Paul,

Please take the time to read the current Constitution and the Articles of Incorporation. Then, please tell me where you see duplication of effort between the two. And, where you see conflicting statements.

This isn't public high school. I will not spoon feed what you should have already figured out on your own.

Jason,

Not everything is a conspiracy. If you think you can do better please run for the next available position on the board.

Kirk

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.



Good points, and count me as another PDGA member who has no idea what's going on.

But I think that the difference for a lot of people, including me, is that all this is not being considered as "weird unnecessary non-disclosure secretive stuff" or anything to get mad about. I agree that it seems like this whole thing is being pushed through without giving people a chance to understand it, but I don't automatically assume that this means, by default, that the PDGA BoD is up to something.

I hope that if people vote no to replace the current constitution and by-laws with the proposed new set of by-laws, the BoD understands that it's because there was not sufficient time for interpretations, opposing viewpoints, and a lack of allotted time to consider incorporating these changes into a revised document.

Not because of an inherent mistrust of those who make up the PDGA BoD.

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



I thought this partial post of Theo's needed reiteration.

a good document would outline how to do things in a proper way. a good document provides a map that when followed will keep good people out of trouble.

a bad document does not say or do much, and lets everyone do pretty much whatever they want. a bad document leave so much out that good people find it easier to make mistakes and bad people find opportunities to make chaos.

even if the BoD is 100% good people, a bad document leaves them, and the organization, vulnerable.

...even if the BoD is 100% good people, a bad document leaves them, and the organization, vulnerable.



No argument on this point.

But the bylaws and other documents are works in progress. Vulnerability does not mean inevitable dissolution.
While there is some intelligent questioning happening here (which has led to some good dialogue), some members are taking the BOD to task on every issue. We elected them to lead. We should let them.

Jason,

Not everything is a conspiracy. If you think you can do better please run for the next available position on the board.

Kirk



I can't do that Kirk. Too much to do already. But forgive my criticisms they are only that: criticisms. You don't have to throw off the apron and exclaim, "Then YOU cook dinner." I lived through Cam Todd up close and personal, and he was bad for disc golf the way John McEnroe was bad for tennis. He got so peed off he quit disc golf, for now. Former Pro World Champion.

Don't like those trials where the defendant isn't invited. Have you officially abandoned the current PDGA Constitution, or how does discipline really work inside the PDGA?

When I got the e-mail ballot I was expecting to vote on officers. Surprisingly I had to vote on new bylaw changes. I am the type of person that needs to know what I am voting on and read everything provided. You would be amazed at how many don't. It will be very interesting to see which way the vote has swung. When will there be a tally?

balloting does not end until the end of july. i would hope that the service doing the web ballot would not even look at results until after voting is closed... we just have to wait...

Jason, I was going to rebut your Cam Todd statement, however, it is old business and is one of the reason the constitution HAS to be re written.

If the Constitution had been followed, the PDGA would have had to KICK Cam Todd out of the PDGA and not allow him to play ANY PDGA events. Is that what you wanted?????

Thanks to the Cam Todd incident, the PDGA drafted a disciplinary process. Yes, the threat of lawsuit was one of the reasons. Luckly, something was worked out and a large donation was givin to chairty.

Imagin if we were the NBA, $250K fine for cussing some ref's and reporters.

BTW, read your DGWN including the PDGA pages!!!!

If the Constitution had been followed, the PDGA would have had to KICK Cam Todd out of the PDGA and not allow him to play ANY PDGA events.

you totally sure about that???

Kgggggahhhh Shoooooooo Wee Wee Wee Wee!
Kgggggahhhh Shoooooooo Wee Wee Wee Wee!
Kgggggahhhh Shoooooooo Wee Wee Wee Wee!

(boring)

Go play...

Thanks to the Cam Todd incident, the PDGA drafted a disciplinary process.



Where is this disciplinary process? I'd like to read it. Or is it a secret, too?

Article 10, PDGA Consitution. Go to "information" and down near the bottom of the list on the right, click "PDGA Consitution" and you can open the file.

It's not secret unless you can't read.

You mean this? This was written and added to the PDGA Constitution AFTER the Cam Todd incident, and BECAUSE of the Cam Todd incident?

Section 3 is especially good. Has this ever happened? You know, where the accused got to state his/her case?

ARTICLE 10 DISCIPLINE OF ACTIVE MEMBERS AND DIRECTORS
Section 1. Charges of dishonesty, working against the principles of the PDGA, or injuring the good standing of another Active or Supporting member may be filed against any Active or Supporting member in a written petition signed by at least twenty (20) Active members and submitted to the Oversight Director or appointed committee.
Section 2. The Oversight Director or appointed committee shall review the petition and make a recommendation of
action to the Board.
Section 3. Should the Board decide to take action, a hearing date shall be established and the accused and accusers
notified. The charges will be discussed with all parties having equal opportunity to plead their case.
Section 4. The Board may demote any Active or Supporting member by a unanimous vote to Non-Active member status
and must refund in full the current year�s membership fee paid by the demoted member. If, in the Board�s judgment, the
infraction is of such magnitude, the Board may expel the member from the association.
Section 5. The Board may remove from the Board any Director and/or Commissioner by a unanimous vote of all Board members except the member in question.

Let me share my perspective on the Cam Todd stuff.

Cam had a bad rep and a lot of other players were apparently #$*&$! off by his behavior. That never caused me any problem, I liked him and still do. The one time I marshalled a lead foursome that Cam was in, I gave warnings to two of the players, almost warned a third, and had no problems with Cam at all.

A disciplinary complaint was lodged against him and, following the traditional process, he was to be suspended for the remainder of the current season. Luckily, because I never thought at all that what he was alleged to have done was all that tremendously bad, he did get representation and the board had to create an appeals process. (Because no previous board had done so for us.)

It was a traumatic time and trying to do the right thing took tens of hours of every board member's time.

At the end, the board came up with a compromise that I pushed very, very hard for that I thought was better for Cam than the blanket suspension. We said that he could avoid the suspension if he promised to donate whatever proceeds he won at the next major to the Leukemia Foundation. (The initial disciplinary action involved a tournament that was a benefit for that foundation.)

The compromise let him play the rest of the season, not miss any other tournaments, and let him play in the USDGC (which was the next major) and fulfill his career and sponsor obligations there.

He agreed. The next tournament was the USDGC. He won a lot. He donated a lot and avoided suspension. But he was so #$*&$! about it that he basically stopped playing.

I thought when I saw him at DGLO the following year that he might come back, and wish that he had, but he was still angry at having to pay out so much money; and didn't seem to comprehend that he did so under a compromise that let him make that (and other) money in the first place.

I still think that there was too much negative attitude about Cam on the tour, but I am proud that the board let none of that affect its deliberations and its work to be fair under the circumstances.

He is an exciting player. I hope he makes his way back to us.

Terry, was the PDGA Constitution Article 10 already in place when this happened to Todd?

Yes, it was, if I may answer your question to Terry.

I think PizzaDude is probably suggesting that under Art. 10, sec. 4, the Board was limited the two disciplinary options described in that section, which are kicking someone one out of the PDGA and vigorously kicking someone out of the PDGA.

The Board discussed that issue at the time. We concluded that Article 10, sec. 4, is written permissively and lacks words of limitation. It describes what the Board can do with out limiting what else the Board might do.

Do the proposed Bylaws have any disciplinary procedures whatsoever? Do they even grant the Board the power to discipline members? I have to get some work done so I can go run a tournament this weekend. Someone read the Bylaws and fill us in.

Bruce, how did you get around this one?

Section 3. Should the Board decide to take action, a hearing date shall be established and the accused and accusers
notified. The charges will be discussed with all parties having equal opportunity to plead their case.

Guess you guys forgot to invite the defendant. Oooops.

Mike August I was aware of what the Constitution says about discipline. I thought when Pizza God said the PDGA drafted new disciplinary procedures after the Cam Todd thing, he was talking about procedured not contained in the constitution.

Bruce, how did you get around this one?

Section 3. Should the Board decide to take action, a hearing date shall be established and the accused and accusers
notified. The charges will be discussed with all parties having equal opportunity to plead their case.

Guess you guys forgot to invite the defendant. Oooops.

We heard the case on written submissions. I believe Cam Todd's attorney was given everything we received from the disciplinary committee and from other members before they were required to submit anything to the Board.

Good!

There is an amendment date from 2003 noted at the bottom of the Constitution, leading me to believe this could have been when the new procedure was added, since that is about the same time as the Cam thing.

-------
WASHINGTON - House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight.

"We have time to address their concerns," Republican leaders said in a joint statement. "Therefore, the House Republican Leadership will offer members the time needed to evaluate the legislation."
-------


gosh, even our Congress knows enough to take a time out, getthings correct, then put it out for a vote. that Congress can figure it out while the BoD cannot leave me shuddering.


article retrieved on June 21 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_go_co/voting_rights_act

Thanks to the Cam Todd incident, the PDGA drafted a disciplinary process.



Where is this disciplinary process? I'd like to read it. Or is it a secret, too?



The disciplinary process has been formalized, written up, and submitted to the PDGA for review. I already know one item that will be modified but have not submitted that to the Board. Once the document has been accepted, it will be posted as a permanent page here (as per the direction of the Board and the ED). It should be noted that the disciplinary process as submitted is different than that developed after the Todd case including some parts of the old process and some parts gleaned from the UPA approach and insight from current Board and DC members.

Please note that the PDGA has "requested" that the DC give regular reports to DGWN so that membership will be well informed as to the process and issues that arise; and a write up has been submitted for the next publication. Darn those PDGA guys, they keep falling down on the expectation that they are hiding something... :D

Don't be surprised if there is some time before this gets finalized. "My understanding" is that discussions on things like this occur at summits and open meetings. I haven't looked to see when the next one occurs.

I also need to finalize and submit a DAF (disciplinary action form) to the PDGA. The tool by which any active member can submit an issue for review.

Last, I will not have an open discussion on the process here, first, I don't have the time. Second, while I feel answerable to the membership as a whole, I don't feel answerable to individuals who post here (to me this is primarily entertainment). Third, as a volunteer, it is not my place to set procedures on how the disciplinary process should be vetted, i.e. unless I am specifically directed to answer questions here I won't, too much venom (Innova reference unintentional).

On the other hand, if you are interested or concerned please PM me with suggestions and I will take them into account in any rewrites that occur.

In brief and for your entertainment:

Complaint comes in

Interviews occur to determine validity of complaint and seriousness of it.

DC writes up complaint with recommendation as to punishment (based on similar events from DC database).

Board examines complaint and accepts or disapproves

Letter written, reviewed and sent to accused

Accused may challenge punishment within 30 days

Review and final decision

General publication of event and decision

My understanding is that you are correct as is Pizza. Based on what was in the constitution, the process was formalized to protect both the PDGA and the accused.

BTW - I thought the purpose of this thread was to slam the new By-laws, can this be considered thread drift?

Bruce, Cam received word from the PDGA at the 2004 MSDGC. He didn't know it was coming, and he hadn't had a chance to defend himself. This much I know.

Sounds like his lawyer got involved afterwards, which is probably why the PDGA came up with its "compromise."

-------
WASHINGTON - House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight.

"We have time to address their concerns," Republican leaders said in a joint statement. "Therefore, the House Republican Leadership will offer members the time needed to evaluate the legislation."
-------


gosh, even our Congress knows enough to take a time out, getthings correct, then put it out for a vote. that Congress can figure it out while the BoD cannot leave me shuddering.


article retrieved on June 21 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_go_co/voting_rights_act



Not that I'm cynical or anything, but do you really think the GOP is concerned about the rights of the voters or simply with making sure no one takes to close a look at some of the shennanigans that have occurred in the last two Presidential elections? Not that that has anything to do with this discussion.

FYI - Greg Palast (a reporter for the London Guardian) has some information that the GOP targeted Black voters once again in 2004. This time they used a strategy based on showing that black and jewish voters were not at the correct address on their voting card. They managed to eliminate the votes of a significant number of black military personel who weren't at their United States address.... they were in Iraq. They targeted over 3 million voters and dropped over 1 million.

The Commission on Civil Rights tried to get the Justice Department to examine the case, instead they fired all the people on the Commission who raised the issue.

While the jury is out on whether this really happened, we know what happened in Florida in 2000, do we really think it is time to eliminate an examination of what happens in Southern states at election time?

That said, comparing voting in the United States to this seems a reach. In one case, if the election gets rigged you get a non-representitive government about which there is little you can immediatly do. A government that can make life or death decisions about you. In the other case if something happens, you can keep your $45 and go play in the Southern Nationals.

Voted Yes, had to vote for Pat too. Happily actually. I know he is in for the rudest awakening of his life. LOL!

Kharma is a B as they say...

BTW - I thought the purpose of this thread was to slam the new By-laws, can this be considered thread drift?



actually, the thread's theme is to slam those who would dare question the PDGA leadership.
however by mischaracterizing the gist of this thread as if it is all about slamming the new By-laws you do get us back on track (through your mischaracterization). for those interested in the real story -- it is the process and timeframe and incomplete nature of the proposed By-laws that is being questioned here.

BTW - I thought the purpose of this thread was to slam the new By-laws, can this be considered thread drift?



actually, the thread's theme is to slam those who would dare question the PDGA leadership.
however by mischaracterizing the gist of this thread as if it is all about slamming the new By-laws you do get us back on track (through your mischaracterization). for those interested in the real story -- it is the process and timeframe and incomplete nature of the proposed By-laws that is being questioned here.



Smile when you say that. I might suggest you go read Jon's opening post.

Questioning the PDGA is one thing but lobbing unfair accusations is another. Please re-read some of Bruce's posts and indeed some of Pat's. Some of them are rather personal and insulting. And before you reply, yes two wrongs don't make a right. Me mudder said it foist.

So, what do you call a mischaracterization of a mischaracterization... a mis-mischaracterization or a misscharacterization? :D

BTW - I thought the purpose of this thread was to slam the new By-laws, can this be considered thread drift?



actually, the thread's theme is to slam those who would dare question the PDGA leadership.
however by mischaracterizing the gist of this thread as if it is all about slamming the new By-laws you do get us back on track (through your mischaracterization). for those interested in the real story -- it is the process and timeframe and incomplete nature of the proposed By-laws that is being questioned here.



Opening post of the thread: "I have heard from people that have already voted in the PDGA elections that the new constitution is on the ballot. Who decided to put the constitution change on the ballot without disclosing the new constitution? Does this person think that the PDGA members are so clueless that we will approve a constitution that none of us have read? Was this somekind of amazing oversite that the new constitution wasn't released for review before the election? What's going on with this?"

Could have been quickly answered, looking back:

Who decided to put the constitution change on the ballot without disclosing the new constitution? A: The board.

Does this person think that the PDGA members are so clueless that we will approve a constitution that none of us have read? A: No, we're giving you 60 days to read and understand.

Was this somekind of amazing oversite [oversight] that the new constitution wasn't released for review before the election? A: No. Routine process.

What's going on with this? A: We need new bylaws. Please vote "Yes."

Bruce, Cam received word from the PDGA at the 2004 MSDGC. He didn't know it was coming, and he hadn't had a chance to defend himself. This much I know.

Sounds like his lawyer got involved afterwards, which is probably why the PDGA came up with its "compromise."

I think you are confusing the Disciplinary Committee recommendation with the Board decision. I think the Disciplinary Committee operates more like a Star Chamber.

BTW - I thought the purpose of this thread was to slam the new By-laws, can this be considered thread drift?

I think the purpose of the original post was to create a Bylaws thread with a little fire next to it!

I agree with Terry that we need new Bylaws. These aren't them. These Bylaws don't specify terms for Directors, don't have any election procedures, don't define who gets to vote, don't have even a bare bone disciplinary procedure, fail to indicate that the Board has the authority to discipline members, and abolish every member right that the Constitution protects.

Because the Bylaws are incomplete Colorado law will require that all Directors serve for one year, all Directors be re-elected every year, and that the election occur AT the annual meeting which very few members actually attend.

These Bylaws are inadequate, incomplete and untimely.

Terry, aren't you leaving out that the BoD first told the membership that it was in the process of re-writing the Constitution and that the re-write might not be available to the last moment -- and then at the last moment came to the conclusion (through hiring an attorney) that we'd be better off with By-laws and so threw them on the ballot instead?

Do you at least concede that the switch from an announced Constitutional re-write to By-laws then showing up at the last moment on the ballots invites concern from at least some of the members that the BoD is charged with representing? it certainly has the appearance of being rushed and/or forced. i still haven't heard it clearly stated why it took so long to arrive at the determination that By-laws were favorable and why they had to be rushed onto the ballot immediately without first introducing to the membership the need for them and outlining the improvements the change would foretell.

perhaps you can inform me what the tangible benefits will be over the next few years of our passing these By-laws rather than rejecting them and retaining the old Constitution?

i hope my concerns prove to be an over-reaction triggered by the last minute timing of the ballot switch, but given that the by-laws seem to only address a small scope of concerns the BoD wanted to address and that they fail to address larger concerns the members have voiced here -- can you not appreciate and respect members who are now concerned that more time and deliberation was not given to this important change?

fortunately Bruce looked into Colorado law defaults and the law was at least written in ways that will default in favor of the membership where rights and election procedures are not specificly addressed by the new and seemingly cursory By-laws ...

...unless I am specifically directed to answer questions here I won't, too much venom (Innova reference unintentional).

um, discraft makes the venom.

btw, since the membership cannot speak as one, you basically just said you dont answer to the membership. which is actually true, since only the BoD is voted on. whoever the BoD member is that you report to might wanna think about including the discussion board in his outreach plans, though.

oh yeah one more thing... no one here answers to anyone else here. we're all just disc golfers talking about stuff and doing the best we can.

Voted Yes, had to vote for Pat too. Happily actually. I know he is in for the rudest awakening of his life. LOL!

Kharma is a B as they say...

hmmm... i never wished harm or trouble on anyone as nicki does in his post, but i am tyhe one with a kharma problem??? ooooooooo K. in a single sentence he wishes me ill, proves he doesnt know who i am today, AND proves he doesnt know anything about my past. gotta be some sort of record.

Voted Yes, had to vote for Pat too. Happily actually. I know he is in for the rudest awakening of his life. LOL!

Kharma is a B as they say...

hmmm... i never wished harm or trouble on anyone as nicki does in his post, but i am tyhe one with a kharma problem??? ooooooooo K. in a single sentence he wishes me ill, proves he doesnt know who i am today, AND proves he doesnt know anything about my past. gotta be some sort of record.



i find it funny that soon you'll be on the BoD and so Nick will only say kind things about you or bite his tongue /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

hearing his utterance of that karmic boomerang was even funnier :D

BTW - I thought the purpose of this thread was to slam the new By-laws, can this be considered thread drift?



actually, the thread's theme is to slam those who would dare question the PDGA leadership.
however by mischaracterizing the gist of this thread as if it is all about slamming the new By-laws you do get us back on track (through your mischaracterization). for those interested in the real story -- it is the process and timeframe and incomplete nature of the proposed By-laws that is being questioned here.



Opening post of the thread: "I have heard from people that have already voted in the PDGA elections that the new constitution is on the ballot. Who decided to put the constitution change on the ballot without disclosing the new constitution? Does this person think that the PDGA members are so clueless that we will approve a constitution that none of us have read? Was this somekind of amazing oversite that the new constitution wasn't released for review before the election? What's going on with this?"

Could have been quickly answered, looking back:

Who decided to put the constitution change on the ballot without disclosing the new constitution? A: The board.

Does this person think that the PDGA members are so clueless that we will approve a constitution that none of us have read? A: No, we're giving you 60 days to read and understand.

Was this somekind of amazing oversite [oversight] that the new constitution wasn't released for review before the election? A: No. Routine process.

What's going on with this? A: We need new bylaws. Please vote "Yes."



That would have taken care of it. Although the "What is going on with this?" question had more to do with that many people received their voting instructions via e-mail Friday afternoon and Theo didn't post the related docs until sometime on Saturday. I had gotten fired up because I thought that we should be able to review the related docs during the 60 days without having to go thru the voting procedures to do it.

Since my initial post I received several nice e-mails from members of the BoD (who I also had e-mailed) explaining their views on the subject. This thread has taken on a life of its own and although it seems that Terry and some others would disagree with me, the discussion has been productive.

I have no doubt that whether the new articles are passed or not that the PDGA will continue on to provide us with the disc golf services that we need. I realize that a great majority of the PDGA members don't care about these kinds of things, but as I told Theo in an e-mail to him, to some of us the way the PDGA conducts its business is as important as the end result. The Articles of Incorporation, the Constitution, rules for disciplinary action, etc. all lead the PDGA in how it will conduct its affairs.

It may seem to some that too view of the PDGA members read the message board for it to be relevant, but it is nice to have a forum to have a constructive argument. Although this thread has had its fair share of mudslinging and exaggeration, in between that there has been an exchange of ideas. I do understand why some people feel that they should vote yes. I still think they are wrong, but I understand them more. ;)

Three no votes in our house!!! :D

...unless I am specifically directed to answer questions here I won't, too much venom (Innova reference unintentional).


um, discraft makes the venom.




although you are running unopposed, i would like to interject here that you just displayed excellent instincts and disc knowledge that could prove invaluable in not pissing off the likes of Dave Dunipace, Jim Kenner, or David McCormack in future important meetings :D

Three no votes in our house!!! :D


Countered by four yes votes from ours! :)

Please take the time to read the current Constitution and the Articles of Incorporation.


Well, I would if I could. Where are the Articles of Incorporation?

Then, please tell me where you see duplication of effort between the two. And, where you see conflicting statements.
This isn't public high school. I will not spoon feed what you should have already figured out on your own.


Sigh.

See, this kind of response is why lots of us are active in this thread.

Three no votes in our house!!! :D


Countered by four yes votes from ours! :)



Ah yes, but you need 6 votes to counter my 3! :cool:

<font color="blue"> I agree with Terry that we need new Bylaws. These aren't them. These Bylaws don't specify terms for Directors, don't have any election procedures, don't define who gets to vote, don't have even a bare bone disciplinary procedure, fail to indicate that the Board has the authority to discipline members, and abolish every member right that the Constitution protects. </font>




<font color="red"> for those interested in the real story -- it is the process and timeframe and incomplete nature of the proposed By-laws that is being questioned here. </font>




<font color="green">I realize that a great majority of the PDGA members don't care about these kinds of things, but as I told Theo in an e-mail to him, to some of us the way the PDGA conducts its business is as important as the end result. The Articles of Incorporation, the Constitution, rules for disciplinary action, etc. all lead the PDGA in how it will conduct its affairs. </font>



To the PDGA BoD, whether or not the end result is a yes or no vote, I think these three quotes can accurately reflect the feelings of some PDGA members on this topic. If you want to get to the root of this issue, I feel that these quotes sum it up best.

See, this kind of response is why lots of us are active in this thread.



Actually it's only a minute few that are active in this thread. The same few active in all threads.


Apparently, the proposed new bylaws were just the part of the iceberg above the waterline that you could see. What's below the waterline is what needs to be fixed, what made me write in the first place, and what keeps me writing. I keep hoping for some positive change in attitude from the BoD. It would be nice if one BoD member would respond to a simple query like "What is the conflict between the old C and the AoI?", which has been pushed as the chief reason for abandoning the old C, without taking the questioner's head off.



And to clarify, Kirk is not a BOD member, YET. He was the one chosen to write the new bylaws though. By not willing to "spoon feed" you it's really quite simple and obvious. Do the research yourself. No one is going to do your work for you. Here's a good place to start Costitution (http://www.pdga.com/org/pdga_constitution.php)

BTW other Brakel 2 yes votes from this house along with Rhett's counters your 3 negative votes. And that's also 2 more votes for Kirk. Wouldn't want Bruce sneaking into office again only to leave after 2 months of service. Seen that happen too many times already. With Kirk you know you're getting someone who will serve the whole term instead of quitting when things don't go his way.

And to clarify, Kirk is not a BOD member, YET.

Wouldn't want Bruce sneaking into office again only to leave after 2 months of service.



Why don't you consider Kirk to be a member of the PDGA BoD?

Just to clarify, Bruce served on the board for over a year and has explained why he had to leave and why he won't this time.

And to clarify, Kirk is not a BOD member, YET.

you sure? cuz if he IS in fact the current Oversight Director, then you'd look pretty silly if you said something like
Do the research yourself.

small oversight

We need to start somewhere and the proposed bylaws are a great beginning. New amendments by future Board members will tweak what needs tweaking. The organization is organic. It will change. Leadership will change. Issues will be addressed as we move forward.

Seems to me that agreement on all points of any document, whether it is the AoI or the Bylaws, will be a long time in coming. If we rehash the Bylaws, submit another version for the membership to review for 60 days (or whatever time limit is agreed upon), rehash it again, resubmit, re-review, etc., we won't reach harmonious agreement; we will just keep discussing options and not achieve any forward momentum. The ideas will stall and we will stagnate.

...unless I am specifically directed to answer questions here I won't, too much venom (Innova reference unintentional).

um, discraft makes the venom.

btw, since the membership cannot speak as one, you basically just said you dont answer to the membership. which is actually true, since only the BoD is voted on. whoever the BoD member is that you report to might wanna think about including the discussion board in his outreach plans, though.

oh yeah one more thing... no one here answers to anyone else here. we're all just disc golfers talking about stuff and doing the best we can.



Hey Pat,

It's called Democracy and the membership speaks by voting. That makes the Board, and those they ask to volunteer directly accountable.

I understand that you want to make it appear that the PDGA doesn't respond to it's membership because they won't answer every question you pose, but that isn't true. Nonetheless, your post is correct and I mis-wrote. What I should have said is, I won't respond to bullying, in this forum, from individuals who have a personal agenda, and have not been voted into office, in terms of recommendations I make to the PDGA. As I stated before, I will take any suggestion or comment into account if it is PMed to me.

However, even that is incorrect, since I am a strong believer in Democracy, I stick closely to my perception of that system. That means since I was not elected to office, I should not be responding directly to the individuals, or even the membership, that is not my place, rather I should be responding to those elected into office who asked me to volunteer. They are responsible to the membership and are responsible for any thing I put together. I know from the commentary I've received on the documents I've submitted, that they take that responsibility seriously. Still, I value multiple inputs and that is why I have asked those concerned to PM me.

Thanks for the observation, this is why I (and I believe the PDGA) try to be very open about what I do, so that when mistakes get made, they can be easily rectified. BTW - that isn't required by either the current constitution nor the new By-laws, it's common sense.

On a different note, I disagree with you about the BOD member(s) not using this forum to communicate, they do so extensively. However, for the most part, they refuse to be bullied here by individuals.

I see the Board as a medium for entertainment and information transfer, not as a way for individuals to directly impact BOD decisions. I understand that information transfer is a two way street and I would agree fully that this Board is a great way for members to communicate with the PDGA. I would disagree that it should be used to bully.

And to clarify, Kirk is not a BOD member, YET.

you sure? cuz if he IS in fact the current Oversight Director, then you'd look pretty silly if you said something like
Do the research yourself.





If you put your thumb and first finger in the shape of an L, and put it on your forehead, then take your middle finger and point it straight out so that it's a 3D L, and then look at Kirk, he looks remarkably like the Captain of the USS Enterprise.

i never realized that characters on a webpage could amount to bullying.

Three no votes in our house!!! :D


Countered by four yes votes from ours! :)



And six yes votes from the memberships I paid for this year. (No coercion!)

i never realized that characters on a webpage could amount to bullying.



Well, aren't you glad that you continue to learn new things?

In fact, bullying on the Internet is a huge problem, especially with younger people who grew up using it without much parental guidance.

I write about it occasionally - http://www.campus-technology.com/news_archive.asp?id=153 - and there is an entire field of study about it.

i never realized that characters on a webpage could amount to bullying.



I hope that statement is in jest.

There is a tremendous amount of bullying on this board, though all of it may not be intended.

i never realized that characters on a webpage could amount to bullying.



Please see Gary's post. :D Not all bullying is physical and I will frankly admit, I've done my own bullying here to accomplish my own ends. I try not to and when I feel I overstep the line I try and fess up. Gary has indeed called me on it as have you Pat. Point of fact, I don't think you've ever miscalled me on a bullying issue, you don't call it bullying, but you point out that I've stepped over the line.

Oh man, I can't believe I didn't see Terry's post!

i never realized that characters on a webpage could amount to bullying.



I hope that statement is in jest.

There is a tremendous amount of bullying on this board, though all of it may not be intended.



Yes, that statement must surely be in jest, Pat.

You and I have been complaining about Nick's bullying for years.

especially with younger people who grew up using it without much parental guidance.


sounds more like a generational gap than anything else. man, them kids today!

Oh, it's Lord of the Flies out there in cyberspace with the kids. MySpace is just a peek in the window.

Oh, it's Lord of the Flies out there in cyberspace with the kids. MySpace is just a peek in the window.



Newsgroups anyone? And most of those are adults, at least by the calendar.

<font color="blue"> I agree with Terry that we need new Bylaws. These aren't them. These Bylaws don't specify terms for Directors, don't have any election procedures, don't define who gets to vote, don't have even a bare bone disciplinary procedure, fail to indicate that the Board has the authority to discipline members, and abolish every member right that the Constitution protects. </font>




<font color="red"> for those interested in the real story -- it is the process and timeframe and incomplete nature of the proposed By-laws that is being questioned here. </font>




<font color="green">I realize that a great majority of the PDGA members don't care about these kinds of things, but as I told Theo in an e-mail to him, to some of us the way the PDGA conducts its business is as important as the end result. The Articles of Incorporation, the Constitution, rules for disciplinary action, etc. all lead the PDGA in how it will conduct its affairs. </font>



To the PDGA BoD, whether or not the end result is a yes or no vote, I think these three quotes can accurately reflect the feelings of some PDGA members on this topic. If you want to get to the root of this issue, I feel that these quotes sum it up best.



thanks for this well done sypnosis of the gist of the dissent to the new By-laws...

I'm really thankful that I don't go many places on the web beyond here, news and research. I heard ont he radio yesterday that people go places on the internet they would never physically go. That sounds pretty accurate to me.

Like New Jersey?
:D

Actually it's only a minute few that are active in this thread. The same few active in all threads.


You know, I find all generalizations to be untrue, including this one.

And to clarify, Kirk is not a BOD member, YET.


I thought he was the oversight director, but that post is now showing vacant on the web. Did he quit the BoD? He's now running for another position (which will be made obsolete by the new bylaws), but I thought he was a BoD member very recently.

He was the one chosen to write the new bylaws though. By not willing to "spoon feed" you it's really quite simple and obvious. Do the research yourself. No one is going to do your work for you. Here's a good place to start Costitution (http://www.pdga.com/org/pdga_constitution.php)


I'd like to do the research myself! I really would! When Bruce posted his points against the new bylaws, I went and researched the web to see if I could find the Colorado statutes -- and what do you know, what he said was right there, in black and white. I posted the link to those statutes earlier. So I'm willing to do some work to learn something. I've personally never learned something any other way.

And, by the way, I have read the Constitution -- before I even started reading this thread, I printed the document out and read the whole thing. It's a pretty quick read, actually, and nothing in there alarmed me.

But I have no idea what the Articles of Incorporation (AoI) are. Are the AoI the same as the old bylaws? They aren't called the AoI anywhere in the old document, so I don't know if that's what they are or not. (And if the AoI are the old bylaws, why do we have 2 names for the same document? That makes it confusing. But maybe the AoI are something else...)

... With Kirk you know you're getting someone who will serve the whole term instead of quitting when things don't go his way.


Well, did Kirk resign from the oversight director position or not?

Look, both Bruce and Kirk are people of conviction. You can see that in their posts. Bruce once resigned because he felt strongly that was the right thing to do at the time, and Kirk even wrote the following in this thread:
You [Pat] 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 <font color="red">I could not actively participate in a BoD that would consider voting otherwise</font>[my emphasis]. 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.


As far as I can tell, on matters of principle, there's no difference between Bruce and Kirk.

(But I would like to know if Kirk has resigned recently from the oversight director position...)

I see the Board as a medium for entertainment and information transfer, not as a way for individuals to directly impact BOD decisions.


Interesting. I imagine sometime in the past, someone once said, "This newfangled thing called the telephone can be used for entertainment and for information transfer, but important discussions should take place face-to-face."

I understand that information transfer is a two way street and I would agree fully that this Board is a great way for members to communicate with the PDGA. I would disagree that it should be used to bully.


I don't think the DB should be used to bully anyone around either. That's why so many of us have reacted to bullying comments from BoD members the way we have.

If you're calling our reactions bullying, then I guess your opinion is the kid on the playground getting beat up for his lunch money is also being a bully when he yells back, or throws out his arms in defense.

Hopefully, that's not what you're saying, because if it is, then I think you're getting cause and effect all mixed up.

Theo's old post in another thread kindly provided the link to the Articles of Incorporation. This is the document which members of the BoD say is in conflict with the old Constitution.

So I read the Articles of Incorporation and the old Constition and set them side by side.

Article I of the AoI gives the name of the corporation. Professional Disc Golf Association. The old Constitution says the same in its Article 1. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Article II says "the period of its duration shall be perpetual." The old Constitution says the same in Article 8, Section 2. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Article III gives the purpose of the corporation to be "the promotion and governance of the sport of disc golf". The old Constitution gives this purpose as well in its Article 2. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Article III goes further to say the corporation may conduct business not prohibited by or inconsistent with the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act. The old Constitution, in its Article 1, Section 2, also calls the PDGA non-profit. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Finally, in the same long sentence, Article III mentions how the property and assets of the corporation shall be dispersed in the event of dissolution (after obligations paid, to organization(s) exempt from taxation). The old Constitution, in its Article 8, Section 6, specifically states that after debts are paid, remaining assets are to be given to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, which I believe is exempt from taxation. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Article IV prohibits the corporation from engaging in for-profit activities and allows only reasonable compensation for services rendered or recompense for expenses. In the old Constitution, Article 8, Section 4 says the same. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Article V says "the Corporation shall have members as provided in the bylaws of the corporation and the proxy system of voting by members of the Corporation shall be permitted". The old bylaws, in Article III, Section 3.2, refer to the old Constitution with regard to member rights. Article 3 in the old Constitution sets the classifications of membership and states that active members have the privilege to vote. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Article VI states the initial registered office of the Corporation. The old Constitution merely mentions that managing a headquarters office, in Article 5, Section 9, is one of the duties of the board of directors. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Article VII says neither the board of directors nor the members shall be personally liable for monetary damages -- except in cases where the Colorado NonProfit Act says otherwise. There's no mention of liabilities made in the old Constitution; therefore, no conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Article VIII of the AoI seems to restate again how the assets shall be dispersed in the event of the dissolution of the PDGA, which again has no apparent conflict with Article 8, Section 6 of the old Constitution. No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

And then the Articles of Incorporation ends with signatures and a statement of change of the registered office.

So, for everything I read above, there is: No conflict between the AoI and the old Constitution.

Wow, that took me just 42 minutes to read and write about. Here are the links to the Articles of Incorporation and to the Constitution:
Articles of Incorporation (http://www.pdga.com/documents/legal/Articles_of_Incorporation.pdf)
PDGA Constitution (http://www.pdga.com/documents/legal/PDGA_Constitution.pdf)

Thanks Paul. when i was reading the ballot, i was confounded that there wasn't a before-and-after or side-by-side presentation of what the old Constitution said and with what the proposed new By-laws would replace it.

i had gotten an assurance from Kirk that the re-write of the Constitution he was working on as Oversight Director would preserve the spirit of Article Five Section 10 from the old Constitution which requires openess. But that was before Kirk's re-write got scrapped and the new By-laws were thrown on the ballot instead...

I see the Board as a medium for entertainment and information transfer, not as a way for individuals to directly impact BOD decisions.


Interesting. I imagine sometime in the past, someone once said, "This newfangled thing called the telephone can be used for entertainment and for information transfer, but important discussions should take place face-to-face."




<font color="red"> So, you don't consider being condescending as bullying?


And yes I stand by the statement that this is not a great venue to directly influence Board decisions. Even now, the telephone is not used in the fashion that you want to use this board. I don't know of any company that allows the open use of telephones by either their own employees, or their customers to impact Board decisions in a direct fashion. If you can find one please let me know. Part of the problem is that much of what goes on here is not sampled by most of our membership.

I find it interesting that whenever someone challenges a point you make, they are misunderstanding or misrepresenting, but that you regularly do the same thing yourself. For example, I clearly said as a medium to transfer information, this DB is good. I simply said it should not be a place where individuals should bully decisions from the Board. As has already been discussed, there is a lot of bullying going on here, quite a bit by yourself. </font>



I understand that information transfer is a two way street and I would agree fully that this Board is a great way for members to communicate with the PDGA. I would disagree that it should be used to bully.


I don't think the DB should be used to bully anyone around either. That's why so many of us have reacted to bullying comments from BoD members the way we have.

If you're calling our reactions bullying, then I guess your opinion is the kid on the playground getting beat up for his lunch money is also being a bully when he yells back, or throws out his arms in defense.

Hopefully, that's not what you're saying, because if it is, then I think you're getting cause and effect all mixed up.



<font color="red"> As was already pointed out, the opening salvos were fired at the Board, and in point of fact, most of the hurtful and crudy things said here have been said by those attacking the Board over this issue. The plain and simple fact is that none of the alegations really stand up. As I've said before, this is about control. A handful of individuals want to have a direct say in how the PDGA is run, despite the fact that they haven't been elected to office. </font>

BTW - go back and read Terry's post. Since the guy studies the issue it might do some good to pay attention to what he says. The simple fact is that bullying is a regular occurance on the internet, and this site is no exception. It is also clear that the Board, for the most part, rarely posts here, how in the world could they be using this site to bully when they almost never post here? Most of the bullying I see here is directed at the Board and the ED.

the italians know whats up (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060626/ap_on_re_eu/italy_referendum)

especially appropriate is the sentence that reads "...who had said change was necessary but opposed these reforms as a slipshod effort that gave too much power to the executive."

Lyle, your post doesn't touch on the reason for this thread. The reason is not and has never been to bully the BoD. It's to determine if the new bylaws are worth a "yes" or "no" vote.

So did it pass? when do we find out who won what?

I think the voting period ends on the last day of July. Then they count the votes and tell us who won, and the new directors start their new terms on September 1.

I just voted!

Where is my sticker?

I think the voting period ends on the last day of July. Then they count the votes and tell us who won, and the new directors start their new terms on September 1.



o, i thought it ended on june 30th <shrug>

I just got an e-mail reminding me to vote but i have not read it. Voting must still be going on, unless it says, "You never voted. You lost by one. Ha, ha!"

[Edited.]

If that doesn't scare y'all, I don't know what will.




That's still not as scary as MTL in a bikini.

Dude, your going a little overboard with the Nazi references....

yeah i think that is overboard too -- probably he was trying to be funny (?)

i would say my concern is that the leadership in the past year seemed to favor a top-down, boss-employee approach to the membership rather than the employee (leadership) - employer (membership) approach it probably should take. shouldn't the BoD and Office treat we-the-membership as the owners of the company? Lorrie G. always has treated us well -- i will say that.

maybe it is just the message board behavior some of the PDGA leaders have taken in the past though and i am way off in my anecdotal assessment ... i sure hope so. i found Pat's recent post -- recognizing that dissenters are members who care and that they should not be too quickly dismissed -- helpful ...

We-The-Membership have elected Them-The-BOD to handle all of this trivial business stuff so we can just play Disc Golf and not be bothered with it. They are supposed to take care of all that stuff and leave us blissfully in the dark as to the daily workings of the organization. They report once year on the health and finacial status of the PDGA and then go back to doing whatever it is that they do.

The tacit understanding has always been that if you want to know more about the daily operations, you have to volunteer for a postion that needs to know more about the daily operations.

ymmv, but that's ridiculous! we elect representatives because it isn't practical for all of us to decide every issue. it is up to the people elected to represent the membership to be receptive to -- and even try to uncover -- membership interests &amp; preferences with regard to the decisions they make. it's not like being voted in means you have power and should wield it according to your personal preferences. your duty is to serve the membership.

were you kidding or do you really think we should be kept in the dark? fortunately those of us who want some lights turned on have Pat and Steve to represent us.

btw, how is this old way of doing business working for us? do we get good media coverage? corporate sponsorship?

the beauty of being open is that while you get more noise coming in you also access the skills and know-how and potential contacts of a very wide membership. tapping into that group skill set can bring a lot to the table.

Ridiculous ?

I think so.

But no more so than wanting to know how every dollar is spent in detail.

Gary,

All BOD meeting minutes are posted both online and in the magazine.

<font color="blue"> [Flame removed by user request] </font>
Kirk

I am aware of that and have posted references to them in the past to answer questions.

I'm sorry but sarcasm doesn't always translate well on the message board. As the two posts following my original post state, it was a ridiculous statement and over the top to make a point.

The statement is an exageration of the statements posted by those requesting more transparency from the Board.

But as I stated above, it is no more ridiculous than requesting a minutely detailed financial report as had been requested earlier.

Gary,

I am sorry that I flamed on you.

Kirk

quoted flame removed by pat in the interests of fairness


that was an uncalled for attack on a guy who does far more than he was elected to do and who would probably do just as much even if he was not our State Coordinator.

it is now in the moderator's hands.

Pat,

If you will read my previous post I apologized for flaming on him.

However, Gary did post:

"We-The-Membership have elected Them-The-BOD to handle all of this trivial business stuff so we can just play Disc Golf and not be bothered with it. They are supposed to take care of all that stuff and leave us blissfully in the dark as to the daily workings of the organization. They report once year on the health and finacial status of the PDGA and then go back to doing whatever it is that they do.

The tacit understanding has always been that if you want to know more about the daily operations, you have to volunteer for a postion that needs to know more about the daily operations."

If you can't see from that post why I flamed then you may want to try re-reading what he posted.

If you want to get me banned from the discussion board please knock yourself out. I post so infrequently that it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.

Kirk

Gary,

All BOD meeting minutes are posted both online and in the magazine.

Get real. The magazine comes out four times a year. The minutes are usually maintained on a four month lag.

Kirk,

i did re-read it and quite honestly i find gary's summation to be a brief but accurate synopsis of how many organizations are "supposed" to be run.

what i do not see is any flame or bad will towards anyone.

i dont want to see you banned. i dont want to see anyone banned for that matter. i would like to keep the board as civil as possible as per its Rules.

i did note your apology, and give credit to you for it. since the "edit" button could also have been used to remove the remark, i assumed you wanted it to remain visible even tho you apologized.

Pat,

I didn't see the need to edit what I said.

Though it looks like the moderator did.

Kirk

Sorry to cause a problem.



Kirk, I accept your apology, though I took no offense to anything in your post. If I had seen my post and thought it was in any way serious, I would probably have responded in like fashion.

It was somewhat over the top and written to cause a reaction. The desired reaction was for the reader to realize just how silly some of the arguments sound when they are written down.

Kirk or Moderator -- can you please PM me what Kirk said? i am interested and don't want a moderator to censor a fellow member's posts unless they are over-the-line abusive.

As I recall, he simply stated that the board minutes were available for perusal at my leisure and that to state that we, as members, were being kept in dark was not true. He also mentioned that he expected me to do proper research and post a more informed reply.

The actual language was not nearly as inflammatory as some of the other posts on this thread.

Gary,

All BOD meeting minutes are posted both online and in the magazine.

Get real. The magazine comes out four times a year. The minutes are usually maintained on a four month lag.



Ah yes, the old magazine is out of date so we should put it here argument! Of course every member gets the magazine and how many of them come here? Of course we might know that if the [sarcasm on] unresponsive [sarcasm off] Board would tell us. I submitted a request to Pat for this information a week ago and the reply I got was something along the lines of "if I have the time." Who'd of thunk it?

Lyle, lets be fair. you formally via Theo requested that i NOT communicate with you in any way. i am trying to honor your request for no contact, although i probably slipped up by replying to some of your posts. i should have refrained.

btw, i am not the only one who can run those numbers. i was also preparing for last nights BoD conference after laying on my couch sick for the last 2.5 weeks. your request was not a transparancy issue, it was a request for some potentially interesting numbers. when i have the time, i will run it. if you need it faster, please contact the Office.

Thanks Pat! Just checking.

I didn't think what I said was that bad. But, it looks like someone complained that I was personally attacking Gary.

It's a good thing people can't moderate what I say in public.

Because I am brutally honest and people typically can't handle it.

As Jack Nicholson put it in "A Few Good Men" - "You can't handle the truth"

It wasn't that bad.
It probably looked worse since Gary's post was sarcastic.