like, if we vote no now. It's not clear to me if the new documents will be offered up for a vote if the new bylaws pass. I hope they will -- Pat Govang wrote "changes of such a document should be subject to membership input," so maybe voting on them would be a good thing to do.

What is the concern we have about not being held to these documents in a legal sense?



McDonald's or any other workers legally don't have to be courteous to their customers. But do they still strive to do it? Would they vote not to do it?


You can think of a better analogy, Chuck. I am a member, not a customer. Customers are not part of McDonald's and don't have legally binding customer rights, but employees are part of McDonald's, and they do have employee rights that are legally binding.

If the BoD views me as merely a customer, a consumer for what they offer, then that's a problem. I hope that attitude is not reflected in the yet-to-be-written member rights document. We are the PDGA, as they say. (I doubt customers at McDonald's go around saying, "we are McDonald's"!)

If you are concerned about legalities, liabilities and lawsuits, voting No would be prudent.

First, the Bylaws fail to contain the requirements set forth in the Colorado non-profit corporation code requiring that the Bylaws define classes of membership and the voting rights of those classes. The Bylaws improperly leave this to the Board to define. Because of this, a disgruntled member would have non-frivolous grounds for suing to overturn an election, especially if the Board were to unilaterally extend the terms of Board members or redefine the Commissioner position as a non-elected position or redefine the Commissioner position as a Board elected position or take some other action inconsistent with our formerly held voting rights.

The other potential for litigation would be in the area of member discipline, particularly if the PDGA were to have another contested disciplinary incident involving a touring pro. The common law in this area provides that if a member organization has a discipline procedure that provides minimal due process protections and is not arbitrary, courts will not intervene in member organization disciplinary proceedings. Our Constitution has a discipline procedure that provides minimal due process protections. These Bylaws do not.

Of the two, the latter seems more probable. Last time we avoided a lawsuit by taking care to provide the due process afforded by the Constitution. The player's lawyer talked about a lawsuit, but I think the lawyer was persuaded not to sue after I discussed the law with him and he weighed the costs.

I don't think that these are the main reasons you should vote no. I think you should vote no simply because the document is incomplete, and it leaves for too much to be filled in later, or never filled in at all. Clearly it was prepared in a rush after Theo or the Board rejected what Kirk Yoo drafted.

I may be a tail-chasing, paranoid meglomaniac, like they say, but that does not change what is and is not in these Bylaws. These Bylaws give nothing to dues paying members and take away everything protected by our current Constitution.

My point was that organizations don't have to have all policies in their legally binding documents to operate properly.

As an aside, I will also lobby to prevent any form of full openness in whatever member rights document gets prepared. I believe the balance of openness and lack of detailed info in some cases that the Board has exercised in the past 10 years I've been a semi insider has served the org well.

Frankly, I think the McDonald's employees of late just might vote not to be courteous. I used to work at one when I was a teenager and I feel that the customer service quality has gone down in the 29 years since I was involved. Moreover, I think McDonald's is not the same thing as a member-based sports organization. Not even close.

In any event, after following this thread, I am more inclined to vote "yes" at this point and put some trust in the BoD. It's clear that they are not going to revise the bylaws to address the concerns posted here, so waiting for that is futile. However, I expect the additional documents to be created to have some protection of member rights included.

In all honesty, I am putting my chips on Kirk Yoo and his pledge to do the right thing. I have known Kirk for a few years and find him to be a person who can take care of business instead of letting it fall behind. And while Bruce is right that the new bylaws have a loophole that would allow the BoD to strip the members of their power, I seriously doubt that they will do so.

However, if you vote NO, the new BOD, whomever it may be, is going to have to spend even more time doing this crap that has been going on for 6 years now.

If you vote YES, the BoD can get down to business and get things set right.


This doesn't seem to be consistent from sentence to sentence, to me.

You're saying if voted down, the BoD will take forever to write the new documents needed to make the bylaws complete. But if the bylaws are approved, the BoD will then be able to "get down to business" and write the same new documents that are needed to make the bylaws complete?

In my mind, the BoD has the same work to do, regardless of the vote. The pressure to replace the bylaws will be higher and the work on the new documents should get done quicker if we vote no now. And we will also still have some voice on what the new documents will look like, if we vote no now. It's not clear to me if the new documents will be offered up for a vote if the new bylaws pass. I hope they will -- Pat Govang wrote "changes of such a document should be subject to membership input," so maybe voting on them would be a good thing to do.



The only exception is that if the new by-laws are voted in, the BOD can make many incremental changes over a short period of time and even go back and rescind one or two that don't work as expected. They can really get to work on small portions until they get them right (or at least workable).

Without the new by-laws, they have to put the whole thing into a bundle that will satisfy enough members to pass a vote by the full membership everytime they think they have the whole thing right.

I'll vote to give them the chance to work on it a little at a time for a couple of years rather than trying to do the whole thing at one time again.

Bruce, if the advising attorney has advised the BoD to move forward with adopting bylaws that do not meet the legal requirements, then that attorney should be reported to the bar. Doing the right thing goes both ways, whether it's voting down an incomplete document, reporting a bad attorney to the bar, or taking out a tyrannical family law judge.

I'd like to know why the attorney (Brian Murphy I believe) has not responded to Bruce's points about not complying with Colorado law.

First, the Bylaws fail to contain the requirements set forth in the Colorado non-profit corporation code....



Colorado common law? Maybe in regards to UNincorporated nonprofits. What about Colorado's Revised Statutes? Please give specific references. Here's a link to the Colorado Bar Association for your convenience:
http://www.cobar.org/ors.cfm


Because of this, a disgruntled member would have non-frivolous grounds for suing to overturn an election, especially if the Board were to unilaterally extend the terms of Board members or redefine the Commissioner position as a non-elected position or redefine the Commissioner position as a Board elected position or take some other action inconsistent with our formerly held voting rights.



You are basing your argument on potential, perhaps unlikely, contingencies.

First, the Bylaws fail to contain the requirements set forth in the Colorado non-profit corporation code requiring that the Bylaws define classes of membership and the voting rights of those classes. The Bylaws improperly leave this to the Board to define.


Are you sure. It seems like the proposed documents do define classes of membership, and give active members the right to vote. I presume that the other defined classes do not have that right, since it is not explicitly given to them.

One can also argue that the "active members" class is defined in the document. Part of that definition includes the clause that


All Active members must meet all requirements of Active membership as established in these Bylaws and by the Board of Directors from time to time.



I could not find any requirements for active membership in the bylaws, and therefore assume the requirements will be set by the BOD. I assume you see this as giving the BOD authority to effectively eliminate the class or their right to vote. Can't it be argued that this language merely gives the BOD the authority and flexibility necessary to set requirements for memebership, but not the authority to redefine classes, or to take away the voting power of the class granted in the bylaws?

As to the discipline issue, I assume the BOD wants the flexibility to have a discipline procedure separate from the bylaws. I also assume (or hope) that they will adopt a process that includes due process. So, if they adopt a process that legally embraces due process, they have done their job, and everything is on solid footing. Correct?

You are basing your argument on potential, perhaps unlikely, contingencies.



when drafting documents which define it, and organization does well to consider worst-case scenarios. it is foolish not to. when voting, it is wise for voters to consider potential drawbacks of proposals on the ballot.

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and though it may not seem like it at the time it is the much easier way to handle things.

in our haste to flee the evils we know (current Constitution), let's not run blindly into the evils we know not (the new By-laws).

First, the Bylaws fail to contain the requirements set forth in the Colorado non-profit corporation code requiring that the Bylaws define classes of membership and the voting rights of those classes. The Bylaws improperly leave this to the Board to define. Because of this, a disgruntled member would have non-frivolous grounds for suing to overturn an election, especially if the Board were to unilaterally extend the terms of Board members or redefine the Commissioner position as a non-elected position or redefine the Commissioner position as a Board elected position or take some other action inconsistent with our formerly held voting rights.



To be fair, Brian Murphy is a member of the Colorado bar, Bruce Brakel is not. Weigh that when you consider whether or not the document meets Colorado legal requirements. I'm not saying you should vote for the document (I didn't), and I'm not a lawyer, so take any of this how you will.


The other potential for litigation would be in the area of member discipline, particularly if the PDGA were to have another contested disciplinary incident involving a touring pro. The common law in this area provides that if a member organization has a discipline procedure that provides minimal due process protections and is not arbitrary, courts will not intervene in member organization disciplinary proceedings. Our Constitution has a discipline procedure that provides minimal due process protections. These Bylaws do not.



We also have a more detailed discipline process that was developed after the "near" lawsuit the last time, and I think I screamed louder for due process than just about anyone while that was going on. That process is also NOT contained in the current constitution. Last time I checked, there were many laws, procedures, and rules on the books that weren't contained in the U.S. Constitution, although I do share a couple of Bruce's reservations, namely about terms of directors and the referendum process.


Of the two, the latter seems more probable. Last time we avoided a lawsuit by taking care to provide the due process afforded by the Constitution. The player's lawyer talked about a lawsuit, but I think the lawyer was persuaded not to sue after I discussed the law with him and he weighed the costs.



The player's lawyer never really wanted to sue the PDGA, but wanted the PDGA to know that he COULD sue them, and that there needed to be more due process. It certainly was an eye-opening experience, and it was an instructive one.


I don't think that these are the main reasons you should vote no. I think you should vote no simply because the document is incomplete, and it leaves for too much to be filled in later, or never filled in at all. Clearly it was prepared in a rush after Theo or the Board rejected what Kirk Yoo drafted.

Bruce, if the advising attorney has advised the BoD to move forward with adopting bylaws that do not meet the legal requirements, then that attorney should be reported to the bar. Doing the right thing goes both ways, whether it's voting down an incomplete document, reporting a bad attorney to the bar, or taking out a tyrannical family law judge.

I'd like to know why the attorney (Brian Murphy I believe) has not responded to Bruce's points about not complying with Colorado law.



He has. Here are Brian Murphy's comments to some of Bruce's earlier posts:

Your second question, along with what I take to be Bruce�s comments contained in your second post, are a little tougher to answer, but I�ll try. As Brian mentioned, the Articles and Bylaws were created in conformance with Colorado law when we re-incorporated PDGA in Colorado. PDGA had ceased to be in good standing in Texas, and I remember a great deal of discussion about what that meant, legally. In the end, we decided to essentially start from scratch with new Colorado corporate documents (i.e., Articles and Bylaws). However, there was an existing Constitution at the time and we had to �draft around� that document. You will see in the existing Bylaws several references to procedures contained in the Constitution, and I�m quite sure that, at the time, the thought was that the two documents would exist side-by-side. When Bruce indicates that the �Constitution is our current Bylaws� that statement is simply not true, and has never been true as long as I have been involved (although it may have been the case before PDGA came to Colorado � I just don�t know). I certainly do not believe that the Board violated any member rights or the Constitution when we created these documents back in 2000.

As to your question about the legal status of the current Constitution, that�s a question I just can�t answer. I sincerely doubt that the Constitution rises to the level of a �contract� that could be enforceable in a court of law, but I don�t believe I ever thought of it in that way. The Constitution was an existing reality at the time I became involved. Clearly, it would be a breach of faith with the members to simply abandon it, and I never felt the need to analyze it any further than that. I think this may be the first time I ever really examined the Constitution in any detail, and my primary concern was that, to a large extent, the Constitution and the Bylaws covered a lot of the same ground. Generally speaking, it�s just not good practice to have two documents that address the same issues, because of the potential for conflict. If I had known that this would create such a fire storm, I might have recommended that we simply pare back the Constitution so that it didn�t conflict with the Bylaws, but I guess it�s a little late for that now.

I must say that I find all this controversy about Bylaws simply fascinating and seemingly limited only to disc sports organizations (although I think you guys have surpassed even the UPA on this point by now). In my experience, no one cares about Bylaws, and my biggest challenge is convincing people that their organization must have them because they are required by law. It is all but unheard of in my experience that the members would have any input on the Bylaws, because the Bylaws just don�t deal with anything of any particular concern to the members. I may be dense, but I just don�t get what Bruce is so concerned about.

I remember seeing that earlier in the thread. That is indeed a response to Bruce, but that response concerns 1) the history of drafting the documents under CO law and 2) legal status of the current Constitution and 3) the importance of bylaws generally.

I was looking for something that responded to Bruce's assertion that the draft bylaws are not in compliance with CO law. I didn't see it.

...when drafting documents which define it, and organization does well to consider worst-case scenarios. it is foolish not to. when voting, it is wise for voters to consider potential drawbacks of proposals on the ballot.



Agreed, especially when voyaging into new territory.

I was attempting to point out that the scenarios Bruce has been presenting have focused overwhelmingly on the potential negatives/hazards of the proposed bylaws.

I remember seeing that earlier in the thread. That is indeed a response to Bruce, but that response concerns 1) the history of drafting the documents under CO law and 2) legal status of the current Constitution and 3) the importance of bylaws generally.

I was looking for something that responded to Bruce's assertion that the draft bylaws are not in compliance with CO law. I didn't see it.



I'm working on it...

-Theo

The documents were vetted with Brian Murphy to make sure they comply with Colorado law before they were sent to the members. I'm not saying Bruce is wrong, but my tendency would be to trust the guy that works in Colorado and is member of the Colorado bar, at least in regards to knowing Colorado law. Bruce is a talented attorney from all reports, and he's given me no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement. Again, I'm not an attorney, merely a layman trying to sort all of this out like the rest of you.

Chap

Thank you Sir. Your diligence is much appreciated.

In any case, the BOD can get around to making it the way they really do it.

I also think that the member's rights, election procedures, and operational parameters should be in separate documents with the member's rights being the hardest to change and the operational parameters being the easiest.



exactly, and this is the way it is done in just about every business.

The documents were vetted with Brian Murphy to make sure they comply with Colorado law before they were sent to the members. I'm not saying Bruce is wrong, but my tendency would be to trust the guy that works in Colorado and is member of the Colorado bar. Bruce is a talented attorney from all reports, and he's given me no reason to doubt the veracity of that statement. Again, I'm not an attorney, merely a layman trying to sort all of this out like the rest of you.

Chap



I have a little bit of insight on legal matters since I worked for 7 years as a litigation paralegal. I know and have worked with hundreds of lawyers. I trust about 5 of them. So when lawyers say something, I want them to show me why rather than take their word for it (unless I already know what they're saying is true or BS). That goes a long way in trusting them in the future, because if they can show me, then they are not BS'n me.

I have no reason to mistrust either Brian or Bruce, but I want to see something more concrete than mere statements that something doesn't comply with the law. Perhaps a code cite that says that bylaws in CO must have certain items included in them, along with a direction to the part of the draft bylaws that complies with that or not.

In short, I would like to see Bruce argue his case with cites and hard facts, so that Brian can respond on those points.

Sorry, I hate it when people do this, but I had to in this case.


<font color="red"> Quote by Pizza God (me) </font>
However, if you vote NO, the new BOD, whomever it may be, is going to have to spend even more time doing this crap that has been going on for 6 years now.

If you vote YES, the BoD can get down to business and get things set right.


This doesn't seem to be consistent from sentence to sentence, to me.

You're saying if voted down, the BoD will take forever to write the new documents needed to make the bylaws complete. <font color="red"> I am saying that the process will have to start over again, it takes a long time to write up these documents as you have already seen. </font> But if the bylaws are approved, the BoD will then be able to "get down to business" and write the same new documents that are needed to make the bylaws complete? <font color="red"> No the BoD will set policies of the PDGA. These do NOT need to be in the ByLaws. </font>

In my mind, the BoD has the same work to do, regardless of the vote. The pressure to replace the bylaws will be higher and the work on the new documents should get done quicker if we vote no now. <font color="red"> I disagree </font> And we will also still have some voice on what the new documents will look like, if we vote no now. <font color="red"> This is true in a way, we will be letting the BoD set up the policies so they can be done faster instead of taking years to get passed. </font> It's not clear to me if the new documents will be offered up for a vote if the new bylaws pass. I hope they will -- Pat Govang wrote "changes of such a document should be subject to membership input," so maybe voting on them would be a good thing to do.

<font color="red"> membership input can be many things. As Region 11 then Texas State Coordinator, I was asked my opinion on many items over the last 12 years. Even as a TD, I have had comitties ask me my opinion on items. </font>

The only exception is that if the new by-laws are voted in, the BOD can make many incremental changes over a short period of time and even go back and rescind one or two that don't work as expected. They can really get to work on small portions until they get them right (or at least workable). <font color="red"> Much easier than the process is now for sure, and a good argument to vote YES </font>

Without the new by-laws, they have to put the whole thing into a bundle that will satisfy enough members to pass a vote by the full membership everytime they think they have the whole thing right. <font color="red"> Why I said it will take years to fix the problems we are having now. </font>

I'll vote to give them the chance to work on it a little at a time for a couple of years rather than trying to do the whole thing at one time again.


Thanks Gary, you are so good at saying what I mean without even talking to me :D

Sorry, I hate it when people do this, but I had to in this case.


<font color="red"> Quote by Pizza God (me) </font>
However, if you vote NO, the new BOD, whomever it may be, is going to have to spend even more time doing this crap that has been going on for 6 years now.

If you vote YES, the BoD can get down to business and get things set right.


This doesn't seem to be consistent from sentence to sentence, to me.

You're saying if voted down, the BoD will take forever to write the new documents needed to make the bylaws complete. <font color="red"> I am saying that the process will have to start over again, it takes a long time to write up these documents as you have already seen. </font> But if the bylaws are approved, the BoD will then be able to "get down to business" and write the same new documents that are needed to make the bylaws complete? <font color="red"> No the BoD will set policies of the PDGA. These do NOT need to be in the ByLaws. </font>

In my mind, the BoD has the same work to do, regardless of the vote. The pressure to replace the bylaws will be higher and the work on the new documents should get done quicker if we vote no now. <font color="red"> I disagree </font> And we will also still have some voice on what the new documents will look like, if we vote no now. <font color="red"> This is true in a way, we will be letting the BoD set up the policies so they can be done faster instead of taking years to get passed. </font> It's not clear to me if the new documents will be offered up for a vote if the new bylaws pass. I hope they will -- Pat Govang wrote "changes of such a document should be subject to membership input," so maybe voting on them would be a good thing to do.

<font color="red"> membership input can be many things. As Region 11 then Texas State Coordinator, I was asked my opinion on many items over the last 12 years. Even as a TD, I have had comitties ask me my opinion on items. </font>


I see. You think that if the new bylaws are voted down, then newer bylaws will need to be written from scratch, and that starts the whole process again.

That's not my position. I think the new bylaws are merely incomplete, not totally wrong. They just need additional documents to complete them.

That's why I see it as the same amount of work for BoD, regardless of the outcome of the vote. I'm just not sure the BoD will put in the same amount of work if they get a yes vote now and then later run into disagreement on the currently missing documents. The new elections document might be written without much trouble, but the new disciplinary document may have a couple wrinkles to iron out, and the new member rights document may not be easy to write, either, if there's as much disagreement on the subject as I read here.

My feeling is an incomplete bylaws document deserves a no vote, because it's the document that's on the ballot, not the BoD. And a no-vote sends the correct message to the BoD that they're not finished. But I take it that you feel that a yes-vote is more or less a vote of confidence that the BoD will be able to get the job done, even if the bylaws are incomplete right now.

My only question to you would be: how incomplete could the new bylaws have been and still have deserved a yes vote? If the answer is always "the BoD will fix it later", was it even necessary, in your opinion, to have put the new bylaws on the ballot at all?

brilliantly stated, paul

Hmmmm. My post got lost. PDGA.com was having one of its spells when I was trying to post. I'll have to repost it tomorrow. I saved it as a Word document.

A quick synopsis:

The Bylaws contain so little, they will invoke the Colorado non-profit corporations code default provisions that apply when an organization's bylaws fail to address critical issues. If these bylaws pass, the Board will have to hold annual elections for every Board position on the date of the annual meeting, and the terms of the Board members will all be one-year, because the Bylaws fail to specify otherwise. I have cites to the code in the post that did not post. I'll post it all tomorrow.

I may be biased, but to reiterate what has already been said on this thread several times, and simplifying it the way my little brain sees it:

1) There was no discussion of the changes before the ballots were sent out via e-mail. Just an endorement from the PDGA to vote yes, and some geeky ways to dig for the info, with no opinions from dissenters. Bah humbug.

2) It's hard to understand. People don't know what it means. I think I know what it means -- power in the hands of a few with great discretion. Well, then that should be written into the new documents, and people should follow whatever documents like charters and constitutions and bylaws like they were the Bible. Okay that's a rant.

3. I forgot 3.

The guys running are running for specific posts. Steve Dodge for instance is running for Communications Director or whatever you call it. Steve's good at a lot of things, communication is just one of them. He's going to be good.

I get wild-eyed and wave my arms, and say to Steve, "You're going to be so freaked out you're going to quit...those bastards," Scratching at old wounds.

"We'll see," says Steve. The PDGA gets a good man and a good guy with him.

Yeah we'll see. I'm resigned. I just want to have a PDGA event with beer during rounds at Pyramids, where it's legal. Is that so wrong? Whatever tier is best for everybody. What's the best tier?

Bershire Black & Tan for lunch, followed by Pabst Blue Ribbon has become the norm. There may be room for improvement, but barely.

And the Richard Nixon thing. Steve's not a shoe-in, btw. I heard about a guy who wrote in Richard Nixon, and he was trying to get his friends to do it too.

*******************************************

I'm sure you guys can work around the existing constitution. You've been doing it for years already ha ha. Rewrite them beautifully. Have a constitution. Please.

And we'd expect a trail-off at this point but there's still one more big idea.

What are you guys doing? What is your mission statement? What's the PDGA supposed to be doing?

YAWN!



I see. You think that if the new bylaws are voted down, then newer bylaws will need to be written from scratch, and that starts the whole process again.

That's not my position. I think the new bylaws are merely incomplete, not totally wrong. They just need additional documents to complete them.

That's why I see it as the same amount of work for BoD, regardless of the outcome of the vote. I'm just not sure the BoD will put in the same amount of work if they get a yes vote now and then later run into disagreement on the currently missing documents. The new elections document might be written without much trouble, but the new disciplinary document may have a couple wrinkles to iron out, and the new member rights document may not be easy to write, either, if there's as much disagreement on the subject as I read here.

My feeling is an incomplete bylaws document deserves a no vote, because it's the document that's on the ballot, not the BoD. And a no-vote sends the correct message to the BoD that they're not finished. But I take it that you feel that a yes-vote is more or less a vote of confidence that the BoD will be able to get the job done, even if the bylaws are incomplete right now.

My only question to you would be: how incomplete could the new bylaws have been and still have deserved a yes vote? If the answer is always "the BoD will fix it later", was it even necessary, in your opinion, to have put the new bylaws on the ballot at all?



<font color="red"> Give me perfection, or give me death! </font>

Those Vermonters had it wrong. It isn't just 100s of companies and small organizations that have died from this strategy, it's 100s of thousands.

Perfection is a wonderful thing, it's also naive to think you can get there in some concerted fashion, or at all. I admit we're not talking about perfection but we are talking about jumping from nothing to everything in one leap.

The current By-laws and Constitution have some huge flaws and are inadequate. What the current Board is trying to do is take the first step in solving the problem. What Paul is saying is that unless we can take all the steps now we should not do anything.

Business 101 teaches a couple of basic principals. The first is that the notion that you're going to come up with the perfect solution is just that, a notion. It's called sufficing and it means what it says, to be sufficient or good enough. The current documents do not suffice whereas those being proposed do.


The second thing you learn in business 101 is that sitting around waiting for the perfect solution (or even working dillegently for it) is the first step in going out of business. The idea is to lay out a plan to get where you need to be and then go there, implementing each part of the plan as you get there.

The Bruce/Sandalman/PaulM plan is: Don't do anything until you put together a perfect set of documents that deals with all of the possible situations the PDGA might ever have to face (do you like that gross exaggeration!) and then implement. While that isn't really what they are saying, the general principle is correct.

The current Board's plan is that there are two key areas that need to be addressed and they are: 1) a guiding document or By-laws that by definition are simple and do not encompass all aspects of PDGA function 2) supporting documents that define the functions and rules of those areas that need a clear definition and rule sets but are not typically encompassed in an organizations By-laws, such as the disciplinary process.

Whom to believe? Well, what the Board is pursuing is standard, it's what all successful small businesses and organizations do, and it works.

What is being offered by the oppostion has typically not worked and has proven to be a disaster in numerous diverse settings.

What the opposition tells us is that unless we force a full solution out of the Board, they will take advantage of the lack of full definitions for all those outside issues and take over (or at least there is that possibility). What that is countered with is the fact that the Board would put itself out of a job if it did this, and the very clear observation that the Board is already putting together the documents that define processes and rules for those issues not covered in the By-laws.

Paul is correct, some of those docs won't be perfect. This doesn't mean we should wait for perfection. It means that we should do as the PDGA has always done, discuss, modify and fix. Oh wait, that's what the PDGA is trying to do and what these guys are trying to stop...

Who to believe... this one is a no brainer.

:D

My feeling is an incomplete bylaws document deserves a no vote, because it's the document that's on the ballot, not the BoD. And a no-vote sends the correct message to the BoD that they're not finished. But I take it that you feel that a yes-vote is more or less a vote of confidence that the BoD will be able to get the job done, even if the bylaws are incomplete right now.

My only question to you would be: how incomplete could the new bylaws have been and still have deserved a yes vote? If the answer is always "the BoD will fix it later", was it even necessary, in your opinion, to have put the new bylaws on the ballot at all?



1) The current BOD will largely not be there to hear the "get to work" vote.

2) What I see as the major change in the new by-laws is from requiring a vote by the full memebership for changes to requiring a vote by the BOD for changes. A majority may be no easier to reach in the smaller group, but the voting process will be much quicker, and the specific reasons for disapproval easier to discern and work around.

I asked our attorney, Brian Murphy, to address Bruce's concerns regarding Colorado law and the potential for litigation due to our current disciplinary process. Here is his response:


As to the first point, what the statute actually says is that �Unless otherwise provided by�the bylaws all voting members shall have the same rights and obligations with respect to voting.� CRS 7-126-201. In fact, the new bylaws do define the separate classes of membership (Section 2.3) � although perhaps not as extensively as Mr. Brakel would like � and identify the Active members as those entitled to vote for directors and amendments. Any suit to overturn an election on such grounds would indeed be quite frivolous. By the way, the Commissioner�s position is identified as being separately elected (Section 4.5), so changing that would require an amendment to the bylaws which, of course, the members have the right to overturn.

Although I agree that PDGA must maintain a disciplinary procedure that provides for minimal due process and is not arbitrary, I disagree with the implication that those procedures must be included in the bylaws. As you will recall, when the incident to which Mr. Brakel refers happened, my advice was to provide the offending member with a clear procedure, which allowed him to respond to the charges, present his side of the story, and appeal any initial decision to the Board as a whole, regardless of what the bylaws or constitution allowed. If any future such incidents occur, it is important that the Board actually act in this way, but that is not the same thing as saying that those procedures must be in the bylaws.

Again, the principal point here is that the Board must act in the best interests of the members, or the members will vote those directors out of office or leave the organization altogether. The new bylaws are about providing the board with the tools to efficiently and cost-effectively run the organization for the benefit of its members.



-Theo

Thank you Theo and Mr. Murphy. That clarifies many points.

Brian Murphy wrote:


...my advice was to provide the offending member with a clear procedure, which allowed him to respond to the charges, present his side of the story, and appeal any initial decision to the Board as a whole, regardless of what the bylaws or constitution allowed. If any future such incidents occur, it is important that the Board actually act in this way, but that is not the same thing as saying that those procedures must be in the bylaws.



Would members have any course of action if the BOD did NOT act in a timely or ethical manner (if alleged by a member)?

Although I trust that our BOD would do the right thing in such cases, clarifying this might allay some fears.

After spending about three hours reading the Colorado non-profit corporation code, I no longer think that the Bylaws would give unmitigated power to the Board to do whatever they want. The Bylaws are sufficiently incomplete that the default provisions Colorado non-profit corporation code are going to govern the PDGA, if anyone chooses to follow the law.

The code provides that with respect to matters not specified otherwise in the bylaws, all members have the same rights. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-126-201. Therefore, the grant of voting rights to "active members" without defining who active members are, grants voting rights to all members. Moreover, the directors are powerless to change members' voting rights from what is specified in the Articles or Bylaws. Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 7-130-201. If the organization has voting members and the Bylaws don't provide an election date, the Directors [all of them] must be elected at the annual meeting. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-128-104. If the Bylaws fail to provide for terms for directors, directors serve for only one year. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-128-105. To have staggered 2-year terms like we have under the Constitution, you have to provide for it in the Bylaws. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-128-106.

So my position has changed somewhat. These bylaws don't guarantee anything. But Colorado law fills in some of the gaps. Since the Bylaws give voting rights to some, but don't define who, that creates voting rights for all. Under Colorado law the Directors cannot touch voting rights. Since the bylaws don't define terms for the Board of Directors, they all have one-year terms and must be re-elected at the annual meeting.

I don't think this is the organization that the Board of Directors was trying to create when they proposed this set of Bylaws. It is what they have if the Bylaws pass.

Paul is correct, some of those docs won't be perfect. This doesn't mean we should wait for perfection...


I'm not asking for perfection, just completion.

No one turns in half a term paper and asks for a grade from the teacher, and when the teacher says it's incomplete, the student doesn't say, "I'll turn the rest of the term paper in tomorrow. Grade this part now."

No, the paper is marked "incomplete" and returned to the student -- or the paper is given an F.

Now let's say the paper is completed and turned in. Is it a perfect paper? Probably not. But now the teacher can grade it.

Just trying to illustrate the difference between perfection and completion. We've been asked, essentially, to grade a paper, and the people handing it to us are even admitting to us that it's incomplete, that more documents are needed to cover the gaps. So if it's incomplete, I'm marking it that way and returning it to the BoD.

The new bylaws are about providing the board with the tools to efficiently and cost-effectively run the organization for the benefit of its members.


I mostly like Brian Murphy's responses and the last few of Theo's posts -- they've been very informative -- but I find this one comment somewhat telling.

"The new bylaws are about providing the board with..."

I think Brian saw the bylaws as a document for the board only. The bylaws take care of the board, and the board takes care of the members. That's interesting. I'll have to think more about that.

If the organization has voting members and the Bylaws don't provide an election date, the Directors [all of them] must be elected at the annual meeting. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-128-104.



If the Bylaws fail to provide for terms for directors, directors serve for only one year. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-128-105.




To have staggered 2-year terms like we have under the Constitution, you have to provide for it in the Bylaws. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-128-106.


Here's the link I just looked at to see what Bruce's references were.
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl1997/sl.155.htm

(Ya know, I wouldna thunk it, but this stuff is sorta innerestin'...)

... my position has changed somewhat. These bylaws don't guarantee anything. But Colorado law fills in some of the gaps. Since the Bylaws give voting rights to some, but don't define who, that creates voting rights for all. Under Colorado law the Directors cannot touch voting rights. Since the bylaws don't define terms for the Board of Directors, they all have one-year terms and must be re-elected at the annual meeting.

I don't think this is the organization that the Board of Directors was trying to create when they proposed this set of Bylaws. It is what they have if the Bylaws pass.



interesting and thanks for looking into it for us. that reinforces my 'no' vote even if Colorado law defaults in ways that would protect member rights. i voted no because the BoD announced a Constitutional re-write but then gave us new By-laws on the ballot instead -- without warning, and without any clear presentation in the ballot of what the gist of the changes would be in terms of old vs. new. it seems to me they did not give the new document the time frame it deserved and that a better more complete document is in order. i am confident our future BoD can create a better document in the upcoming term and the downside to waiting seems negligible...

Paul is correct, some of those docs won't be perfect. This doesn't mean we should wait for perfection...


I'm not asking for perfection, just completion.

No one turns in half a term paper and asks for a grade from the teacher, and when the teacher says it's incomplete, the student doesn't say, "I'll turn the rest of the term paper in tomorrow. Grade this part now."

No, the paper is marked "incomplete" and returned to the student -- or the paper is given an F.

Now let's say the paper is completed and turned in. Is it a perfect paper? Probably not. But now the teacher can grade it.

Just trying to illustrate the difference between perfection and completion. We've been asked, essentially, to grade a paper, and the people handing it to us are even admitting to us that it's incomplete, that more documents are needed to cover the gaps. So if it's incomplete, I'm marking it that way and returning it to the BoD.



Let me see if I understand. You equate running a small non-profit to handing in a term paper. WOW! No wonder you think this is all so easy.

I'm always amazed at how little the average poster understands the difficulty of running something like the PDGA or any small organization. Even if you were to compare the PDGA to an entire course with several papers and two exams you'd be way off. Going with that analogy however, your term paper equals the By-laws. In terms of that comparison, I'd say the job was well done. On the other hand, for the first time Bruce is realizing that the people who put the matterial together just might know something he doesn't, i.e. they did their homework. :D

Go back and read my last post Paul. I didn't randomly say "Oh it takes some time to put this stuff together." What I said was that many organizations have done this and none of them put the whole thing together in one fell swoop. Those that take that approach typically fail. Why do I know this? Well, I worked in academic science for 12 years and ran a lab and know how to put one together and how to write a grant.

After that I went to a business school that takes pride in it's analysis of entreprenuerial businesses and presents many case studies of such. And finally, I work for a small business that was started by it's owner and that has had great success. The lessons, both in school and in the real world, that I've learned tell me that you're wrong. Putting together the kind of package we're talking about takes time (sometimes a year or more). The best approach is to break it up into smaller manageable tasks and implement those on a timeline.

The By-laws are complete, they're good and well thought out. If they are an indication of the work coming, then we are in great shape. As for myself, given the By-laws were done by a group of volunteers, I am impressed.

I think what amazes me the most about the criticism that is coming here is that those who have criticized have never tried to accomplish any task like this one. For the most part, they've made little or no contribution to the PDGA. Even where they have attempted to contribute, that seems to have gone astray in their inability to play with others or finish out a task. Don't get me wrong, we all have busy lives and sometimes don't finish things we start. If nothing else, I would think that would give some appreciation for what has been accomplished here.

what amazes me the most about the criticism that is coming here is that those who have criticized have never tried to accomplish any task like this one.

this is somewhat of an embellishment lyle and you know it. many of those here, on both sides of the argument, have solid accomplishments behind them. sometimes your generalizations go a little bit overboard...

Let me see if I understand. You equate running a small non-profit to handing in a term paper....


Nope, you don't understand yet, because that's not what I said. How many posts in a row is that, now, where you restate something I said incorrectly and then write a whole post around that incorrect restatement?

Be happy instead to read a post from you that addresses the substance of what people are talking about here. The substance, which is the document.

Take away who wrote the document, and take away the time and effort it took to create it. I understand how anyone, after spending a lot of time on something, would want the final product to be a good one. I once wrote a 420-page book. Took me 7 months of full-time effort. It's still not a good book. (History is full of bridges and buildings that have collapsed that took a whole lot of time, effort, and brainpower, too. The amount of effort something takes says nothing about its final quality.)

So we're looking at and voting on the document. Just look at the document on its own merit. I think that's why the new bylaws are on the ballot, to get our opinions on the subject, right?

To me, the new bylaws are missing a couple things. And they get rid of board director titles, which makes the ballot into sort of a paradox for me. So I felt it was an easy choice to vote no, and that's all there was to it for me.

I mean, to me, it just looked like someone just resorted to cutting and pasting the new bylaws together from the original two documents, and just too much cutting occurred without a good explanation for it. I definitely don't understand why the board titles are gone now -- or why we're voting for people to board titles that will no longer exist if the bylaws are passed.

I didn't angry or upset about it. I just thought, "well, this isn't right." And I voted no and asked in the comments section for the bylaws to be placed on a later ballot.

I'm still not torn up about the bylaws. I voted no and dealt with that. Whatever the total vote result will be, we'll move on from there. My largest concern on this thread has been, well, this thread. I think the BoD missed an opportunity here to answer questions straight away, without denigrating the DB or the poster for his comments, or jumping up and down on his facts without providing facts of their own, etc.

But we're past a lot of the emotion that marked the start and middle of this thread, and now we're getting to some good responses from the BoD and from the rest of us. We're talking a little more, yelling a little less, so I'm thinking that's good.

Maybe in the interest of good communication, this thread should now be closed and a new one started that basically asks this: What do you think of the new bylaws document? (I don't care what you think of me or anyone else, or how much time it took to put the bylaws together, or how long it took you to write your post or to read mine. Just what do you think of the document that's being voted on?)

What do you think?

what amazes me the most about the criticism that is coming here is that those who have criticized have never tried to accomplish any task like this one.

this is somewhat of an embellishment lyle and you know it. many of those here, on both sides of the argument, have solid accomplishments behind them. sometimes your generalizations go a little bit overboard...



Too true :D. On the other hand, tit for tat... Pat.

It's pretty hard to mistake a direct comparison, Paul. If you compare the process of trying to more clearly present the rules and structure that guide the PDGA to turning in a term paper, then you've done that. If the comparison is unfair, I'm likely to call you on that.

While I realize you feel this was cut and pasted, if you would take the time to reread through this thread you would see that almost every comment you've made here has been answered in one form or another. The body of answers and the thought put into them by Theo, Pat G., and others indicates clearly that some thought went into this. Furthermore, the fact that the topic has been on the plate for up to a year should tell you something.

While I understand you think I don't get it, it is clear that you don't either. Even in this most recent post you have indicated no feeling what-so-ever for the amount of time it takes to put something like this together on a volunteer basis.

Of course the current document feels like the old one, even the generators of that Constitution had a good idea of what belongs in such a document. As for why some things were left out, again, this has been answered numerous times in this thread. At least take a look and respond to those posts before condemning the process.

Kirk, in your view, why did the work you did re-writing the Constitution get scrapped -- and on what date did you find out?

Rob,

I'm sorry I have been away from the internet since last Thursday morning playing in the Points Bonanza in Charlotte NC.

The Draft that I worked on still had much of the same things that the AoI already addressed.

We decided (after consulting with Brian Murphy) that we should move in the direction that I had originally suggested. No Constitution. Just AoI and Bylaws. I also suggested that we need a document outlining our elections process, a Mission Statement and our disciplinary process. I did list a couple of other documents but they are way down the priority list.

As for the date, I don't honestly remember.

Kirk

It's pretty hard to mistake a direct comparison, Paul. If you compare the process of trying to more clearly present the rules and structure that guide the PDGA to turning in a term paper, then you've done that.


What I was doing was showing the difference between completion and perfection. For the new bylaws, I said I wanted completion. You followed up saying I wanted perfection.

Since you didn't "get it", I tried to make it simple for you, with the analogy of the term paper. Because I made it simple for you, you're now saying I think the process is simple.

That's not getting it again.

I'm going to give you a break and assume it's unintentional on your part. But I ask that you re-read my posts again with the idea that I'm not trying to trivialize the work being done by anybody. If anything, I'm trying to give the work its due by spending the time here talking about it.

Lyle wrote earlier:
if you would take the time to reread through this thread you would see that almost every comment you've made here has been answered in one form or another.


Actually, Lyle, only a few of questions have been truly answered, and most of the answers have been coming in just the last 20 or so posts. Before that, many questions were mostly sidestepped because "this was the wrong forum", "it would take too long to go into", etc.

I didn't post anything on this thread until 100 posts had been already written before me, and at that time none of them answered the issues raised. Instead, my first post (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Other%20PDGA%20Topics&amp;Number=55 4759&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=553639&amp;Search=true&amp;#Post554 759) on this thread was to counter a point Terry made, where he didn't feel it was worthwhile to post on the DB to answer questions.

My sixth post, which was the thread's 139th post, was a follow-up to Kirk's:


[The Constitution] has not been followed to the letter by this BOD or many if not all of the previous ones. Have you actually read the current C?

It is in direct conflict with our AOI which is a legally binding document.


...what is the conflict between the current Constitution and the current Articles of Incorporation that prevents the BoD from following the current Constitution?


But even now, twice as many posts later, that question hasn't been answered. Scott seconded my question, I think Mike August third-ed it, but I still haven't seen a response.

Kirk just wrote:

The Draft that I worked on still had much of the same things that the AoI already addressed.


So I'll ask again:

What were the specific conflicts between the old Constitution and the Articles of Incorporation?

P.S. Bruce just made specific points that also have not been addressed. There seems to be more to discuss. Anyway, we're supposed to be allowed 2 months to discuss this while people consider voting -- Lyle, are you saying after just 17 days, we shouldn't be talking about it anymore?

While I understand you think I don't get it, it is clear that you don't either. Even in this most recent post you have indicated no feeling what-so-ever for the amount of time it takes to put something like this together on a volunteer basis.


Really? What part of the following quote from my post did you not read?

I understand how anyone, after spending a lot of time on something, would want the final product to be a good one. I once wrote a 420-page book. Took me 7 months of full-time effort. It's still not a good book.


So this demonstrates no feeling whatsoever?

See what I mean about you mis-construing my posts?

P.S. I will also add I was not paid one cent for that 7 months of work.

And even so, thankless though all that work was, I can't point to all that time and effort and convince anyone it was a good book. Why is that?

Wouldn't it be nice if time and effort were the only things needed to make something worthwhile? (You mean it has to be good, too?)

We never get a clear idea of what's going to happen and how these challenges will be addressed, except to get spokesperson bull. We know nuthin, presumably because we're not allowed to take part in the process and revealing the whole truth the full truth and nothing but the truth would somehow hamper progress. I asked a few people who happen to be PDGA members and they had no idea what was going on. Not that many people read constitutions. What they needed was to hear a couple interpretations of the big change; opposing viewpoints would have been nice as part of the e-mail ballot. But nooooooo, that would be too much like following the current constitution.

Everyone who got the e-mail had either already voted or will most likely never vote, so this entire discussion was largely moot.

You guys pushed it through without giving people a chance to understand it, and you know it.

It's the weird unnecessary non-disclosure secretive stuff that makes people like me so mad.