I couldn't find a recent thread on the matter, so I'll start a new one. The renewal fee is more for pros than for ams. Why are the fees different? Both ams and pros get the same services, as far as I can tell.

The only possible reason I can think of is the "marketing" that the PDGA does. I guess one could argue that that is done exclusively for pros, or that pros are the only ones who benefit from it, but those arguments seem pretty weak.

Does someone know the actual reasons for the varied structure?

ps. please no comments on the one-time amnesty, that is not relevant to the question.

I addressed it before. In addition to the marketing, primarily trying to find major sponsors which you mentioned already, the marshal program is the big one, which was initially created to support the NTs. There's also the support for pro majors and NTs which has more net cost than am majors for the same reason pro events lose money (or break even) and am events can make money. The Pro Worlds DVD has cost around $15,000 and that's after sales have been tallied.

In addition, the pro fees are bringing our sport more in line with fees in comparable sports. I think perhaps Kirk Yoo did a recon on this as reference material for the Board when they were discussing it. Unfortunately, disciplinary problems are also more prevalent in the pro ranks. It's not necessarily a large expense but definitely an additional distraction for staff.

Oh, it is coming back to me. You have said this before.

The disciplinary issue also seems pretty weak to me. I suspect that disciplinary problems are proportionally the same throughout the ranks; it's just that the pro cases are higher profile. At any rate, even if your supposition is true, how expensive is the process?

Bringing in line with other sports????? What kind of justification is this? It's like telling people in a low taxing state that you are raising their taxes in order to bring them in line with other states. That is hardly a persuasive reason.

Marshalls? OK, but I would argue that the Marshalls are really there more as a benefit to the PDGA than to the pros. I mean, they are there mainly for administrative purposes, not officiating purposes. Also, aren't there marshalls at some am events?

I didn't start this thread solely to be a whiner about the amount of the fee, just the disparity. IMO, the fees have been raised to a level now that questions really need to be answered, and I mean persuasive answers, not flimsy ones that don't stick.

Remember, I'm not arguing that the fee shouldn't be $75 or X amount, I'm just arguing that it should be the same for everyone.

Frankly, I might argue that there should be little connection with the fees versus the services rendered because players don't pay for all of them as it is. If you actually valued the thousands of dollars of volunteer contributions on behalf of the PDGA and local volunteers, players are underpaying even with $200 per year dues.

The PDGA exists as a professional structure for the sport and the pros would have no chance of a future living without it. If anything the pros should be paying $200 and the amateurs $25 relative to the need for the PDGA to exist at all. The Ams don't functionally need the PDGA although they have come to like the structure of the events, ratings and the magazine among other things. The Pro tour would not exist without a sanctioning body with rules, technical standards, course standards, communication structure and manufacturer support.

Chuck, this BS you state about the members getting $200 worth of services for their membership is getting really stale. Instead of being like the rest of the inner circle, who care a less about explaining how they blow our money on their whimsical travels across the globe, how about you try and quantify what these magical services are that you claim to be worth $150 a year?

no doubt. if fee goes up than the PDGA services need to as well :confused:

If you actually valued the thousands of dollars of volunteer contributions on behalf of the PDGA and local volunteers, players are underpaying even with $200 per year dues.




Well, that might be true, but I wasn't arguing the actual price, just the disparity between pros and ams. So, even if I grant your claim that everyone is getting a bargain; this doesn't justify ams getting more of a bargain than pros.



The PDGA exists as a professional structure for the sport and the pros would have no chance of a future living without it.


Uh, Okay. Even if I can make sense of this claim, and then accept it, what is the associated cost? Is this some "gratitude tax" owed solely by the pros. You make it sound like the PDGA is some entity separate from the players, and the players owe this entity something for their existence. I think it is supposed to be the other way around.




The Ams don't functionally need the PDGA although they have come to like the structure of the events, ratings and the magazine among other things.


The structure of events applies to everyone. Ratings? They are far more important to ams than they are to pros from a "functional" standpoint. Ratings surely weren't created to address any problems in the pro ranks. We never needed to quantify how much better Climo was.



The Pro tour would not exist without a sanctioning body with rules, technical standards, course standards, communication structure and manufacturer support.



These benefits are equally needed by all.

Chuck, this BS you state about the members getting $200 worth of services for their membership is getting really stale.



I didn't say they were getting $200 in services directly from the PDGA. However, if the PDGA paid everyone who volunteered at the national and local levels even minimum wage to do what they do for players to run events, $200 per year wouldn't even come close to covering it. More and more volunteers are burning out or expecting to get some sort of reimbursement or just not volunteer if they don't get paid. That's going to increase the amounts players need to pay not just to the PDGA but for event fees, pay-to-play fees and park reservation fees.

So be it. What's burning out the volunteers? The volunteers are burning themselves out. That's not the PDGA's concern...if the organization must grow slowly, so be it. The NFL, ball golf, horse racing, these sports didn't explode overnight, and we shouldn't have to pay for what we can't afford because we feel we must try and compete with a real sport.

Example: do we really need the course evaluation thing? NOPE. Let's not pay for the opinions of a few people on a few courses under the PDGA's banner---it's not needed, and, not worth what we're paying for it. Of course, since I can't see what we paid for it, it's tough to say if we're overpaying for it, but if Chuck has anything to do with it, we probably are.

Chuck, you've proven that people will pay for ratings. I think we should pay you to keep publishing your ratings. But how much? Propping up some dumb ratings-based event and calling it a major and funnelling PDGA funds your way to keep you from quitting, that's just a bad financial decision.

Flying you in and out of Augusta to design a course at the IDGC, that's pushing it. They've got plenty of people who would've done that for free.

So Chuck, if blackmailing the PDGA by telling them you'll quit doing the ratings is how you manage to keep getting all these PDGA perks, I say, let's find someone else to do the ratings who won't whine about how they're so overworked when they've got the time to post about how overworked they are every flippin day.

And of course, all of those people who are donating their time as volunteers do it just so they can get the satisfaction of being appreciated by your types. :mad:

what irks me about the Pros paying more is that it is one more disincentive for Am.s to move up out of the merchandise-as-cash divisions. well that, and the fact that since there are at least 10 Am.s for every Pro -- a $10 Am. hike would generate as much revenue as would a $100 Pro hike.

the reason not to raise fees is the resulting loss of members...

why again don't we make the DGWN optional? surely enough of us would choose it that the mag would be successful. i would subscribe... but to encourage members to join / renew, maybe a lower membership fee should be considered. or maybe a 6 month membership should be offered for new players that could be extended to a year for a small added fee downstream... ;)

X,
I don't think the inner circle is too concerned about losing members or attracting new ones. <font color="blue"> [offensive material removed] </font>

And of course, all of those people who are donating their time as volunteers do it just so they can get the satisfaction of being appreciated by your types. :mad:

as one of those volunteers, let me state that i am happy to have Members like Mike. requests for information reveal a deep desire to see the organization succeed. statements of dissatisfaction often point the way to better service. i believe it is a wonderful thing and would like to see more of it. basically, if a Member is happy, thats great. if one is not, then thats great too, because it allows us to become better.

we need to listen with an open mind.

Chuck, this BS you state about the members getting $200 worth of services for their membership is getting really stale. Instead of being like the rest of the inner circle, who care a less about explaining how they blow our money on their whimsical travels across the globe, how about you try and quantify what these magical services are that you claim to be worth $150 a year?



Nice, Mikey Kernan:

(a) You call what Chuck, one of the most intelligent, hard-working, and best-informed disc golfers in the world says "BS"; then

(b) Then you claim the existence of an "inner circle" who "blow" your money on "whimsical travels across the globe;" then

(c) Claim what Chuck was talking about was "magical" services.

That's a good way to make sense and get a reasonable response.

I know, that's not what you want, but I'll try anyway. Not for you, for the others reading this.

Chuck was pointing out that players also get the value of the volunteer time that TDs and tournament staff put in. As a (former?) TD yourself, I would expect you to understand that without an explanation, but, I know you.

I've done the numbers on some of the Ann Arbor Club's tournaments. Basically, if you figure that the average volunteer is worth minimum wage, at many of our tournaments you'd have to double the entry fee to pay the volunteers that minimum wage.

And I think that the real value is what the volunteers could get paid for their time if they did something for money instead, not just minimum wage. If you make anything like a serious attempt at that, then entry fees at sanctioned events are probably less than 1/4 of the actual costs, including appropriately paid equivalents for the volunteers' time.

Ditto for PDGA membership dues. Which, I think, probably 95 percent of the hard working volunteers understand, in their hearts.

I have not tried to quantify total volunteer time spent on the PDGA, but I can tell you that when I do anything that uses my professional expertise that is not part of my salaried job, I get paid over $100/hr for my time. If not, then I play disc golf, read, or volunteer for the PDGA instead.

If the PDGA board members, for example, and remember that this is as valid at even an unsanctioned weekly as it is for the board, consists of seven (7) members, each of whom easily worth, let's say $50/hour for their time in consulting at what they do professionally. That means those seven board members are donating $350 of their time for every hour that they meet. Many of the board teleconferences I was on took 3-4 hours, so let's round this off to $1k per teleconference.

That's at least $10k in volunteer time just for teleconferences.

When you add in the time to prepare, answer emails, and so forth, plus the time it takes to travel to the F2F meetings, which are much longer, it's pretty easy for a board member to spend 10-20 hours a week working for the PDGA members without pay.

Let's say it's only 10 hours a week: That's $500 per week per board member, or $26k a year per board member. Or nearly (probably more) $200k worth of time from just board members, who get no pay at all.

Now, figure in the folks who moderate, do free IT work, are on various committees, and a chunk of the volunteer time put it at sanctioned events and it's no stretch at all to get to really big dollars, no matter what assumptions you want to accept (probably none) or reject (probably all).

It's the same argument that supports that disc golfers get a huge bargain from their volunteer TDs and tournament staff, only writ large to a 10,000+ member organization.

The problem we have is that we have a few, a handful, of members who want to gripe about "payout" without ever giving much thought to the value of our volunteers' time.

Like I said, as a TD yourself, I thought this would be a no-brainer. And, knowing you, you maybe already figured this out yourself but just want to stir things up.

Flying you in and out of Augusta to design a course at the IDGC, that's pushing it. They've got plenty of people who would've done that for free.

So Chuck, if blackmailing the PDGA . . . let's find someone else to do the ratings who won't whine about how they're so overworked



So, when you're done calling Chuck and blackmailer and a whiner, Mikey <font color="red">(Hey, moderators, isn't that just a bit over the line?) </font> give me a call and I'll arrange to come down and give you a haircut. After all, why pay for a barber when I'd jump at the chance to do it for free :D

let me state that i am happy to have Members like Mike



Right, so let me understand this, Pat Brenner. You are happy to have as a member a person who thinks nothing of falsely and personally attacking a valuable PDGA volunteer and Disc Golf Hall of Famer, by calling him a blackmailer and a whiner?

With that kind of support for hard working volunteers from a current PDGA board member, we'll surely looking to having a bunch of happy campers in the volunteer ranks going forward.

interpret it however you wish Terry. i am happy we have Members like Mike.

No interpretation needed, Pat. Saying there is, is just misleading "spin."

All anyone has to do is read Mikey's post (just above) where he calls Chuck a blackmailer and a whiner, then read your direct response to that post, which says that you are glad we have members like Mikey.

and then what? conclude that i was happy people like Mike still send their 50 bux in support of the pdga? if someone wants to ask me why i am happy we have Members like Mike i'll be glad to answer. if someone wants to make assumption then so be it. a requirement to defend in advance every nuance of every word against every person who might possibly read a post seems less than efficient. we're all big boys here. we mostly can tell the difference between honest statements, deliberate overstatements and diversionary tactics.

pick something completely unrelated to the message board. anything pdga related. suggest a topic. see what people say. i think its a great idea. i hope you try it.

if someone wants to ask me why i am happy we have Members like Mike i'll be glad to answer.


Pat, in less than 1,500 words, why are you happy we have Members like Mikey?

i like Members like Mikey because i like Members who have supported the PDGA generously since at least 2001. check out the dude's event schedule. long term Member who has a record of greater than average event participation. especially as a professional player, since thats what the P stands for. i'm inclined to give people a little bit of latitude when it comes to style, especially people with that record. he obviously values pdga services and has ideas about how they might be improved. committment. passion. input. what's not to like?

...and "QUESTION AUTHORITY" is another, right? An organization pulling~in/collecting these kinds of dollars (memberships, tourney-fees, etc) 'can' have questionable spending (not saying they/we do!)...and we as the members should see a trail of where the monies are spent.
Dang, there's that word again..."accountability". We certainly can't do anything about what 'has' been spent...but we can have an impact on what will be spent.

"Our" new DG complex (in GA) must be a money magnet...and rightfully so. "Our" sport needs a home base in 'this' country with the kind of clout that this complex certainly can and will deliver...and will even 'more' deliver in the near future.
.02 // YMMV

DG RULES!

i like Members like Mikey because i like Members who have supported the PDGA generously since at least 2001.



Donations of cash, volunteer time, or events played? Any TD of a sanctioned event has proven his worth in one or more of those ways, but it doesn't mean he can label other volunteers with negative labels like blackmailer and whiner.


check out the dude's event schedule.



Right. Two events in 2006. So?


long term Member who has a record of greater than average event participation.



Are we talking competition here? 'Cause he's (PDGA #14304) played two events in 2006. OTOH, I know he's TD'd lots of good stuff. And Katrina kinda does get in the way. But going back through 2001, Chuck (PDGA #4949) has played 50 percent more events than Mikey (And I have competed in even more.) - not to mention designed a lot of courses, put in hundreds of PDGA volunteer hours on committees, done the ratings, organized the course designers, worked with the course evaluation people, etc.


especially as a professional player, since thats what the P stands for.



Hmm. So the 20 percent Pro minority gets more respect than the 80 percent Am majority?

Also: Did you notice that in 2006 he played 1 event as a Pro and 1 as an Am? Seems a little 50:50 to me. I may well have played more events as a Pro than Mikey has. (Somebody else can check on this, the online records may not go back far enough to be sure.)


inclined to give people a little bit of latitude when it comes to style, especially people with that record.



Style doesn't really equate to lying about other people and viciously criticizing them, Pat Brenner.


he obviously values pdga services



Sure he does. You find ten sentences he wrote or said in the last two years to support that and you get my $10.


what's not to like?



Not to like: Mikey as a person, definitely to like and a keeper. As someone who will shout in public that other, very valuable volunteers are blackmailers and whiners without any objective evidence about such a spurious claim; that's not to like.

Pretty hard to escape that recorded history.

Terry, you may not like the tone or words others choose, but an attack is something much worse than calling someone a whiner or insinuating they may be blackmailing. an attack is what Tonya Harding did to Nancy Kerrigan. please let's not demonize someone who is simply a critic with questionable tact. critics may be a pain, but they often play a constructive role in the larger scheme of things. one measure of the strengh of a leader is their ability to handle criticism. handle it and learn from it ;)

what's Chuck's value as a Member have to do with Mikey's? not a thing. all Members have value. period.

as far as Mikey's words of support, i suppose his yearly checks would count as proof positive that he values the PDGA membership. thats a good thing, unless you think its insane to support the PDGA.

That's awesome, Pat. "This way to the Egress."

<font color="blue"> [offensive comment removed] </font>

as usual

Terry, you may not like the tone or words others choose, but an attack is something much worse than calling someone a whiner or insinuating they may be blackmailing. an attack is what Tonya Harding did to Nancy Kerrigan. please let's not demonize someone who is simply a critic with questionable tact. critics may be a pain, but they often play a constructive role in the larger scheme of things. one measure of the strengh of a leader is their ability to handle criticism. handle it and learn from it ;)



Shirley you jest? Mike isn't criticizing, he's lying. McCarthy did something very similar on a national scale. It's not right and it's not criticism.

I just saw Pirates of the Carribean for the first time this weekend. It is a great movie.

Mikey will never see the light, cuz his head is in his asre most the time:o

So, when you're done calling Chuck and blackmailer and a whiner, Mikey <font color="red">(Hey, moderators, isn't that just a bit over the line?) </font> give me a call and I'll arrange to come down and give you a haircut. After all, why pay for a barber when I'd jump at the chance to do it for free :D



<font color="red">So, dear Moderators, I guess it's okay for former BOD members to threaten people on the forums now? HOW FAR WILL YOU GO TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE INNER CIRCLE??? DO YOU NOT SEE THE HYPOCRISY OF TERRY'S POSTS??? ARE YOU TOO BLIND TO SEE HE IS USING THIS FORUM AS HIS OWN PERSONAL BLOW-UP DOLL FOR HIS PERVERTED AMUSEMENT??? HE HAS ALREADY SILENCED THE NEWLY ELECTED BOARD MEMBERS WITH HIS THREATS, WORKED TIRELESSLY TO DESTROY THE PDGA CONSTITUTION, AND NOW IS BOLDLY THREATENING IN VIEW OF THE CHILDREN THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIS BRAND OF COMMUNISM!!! FOR SHAME LAGRASSA FOR SHAME!!! I NEVER THOUGHT IT WOULD COME TO THIS, BUT IF TERRY IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO STOOP TO A NEW LOW WHILE OTHERS ARE BANNED FOR DOING MUCH LESS, I DON'T WANT ANY PART OF THIS!!! WHAT'S NEXT, HE'S GOING TO THREATEN MY KIDS WHILE YOU STAND THERE KISSING HIS OLD TIRED DINGLEBERRIES??? PLEASE, I'M BEGGING YOU, DON'T LET TERRY HARM MY KIDS, THEY ARE INNOCENT!!! IF YOU MUST TAKE MY POSTING PRIVILEGES TO SAVE THEM, DO IT AND DO IT QUICKLY, AND LET ME KNOW WHERE TO SEND THE MONEY HE WANTS FOR HIS NEFARIOUS PLANS, JUST LEAVE MY FAMILY ALONE!!! I AM SORRY TERRY, I NEVER THOUGHT EVEN YOU COULD STOOP SO LOW!!! I WAS ONLY JOKING!!! OH WHAT HAVE I DONE???</font>

Any guesses on how long b4 the previous post gets removed & UPM banned (I mean "posting priveleges suspended")?

I'll start the bidding at 3:51 pm on Monday, 11 Dec.

Any guesses on how long b4 the previous post gets removed & UPM banned (I mean "posting priveleges suspended")?

I'll start the bidding at 3:51 pm on Monday, 11 Dec.



i'll take the under on that one...

what timezone is that? the webserver time seems to be on its own special brand of time.

Terry, you may not like the tone or words others choose, but an attack is something much worse than calling someone a whiner or insinuating they may be blackmailing. an attack is what Tonya Harding did to Nancy Kerrigan. please let's not demonize someone who is simply a critic with questionable tact. critics may be a pain, but they often play a constructive role in the larger scheme of things. one measure of the strengh of a leader is their ability to handle criticism. handle it and learn from it ;)



Shirley you jest? Mike isn't criticizing, he's lying. McCarthy did something very similar on a national scale. It's not right and it's not criticism.



<font color="red"> OH MY GOD, NO!!!!! I AM COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY AND IMPARTIALLY AND WHOLLY INSULTED BY LYLE ROSS, #21163, COMPARING ME TO A HISTORICAL FIGURE!!!! THIS IS A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE PDGA MESSAGE BOARD!!! IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, LOOK IT UP!!!!

I WAS BANNED FOR THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!!!!! WHAT AN OUTRAGE! HOLY COW IF THIS DOESN'T SHOW THE COMPLETE DISRESPECT OF THE MINORITY OPINION AROUND HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE DOES!!!!! WHEN WILL THE TYRANNY END??????????????????? WHEN WILL THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THE PDGA DOES BE PROTECTED????

FOR SHAME MODERATORS FOR SHAME!!!! YOU HAVE FINALLY BEEN HANDED AN IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CHANCE TO BE KNOWN FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN INCALCULABLE STUPIDITY (LIKE THE FORMER MODERATORS)FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIVES AND YOU HAVE BLOWN IT JUST LIKE EVERY CHANCE YOU HAVE EVER HAD! </font>

mikey, did you report the post?

Michael you are so funny. Perhaps we should make some rooles up for ourselves. Believe it or not, that was good when you said you wouldn't stoop to post other people's e-mails. I did that about a dozen times. But that's not good, and I'm not proud of it. No more of that. Remember I said that so you can throw it into my stoopid face next time I do it.

Better to use ideas and argue cordially. But -- as we know -- it is FAR better yet to argue ridiculously and outrageously with as much hype, irony and humor as is inhumanely possible.

Every now and then let the demon venom out. (Ever notice how you can't use certain words anymore cause they're frisbee names?)

References to all Third Reich historical figures is hereby banned. All other historical figures are allowed. Assuming you're really mad, you can conjure Stalin and use the three parts of speech for fascist, but look it up in the dictionary first. You know what, stay away from Stalin, too. Much too obscure for Americans. All other historical figures, however historically incorrectly used, are allowed. At any rate it could be toned down to "moron" (which sounds like a personal attack and could get you banned, so you gotta be syntactically clever and use it with a cryptic albeit ominous connection to your subject.) It also helps not to name people by name.

"Goofball" and "gooberhead" are apparently acceptable name calling terms, expressing more exasperationn than anything personal.

And people think there's no art to what we do.

So what do we have so far?

1) No posting other people's e-mails
2) No Third Reich references; McCarthy okay
3) When you're really mad use strong words only with oblique refences to individuals

Hey I was studying the new rules for posting and I don't think there's any rule against fake swearing, and it doesn't matter. There's a list of real swears that are replaced by special-charactered strings. "Censorship" used to be one. #$*&amp;$! is always one.

Swearing is not an issue, it's being offensive that's the issue. For us, a very tough premise. But we don't need no stinkin rule for swearing.

Here's the big one. We can't report offensive posts to the Moderators. There is nothing anyone can say about us, or to us, that would make us report them to the Moderators.

I know both Moderators: Jeff Lagrassa &amp; Alan Sweeton. They also do not know why I'm not suspended. Both wonderful guys, performing a thankless task for the PDGA without pay cause Steve asked them to. We don't want to be part of the deluge. If we exercise a modicum of restraint we can keep talking, and yes that does get boring fast.

Some people are more brain. You and I are more gut. (You should SEE my gut.)

If someone says something so bad that you DO have to kill them, you first gotta have the conversation in front of the mirror with Elvis like Christian Slater (Clarence) in True Romance getting ready to confront Gary Oldman, his new love's pimp. Gotta remember to insult whoever it is first and THEN kill them, but only after your insult is much worst than their's and they try to kill YOU.

Rools. Gotta have rools.

4) Leave the Moderators alone. We could consider it a favor for which I'll pay you a million bucks. A fiver the next time we see each other and the rest when we finally get it together around here with the Marshall Street thing.

..there's one more thing Mikey. What you do - I know what you're doing. It helps, it really does. It helps everybody, including the people who think you're an idiot.

jason's wisdom is impossible to augment, but i would most cordially request the indulgence of all readers to not be offended personally when experiencing the word "dingleberry". its use, particularly when delivered via proxy by a bubble-eyed abomination of an avatar, brings much merriment and mirth to our fair land.

mikey, did you report the post?



Yes Sandalman, I did report the post where Terry Calhoun #15117 threatened me with violence. I am in the process of appealing about Lyle Ross for comparing me to a historical figure, the same offense for which I was moved so dangerously close to the 3-month suspension period.

As a PDGA volunteer, who is running a PDGA B-tier tournament in March, wouldn't it be a shame if I couldn't promote all the wonderful things about my tournament because those without their own brains got me suspended for three months?

I am appalled that Terry's threat against my life is still allowed to stand. <font color="red"> DID YOU ALL FORGET THAT TERRY CALHOUN #15117 WAS A MEMBER OF THE US NAVY SPECIAL FORCES UNDERWATER DEMOLITION TEAM??? THEIR CODE FOR "KILLING A CIVILIAN TARGET" IS "GIVING A HAIRCUT"!!! </font>

Please, I am begging you...PLEASE REPORT TERRY'S POST TO THE MODERATORS!!! APPARENTLY IT ONLY TAKES TWO MINDLESS SYCOPHANTS TO GET ANYONE BANNED FROM THE MESSAGE BOARD!!! SO PLEASE, SEND AN EMAIL TO THE MODERATORS ABOUT TERRY THREATENING MY LIFE!!!

I AM SCARED FOR MY LIFE!!! HE SAID HE WOULDN'T BE POSTING FOR A FEW DAYS...IS HE ON HIS WAY DOWN HERE TO KILL ME????

<font color="red"> MY BLOOD WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS WHEN TERRY KILLS ME </font>

I understand you may have a concern with someone, but why do you insist in making this board your personal battle field. Please let us enjoy one of our benifit without all your crap :mad::D

Your posts and all those that respond to you have become so whiny that I have decided to stop coming to the board for a while. I'm sure it is better for my job security anyway.

mikey, i have also been the target of veiled threats from Terry, including a reminder that he is a trained US Seal trained in demolition. i did not know the maning of "haircut" so i checked it out with some former military types at my office. unfortunately, they confirm your interpretation. we are constantly told by our current national government to be on the lookout for people behaving strangely and making threats. i am not sure the PDGA is equipped to handle threats of physical violence. i'm not sure it should even try. i would suggest either the local police or the FBI. they'll probably tell you that the threat was so veiled they cannot do anything about it. but at least you'll have it on an official record, and continued comments along those lines could help build a strong circumstantial case.

Your posts and all those that respond to you have become so whiny that I have decided to stop coming to the board for a while. I'm sure it is better for my job security anyway.



Mrs Q, I apologize to you and the rest of the sane and tolerant members out there who are innocent bystanders in this battle. In all honesty, I would like to quit fighting, and use my talents for promoting the sport instead of fighting this battle that should have been over years ago. However, until those who oppose the right of the members to free and open expression relent, I will continue. Unfortunately, we have seen Terry Calhoun #15117's threats go unchecked; we have seen Lyle Ross's comparisons of me to McCarthy go unchallenged while I have been banned for comparing the BOD to another historical figure. All I'm asking for is an open forum which I PAID FOR, and EQUAL protection/punishment of members, not a subjective whimsical standard that we currently face.

I hope to see you and Don at the Pot of Gold In Metairie on March 17th. God Bless You.

Michael Kernan
PDGA Tournament Director

If your really sorry for fighting this battle infront of the rest of us, could you do us a favor and shorten the username? We get it...you have issues with the PDGA. It would be greatly appreciated if you kept your messages *in* in the posts only :)

Jroc, it is my form of protest. Wouldn't you rather see a long user name than see me douse myself in kerosene and set myself ablaze?

Jroc, it is my form of protest. Wouldn't you rather see a long user name than see me douse myself in kerosene and set myself ablaze?



RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!!!!

It is a poster's responsibility for getting suspended. It is not the fault of the moderators, the PDGA or the offended readers.

Please be advised that someone of Jewish, Polish or Eastern European heritage could be easily offended to be compared to Hitler (or to have an organization they belong to compared to the Nzi regime). This is completely different than being accused of being like McCarthy. Hitler is responsible for the genocide of millions of innocents. Millions did not die from McCarthyism. I doubt as many people would find the reference to being like McCarthy as offensive.

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/upm.jpg

Jroc, it is my form of protest. Wouldn't you rather see a long user name than see me douse myself in kerosene and set myself ablaze?



Actually, I think I would prefer the kerosene. It's been a slow quarter for us.

http://www.packserv.com/Data/Products/-1814795865.jpg

Of course I dont want you to kill yourself. Even though I dont agree with much of what you say, I do want to read it. Would just be nice to read it myself rather than be constantly reminded of it everytime I get irratated by all my text boxes getting screwed up :(

hehe...I think thats the first time I have laughed at one of your posts....very random, but amusing that you chose that extreme.

Maybe seppuku (look it up if you don't know) on Terry's scimitar (or does he carry a cutlass?) would be more appropriate. :D

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/upm.jpg



Now we're talking! Can we get other annoying people to jump into this fire?

Here's the big one. We can't report offensive posts to the Moderators. There is nothing anyone can say about us, or to us, that would make us report them to the Moderators.

I know both Moderators: Jeff Lagrassa & Alan Sweeton. They also do not know why I'm not suspended. Both wonderful guys, performing a thankless task for the PDGA without pay cause Steve asked them to. We don't want to be part of the deluge. If we exercise a modicum of restraint we can keep talking, and yes that does get boring fast.

Some people are more brain. You and I are more gut. (You should SEE my gut.)

4) Leave the Moderators alone. We could consider it a favor for which I'll pay you a million bucks. A fiver the next time we see each other and the rest when we finally get it together around here with the Marshall Street thing.

..there's one more thing Mikey. What you do - I know what you're doing. It helps, it really does. It helps everybody, including the people who think you're an idiot.



Jason, I must disagree with you. When Steve took over as grand dictator of the board, I never dreamed he would allow me to be banned for my opinions, however obviously over-the-top they may appear...I thought Steve knew from having you around for years that perfectly wonderful, intelligent, and artistic types like yourself are at times going to push boundaries and challenge the establishment in ways they do not understand at first.

I have also played a round with Lagrassa at the Worlds in 2003 (yes, I did play that poorly), and enjoyed his company thoroughly. I am perplexed that someone with his intelligence can not see how Terry Calhoun #15117 has manipulated everyone around here for years to the point where not only has useful dissent been crushed, now the PDGA Constitution has been destroyed and replaced with by-laws which give the BOD the power to NOT HAVE ELECTIONS. With a simple majority vote, the BOD can now destroy the new by-laws and replace them immediately, with whatever they feel is in their best interests at that moment. How LaGrassa can support putting me one post away from a 3-month suspension while Terry is allowed to distort the truth in non-comical ways is completely beyone me. I thought Lagrassa was smarter than that...could I be wrong?

I'll take you at your word that Sweeton is a good guy. I hope you are right; I hope Alan realizes that often, change is not brought about from the top; innovations often spring from the strangest places. I hope Alan realizes that the more people are encouraged to discuss the business of the PDGA, the more new ideas we will discover together. If dissent is crushed, you will have only the limited talent of the BOD (and whoever is bribing them or intimidating them with their riches earned selling plastic), from which to draw.

So, while I did think a couple weeks ago that I would never have to push that "Inform Moderator" button, Terry Calhoun #15117's threats and jedi mind tricks have reached new lows, requiring me to educate all three of these moderaters on the value of free speech, and TOLERANCE.

Please, place Lyle Ross and Terry Calhoun #15117 ON PROBATION for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS THAT YOU BANNED ME FOR.

.

"Please, place Lyle Ross and Terry Calhoun #15117 ON PROBATION for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS THAT YOU BANNED ME FOR. "

how do you know that they are not?

I hope Alan realizes that often, change is not brought about from the top; innovations often spring from the strangest places. I hope Alan realizes that the more people are encouraged to discuss the business of the PDGA, the more new ideas we will discover together. If dissent is crushed, you will have only the limited talent of the BOD (and whoever is bribing them or intimidating them with their riches earned selling plastic), from which to draw.



And that would be why I told you that I didn't believe simple dissent was a reason to get suspended. And why I refrained from suspending you for a week's time in which I received numerous complaints, because I didn't find them grounds for suspension. But I also saw (after a couple of Hitler posts) that there is a line, and that it was crossed.

Honestly, you can stir the pot all you want and it doesn't bother me a bit, and I hope that some growth, and possibly change, can come from it. But you can also do it in such a way in which we don't end up having to suspend you...

To the Members:

In order to ensure PDGA is meeting the legal requirements of Colorado (our State of incorporation) and in order to enhance transparency and member knowledge of PDGA, the office has updated the Information section of the website as found here:

http://www.pdga.com/information.php

In particular please see the section on Organizational Documents:

http://www.pdga.com/org/index.php

More info has also been added to the section on Disciplinary Action:

http://www.pdga.com/org/disciplinary.php

The Board of Directors will be reviewing other documents for posting early in 2007. In the meantime, should you have any suggestions for improvement, please email them to either myself or to a Board member.

Regards and thanks

Brian Hoeniger
Executive Director




KUDOS, MIKEY!!!!!!! :)

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/upm.jpg



Hey look it's a photo of a flaming troll.




Steve invited an open discussion of the message board rules and you chose to continue your whining and flaming instead of joining the discussion and contributing something meaninful.

"Please, place Lyle Ross and Terry Calhoun #15117 ON PROBATION for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS THAT YOU BANNED ME FOR. "

how do you know that they are not?



Hey, unfair, Pat! I am trying not to post and you're spreading false innuendo, so I have to post in order to defend myself.

Lyle's not suspended either, he's just disgusted, and maybe not reading. (That latter is just projection, of course, since despite the paranoid claims of a secret controlling old guys network, I've only actually ever spoken to Lyle beyond "Hi" at Worlds one time, and never on the phone.)

i am not spreading rumors (or innuendo since you changed the wording of your original post), false or otherwise. i was pointing out to Mikey that he might be complaining about something that has already been handled.

besides, Mikey said "on probation", not "suspended". a Member can be on probation and still post. i might be on probation right now - only the moderators and i know for sure. the fact that a Member can post does not speak to that Member's probation status.

Hey, I think ams and pros should pay the same renewal fees. It's only fair. Hitler and Stalin on the other hand, would probably disagree.

I really have no idea what's going on here but I just wanted to post something.

I understand who are the ones who make the actions, but also understand that they are influenced by what they read here, and you cannot deny that Mikey has a way of getting into one's head.

I know they haven't done anything because Terry Calhoun #15117's original post where he threatens me with bodily harm is still there for all my lawyers to see. Terry, would you please kindly give me your address? Maybe your paranoia is justified after all.

But I also saw (after a couple of Hitler posts) that there is a line, and that it was crossed.





A couple of former leader of a European country posts? Alan, it was one flipping post. ONE. UNO. How do you say ONE in german?

I see that you can change moderators, but the moderators still can't count. Or is it that they don't want to count since maybe they've been given Brenner's $5000 check to promote the administration's views?

To my fans out there, I apologize for my sober and serious tone today. It's hard to be cheerful when someone has threatened your life and you can't sleep.

PDGAOffice, could you please provide the address over there in Augusta? I guess a subpoena is what it's going to take after all.

reset

PDGAOffice, could you please provide the address over there in Augusta? I guess a subpoena is what it's going to take after all.




It's at the top of the page!

PDGA - Wildwood Park, 3841 Dogwood Lane, Appling, GA 30802 PH:706-261-NDGC (6342)

i am not spreading rumors (or innuendo since you changed the wording of your original post), false or otherwise. i was pointing out to Mikey that he might be complaining about something that has already been handled.

besides, Mikey said "on probation", not "suspended". a Member can be on probation and still post. i might be on probation right now - only the moderators and i know for sure. the fact that a Member can post does not speak to that Member's probation status.



I am on probation. :D

Hey! I want to get banned too! :D (Or at least probated!) :D

Disc golf is a completely violent sport! Everytime I go to a tournament, people are always talking about beating me...right to my face too! The nerve of those folks!

but larry... are you Offended? :D

A couple of former leader of a European country posts? Alan, it was one flipping post. ONE. UNO. How do you say ONE in german?



No, I said a couple and I meant it. Two posts, Mike. Two. Dos. Zwei.

SPLUNGE!!!!!!!!

Your posts and all those that respond to you have become so whiny that I have decided to stop coming to the board for a while. I'm sure it is better for my job security anyway.



You can click on any user and select "ignore user". It is one of the options at the bottom of the user's info. If you've already done this to me, then you can ignore this because you already know how.

It would be nice if you were ignoring a user, their screen name and avatar would also be ignored. So rather than seeing a new post by AReallyLongAndAnnoyingHandle with bug eyes and a message saying "You are ignoring this user", the entire row would disappear.

It would be nice if you were ignoring a user, their screen name and avatar would also be ignored. So rather than seeing a new post by AReallyLongAndAnnoyingHandle with bug eyes and a message saying "You are ignoring this user", the entire row would disappear.

It would also be nice if you could ignore an account instead of just being able to ignore SomeJuvenileLongAnd AnnoyingHandle and then the next day he changes it to SomeMoronicLongAnd AnnoyingHandle.

It would be nice if you were ignoring a user, their screen name and avatar would also be ignored. So rather than seeing a new post by AReallyLongAndAnnoyingHandle with bug eyes and a message saying "You are ignoring this user", the entire row would disappear.

It would also be nice if you could ignore an account instead of just being able to ignore SomeJuvenileLongAnd AnnoyingHandle and then the next day he changes it to SomeMoronicLongAnd AnnoyingHandle.



Yeah, if you had the courage to stay on the BOD, you could have changed that. We could have used a good fighter like you, Han.

actually, if a Director believes that something is wrong and tries to change it but finds that the rest of the organization cannot/willnot change, then the Director's responsibility is to resign. it may look like wimping out, but resigning is the only legal recourse the Director would have. it sounds backwards, but its true.

<font color="blue">[personal attack removed]</font>

What they did is not uncorrectable...in fact it will only take you, Stepford Steve and 2 other people to change the by-laws from their present neuteredness into something befitting an open, free, and FUN organization, which is something this Association has lost <font color="blue">[personal attack removed]</font>

If Bruce had any courage, we'd have at least three independent thinkers on the BOD now, and you'd only have to reason with one other, like Chap (who seems to have fought off Calhoun's poison), to get the by-laws rewritten into something useful.

I haven't followed this discussion much (other than the beginning when it was a topic I was interested in), but looking towards documents as a source of good governance is misguided. Responsive, and responsible governance is certainly not precluded by our bylaws.

Agreed. But with the track record of the old BOD, who has raised our dues to the tune of around 100% in a short time, and refused to disclose any but the sparsest details of where they spend their loot, you can see why the members are a bit worried about what could happen next.

James can I say I told you so once the next scandal is unearthed?

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not defending the present or past BOD, I'm just saying the problem doesn't lie with by-laws, or the constitution. Basically, I'm just saying that no piece of paper will protect the sport from bad decisions, nor will the paper prevent good decisions from moving the sport forward. It's about people, not paper.

Thank you for changing your handle to something shorter. Apparently my wish came true since I don't recall putting this name on ignore.

Basically, I'm just saying that no piece of paper will protect the sport from bad decisions, nor will the paper prevent good decisions from moving the sport forward. It's about people, not paper.



still, let's not discount the fact hat a bad document creates unnecessary hassles and can also make misuse of power/funds more possible than a good document which requires rnformation be shared openly between the BoD and the lowly membership.

obviously the new bylaws were rushed -- with Kirk's re-write of the Constitution being scrapped at the last moment in favor of the new bylaws -- one result of which seems to be the added hassle of having to fall upon the default rules of Colorado for term lengths and elections (?) hopefully the present BoD plans to address these shortcomings with the bylaws and improve upon them in the upcoming year...yes, it's more work but -- if done well, in the long run it will make life easier for both the BoD and the membership

The By-laws were written by the PDGA's attorney. At his recomendation.

if he didn't donate his services, maybe we could get a refund...
there are a lot of loose ends in the bylaws as written -- are there (k)not?

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine he wrote it that way on purpose. Probably to avoid potential litigation or somesuch.

there are a few that seem just right the way they are.

Happy Birthday Old Man! :D

fear of lawsuits seems to be becoming a cliche for why we do things :eek:
while anyone can bring a case against anyone for anything -- whether the case has any merit is of course another matter.

do you suppose the Bylaws don't address elections because they preferred leaving things to the defaults for Colorado laws regarding associations like ours?

i'm wondering too because loose ends also may require future services :eek:

just kidding -- for all i know he did a great job given what he was told were his goals. anyone priivy to that information?
was it to replace the previous Constitution asap for something less open and transparent? i know that's a loaded question, but Mikey can't ask it for another three months ...

Kirk had assured me the openess clause from the now defunct original Constitution wasn't going anywhere and would be included in the re-write he was charged with completing. Then all of a sudden we were told there would be no new Constitution (we don't need no stinking Constitution) and Kirk's re-write was scrapped in the ninth inning and he was sent to the proverbial showers ...

thanks for the BDay wishes, you <insert really niceword here that is way better than ""flunky"> :D:D:D

actually, i kinda think guidelines and standards are best when they are higher principles rather than detailed specifics. i am not excited about the election wording, or lack of it depending on your viewpoint, but i do really like the fact that the ByLaws are basically a high level view. defining things in too much detail runs the risk of boxing you in. its a tightrope, especially when organizational change is occuring.

i guess my point is that if one wishes to complain, its best to complain about a specific. its tough to discuss the overall ByLaws except in black and white terms. gray areas can be specified easily by referring to a section number. that way we can talk directly to the paragraph this needs reviewing and not the entire document. whether or not i voted for the ByLaws, they are the law of the land. the process for changing them is specific and documentable.

i'd rather say something like "hey ByLaw 26.7 really needs changing because it.........." rather than "the ByLaws stink".

ya know what i mean?

Terry has obviously brainwashed you Pat -- and / or -- you are getting old and conservative!

(just kidding)

i don't take issue with what you have said and i am not for bogging our association down with details. i didn't find our now defunct old Constitution was too detail-specific anyways -- did you?

i feel we should have a clause that calls for openess and transparency with regard to all 4 or more digit $ expenditures as well as for PDGA business in general.

are there any disclosure requirements in place to stop a ED and Commish and the BoD from teaming up to rent Hummer Limos to escort them to all the events they wish to participate in or from buying every 2001 USDGC Roc that surfaces on Ebay to put in the bags of themselves and their friends? :eek: :D what if they spent our money on ball golf trips &amp; outings? :eek: :eek: :o:eek: :eek:

Happy b-day Pat.

Focused and justified criticism is usually better than general, unspecified criticism. The exception to the previous statement: the Cowboys suck and I'm not exactly sure why. :p

This may seem naive and I'm sure the info I am seeking must be readily available and I just can't find it. Having come late to this discussion and having just realized that the renewal fees have skyrocketed again and having been a birdie or ace club member for most of my tenure as a PDGA member, just where can I get detailed info on how the PDGA is spending my money?

Also, is there any way to forego the subscription to DGWN at a reduced renew rate?

the closest report so far is the IRS Form 990 that is linked from Brian H's post on the PDGA Announcemnt thread... look for the "online org docs" link.

anyone who wants to discuss dollars needs to thoroughly review that document first. it provides a starting point that is fact.

Rob, no there is nothing to stop the scenario you describe.

in my personal happy place, any expenditure that is included in the approved budget would require no oversight or counter-signature. there is no need to micromanage Staff (who write the checks and keep the wheels on the wagon) while they are doing their jobs. still in my happy place... anything that deviates by more than some % or $ amount would need approval or counter signature. thats a concept, not a proposal. i could easily list a couple aspects of my happy place approach that concern me.

you lost me. happy place?

Thanks. I am studying it.

Is DGWN the official publication of the PDGA? Is that why info such as the NDGC Endowment details are published there?

I am a bit confused by the two expense line items "fulfillment services" and "other membership benefits." The 2005/06 Financial Report discloses that income from membership grossed $408K.

The description for those two items states that $245K comes off the top of that through fulfillment and member benefits. What is the breakout for DGWN? What is the breakout for "ratings processing" (and what does that entail?).

It strikes me that if DGWN is not the official publication of the PDGA, the organization is doing its members a disservice by making it a "mandatory" part of the membership benefits package.

i said "happy place" cuz i did not want anyone to think i was criticizing or comnmenting on the PDGA. ie, if i was designing an organization from scratch and had no history, culture or processes already in place. i was just trying to describe a couple aspects of the organization i consider ideal. hence... my happy place.

Chris, those seem like direct and fair questions. i do not have answers, at least at this time, because i also have just started to review the 990. fortunately, i have no class for the next two weeks (which frees up about 30-40 hours a week thank god) so if you can hang in there maybe we can work through it over the next coupla weeks.

the closest report so far is the IRS Form 990 that is linked from Brian H's post on the PDGA Announcemnt thread... look for the "online org docs" link.

anyone who wants to discuss dollars needs to thoroughly review that document first. it provides a starting point that is fact.

Rob, no there is nothing to stop the scenario you describe.

in my personal happy place, any expenditure that is included in the approved budget would require no oversight or counter-signature. there is no need to micromanage Staff (who write the checks and keep the wheels on the wagon) while they are doing their jobs. still in my happy place... anything that deviates by more than some % or $ amount would need approval or counter signature. thats a concept, not a proposal. i could easily list a couple aspects of my happy place approach that concern me.



okay -- please list a few of them as well as the reason for the concern, if possible in a way that makes sense even to those of us with little mgmt experience.

Can you provide a direct "thread" or "link" to the 990 please?


I'm not finding it.

Dlo

It's the first doc in the bottom section:

http://www.pdga.com/org/index.php

Hey, I think ams and pros should pay the same renewal fees. It's only fair.



i agree -- but if the PDGA leadership does not i suggest they have people pay a renewal fee based on their player rating. Barry and Ken will have to pay a lot more -- but they win a lot anyways :D

Advanced baggers rated 970 will pay more than the am.s rated 895 and playing up a division and testing the Advanced waters. at least that would have some logic to it. what again is the logic behind the present policy of Pros paying more than am.s for membership?

"The Marshal program and John Duesler are primarily expenses for pros and the PDGA spends more net money on the Pro Worlds than Am Worlds including the cost of the video which loses in the neighborhood of $15,000 after all sales and costs are tallied. The $10 increase in dues differential between ams and pros (it was $15 now $25) will likely bring in less than $25,000 additional income in 2007." said Chuck

That's the only person I've seen with any interest in answering this question. It's not the whole answer, but it's something. More of a rationalization.

BOB

"ncluding the cost of the video which loses in the neighborhood of $15,000 after all sales and costs are tallied."

I don't think this is true. I believe the DVD is a close to break even proposition. I will look into this further.

---------------

And regarding the Pros pay more question, I am under the impression that the BoD of days past discussed this at length and had some rationale. I will ask for a recap and report back.

If you produced it it would be a money EARNER, Steve. It's called planning and a sense of humor and self-non-importance. Most Worlds videos I've seen are either boring or seem more about the knowledge of the commentator than about what the players are thinking at THAT point in the competition.

This year, give 5 different pros a camcorder each night and have them hand it in the next morning. I bet some pretty interesting video will surface. And it might even be watchable.

Sorta like "Pros Gone Wild!"

If the PDGA is losing $1 on the video production it should outsource it to someone who will make it profitable.

I'm off to play disc golf and soak up southern sun. Have a good Christmas.

It sounds like the 2005 video may be close to breaking even. Up until then, the DVD had apparently lost in the neighborhood of $15,000 actual plus additional untallied "losses" in terms of staff and volunteer time. Those were estimates I recall from a previous Summit meeting when bids for doing the DVD were being discussed. Not sure what we're looking at for budget and expectations for PW2007 but bids are usually reviewed at the Spring Summit.

wouldn't just a $5 increase in Am. membership yield as much income as a $50 increase in Pro fees?

15,000 loss.....give us a break....

Happy b-day Pat.

Focused and justified criticism is usually better than general, unspecified criticism. The exception to the previous statement: the Cowboys suck and I'm not exactly sure why. :p



They did'nt suck last night - :D

I doubt the PDGA Worlds video will ever be a money earner because of format restrictions. It's pretty much a documentary that "has" to show the usually boring final 9 for every division because all divisions need to be treated equally. It's not that the PDGA doesn't want to have a cool video, but providing relatively equal treatment of the divisions is a definite constraint. Who wants to see the same final 9 holes over and over again except the four people in that division and their families? The other problem is it's expensive to have the video team there all week to catch the action. Having the team focus on the final day is more cost effective.

I can't see the PDGA underwriting a video for maybe $20,000 that only shows the GM division if that's where the action is. On the other hand, if an independent production group produced a video on their own dime and took the risk, they could maybe do something that would make money if they're not constrained.

Having a half dozen people shoot video to contribute might work, but only if they weren't getting paid professional rates or at all. I think that's how the Marshall Street process works? If an outside firm is hired to produce the video, will others contribute free footage? I'm not sure we can find free video editing and production unless our new Board member is volunteering?

I couldn't find a recent thread on the matter, so I'll start a new one. The renewal fee is more for pros than for ams. Why are the fees different? Both ams and pros get the same services, as far as I can tell.

The only possible reason I can think of is the "marketing" that the PDGA does. I guess one could argue that that is done exclusively for pros, or that pros are the only ones who benefit from it, but those arguments seem pretty weak.

Does someone know the actual reasons for the varied structure?

ps. please no comments on the one-time amnesty, that is not relevant to the question.



Hmmmmmmmm...back to the original topic.

O.K. - we have to pay this increase to renew. What really bugs me is the additional $3.00 just to process the renewal! With a 50% fee increase could'nt the processing fee be included?

Now on the other topic specifically NOT included in James original questions...Does anyone else feel that any "pro" that renews as an "am" just to save $25.00 has integrity issues? (or here in Texas...for 18 more chances at the huge acepot up for grabs the first week in Jan.)

I'm not sure we can find free video editing and production unless our new Board member is volunteering?



We (Marshall Street and Triple Disc) put in a bid. And we will probably put in a bid for the 07 DVD.

I will admit it is a bit upsetting when we put in a bid which I believe would have gotten the PDGA a better product (replicated DVDs instead of the duplicated DVD-Rs we got) for less money and we did not win the bid. I can understand wanting to form a relationship with a video partner, but pullleaaase get them replicated in the future.

Sorry for the thread drift.

I couldn't find a recent thread on the matter, so I'll start a new one. The renewal fee is more for pros than for ams. Why are the fees different? Both ams and pros get the same services, as far as I can tell.

The only possible reason I can think of is the "marketing" that the PDGA does. I guess one could argue that that is done exclusively for pros, or that pros are the only ones who benefit from it, but those arguments seem pretty weak.

Does someone know the actual reasons for the varied structure?

ps. please no comments on the one-time amnesty, that is not relevant to the question.



Hmmmmmmmm...back to the original topic.

O.K. - we have to pay this increase to renew. What really bugs me is the additional $3.00 just to process the renewal! With a 50% fee increase could'nt the processing fee be included?

Now on the other topic specifically NOT included in James original questions...Does anyone else feel that any "pro" that renews as an "am" just to save $25.00 has integrity issues? (or here in Texas...for 18 more chances at the huge acepot up for grabs the first week in Jan.)



:eek:

Does anyone else feel that any "pro" that renews as an "am" just to save $25.00 has integrity issues?



it's possible, though it could be they have money issues. i have money issues but i preferred to handle the situation by renewing the first week of November in order to lock in the old Pro renewal price of $55 /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

i still think that unless we change the name to Professional & Amateur Disc Golf Association we should all pay the same fee to join / renew. we should not be incentivizing people to choose to move down and/or not to move up ...
also, since am.s outnumber pros by roughly 10 to 1 simply making every ones fee $50 would have generated a lot more revenue than the Association took in last year from membership fees. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I will admit it is a bit upsetting when we put in a bid which I believe would have gotten the PDGA a better product . . . for less money and we did not win the bid.



This is more than just the appearance of a conflict of interest, it is a public statement of a conflict of interest, and of an intent to continue it.

Let me spell it out: A current board member, whose previous bid to sell something to the PDGA was turned down, thus upsetting him, is using DISCussion to criticize that decision and process.

Which video company to use ought to be a PDGA staff decision, which is not to say that the board might not get involved. Now, just think of a staff person going about making that decision in the future, knowing that this current board member isn't at all above arguing his or her decision out on DISCussion.

Another example of inappropriate use of DISCussion: This time by the person responsible for "final" decisions regarding the appropriate use of DISCussion.

Nice.

Terry, if you are simply waiting in the background to poke at Steve or some other BoD member, please desist.

You might not know this, but all BoD members disclose our COIs formally now. So Steve's COI can be expected to be fully disclosed. If any decision that comes up requries him to abstain, he will.

You are blowing this way out of proportion to make a point that not only is suspect, but also one that you have made a hundred times.

Some would say that your use of DISCussion to raise this point is an improper use of the space. You are quite possible incorrect with your statements about Steve and your insinuations about his ability to remain objective... you are talking about things which you are not adequately informed, and you are spreading ill-will and dissension via the DISCussion board.


Let me spell it out: A current board member, whose previous bid to sell something to the PDGA was turned down, thus upsetting him, is using DISCussion to criticize that decision and process.

how about this:

"a former board member appears upset about the direction of the BoD that he decided to not run for, is using DISCussion to criticize the direction and process by which the new BoD conducts business"

lets use the message board for real discussion, not this constant fighting about details that gets us no where.

I will admit it is a bit upsetting when we put in a bid which I believe would have gotten the PDGA a better product . . . for less money and we did not win the bid.



This is more than just the appearance of a conflict of interest, it is a public statement of a conflict of interest, and of an intent to continue it.

Let me spell it out: A current board member, whose previous bid to sell something to the PDGA was turned down, thus upsetting him, is using DISCussion to criticize that decision and process.

Which video company to use ought to be a PDGA staff decision, which is not to say that the board might not get involved. Now, just think of a staff person going about making that decision in the future, knowing that this current board member isn't at all above arguing his or her decision out on DISCussion.

Another example of inappropriate use of DISCussion: This time by the person responsible for "final" decisions regarding the appropriate use of DISCussion.

Nice.



Communications Director Steve Dodge is the person responsible for final decisions regarding posts that break our PDGA Discussion Board Rules against profanity, material unsuitable for minors, (pornography or links to pornography) personal attacks, members sharing or selling their accounts, and other offensive content. (usually vulgarity)

There are no rules against criticizing a decision and process. Dissension can be a valuable tool for an organization, as long as such is performed without personal attacks.

Once again, the only inappropriate use of DISCussion is the following: <ul type="square"> 1. No profanity will be tolerated. 2. No personal attacks will be tolerated. 3. No materials or links to materials which are not suitable for a
minor will be tolerated. 4. Any materials deemed offensive by a member will be reviewed on a case by case basis. 5. User accounts are individual accounts intended for the exclusive use of each PDGA member. Allowing someone else to use your account could be grounds for disciplinary action.[/list]

Which video company to use ought to be a PDGA staff decision, which is not to say that the board might not get involved. Now, just think of a staff person going about making that decision in the future, knowing that this current board member isn't at all above arguing his or her decision out on DISCussion.



The BOD should make that decision. They are elected by the members to make the business decisions for the organization. The staff should be able to make recommendations but ultimate approval should go to the BOD.

Bwahahahah . . . Oh, my, in my family we have short-hand for this, it's called: "potblack." You know, the pot and the kettle.

Nothing in your post, Pat Brenner, de-legitimizes the concerns expressed in mine. And your intended deflection of the argument is hereby declined: Current board member Steve Dodge has a conflict of interest regarding the video for Pro Worlds and has posted about it in DISCussion, calling into question previous related decision making, an action that could sway future decision making.

By your own multiple postings, DISCussion is the perfect place for "voiceless" members to express such concerns. Is there something about being a former board member that would cause you to put my posting rights into question, or make them any lesser than those of other members?

The BOD should make that decision. They are elected by the members to make the business decisions for the organization. The staff should be able to make recommendations but ultimate approval should go to the BOD.



Difference of opinion, Luis.

I respect yours, but in my experience, organizations the size of the PDGA need to let staff manage and the board set policy. The board is elected to approve the budget. The staff should decide who to hire and fire to do the work, using the dollars.

Terry, if you are simply waiting in the background to poke at Steve or some other BoD member, please desist.

You might not know this, but all BoD members disclose our COIs formally now. So Steve's COI can be expected to be fully disclosed. If any decision that comes up requries him to abstain, he will.

You are blowing this way out of proportion to make a point that not only is suspect, but also one that you have made a hundred times.




Ya think?

I mean, basically all disc golf videos are pretty boring imo (just the nature of the subject), but the Marshall Street stuff is clearly superior to the PDGA stuff, not even close actually. So, instead of arguing the merits of turning down a bid from a group that has demonstrated competance, and granting it to someone who has yet to (assuming it is the same group), he yaps about some conflict of interest stuff.

Frankly, I have avoided being personally critical of BOD members (past or present), I instead am critical of them as a whole. :p BUT, Terry has pushed me to the tipping point. All I have to say is that since Mr. Dodge has taken over the communications role, I have noticed a vast improvement. Not that the bar was set very high.

Speaking of communications, and this renewal fee structure, this is good example of where communication could benefit the BOD. Before you attempt to raise the fees, get out to the membership and alert them. Convince them it is needed. Convince them them pros owe more than ams. Do it well; it will lessen the blow. Instead all we have is Chuck, who is not a board member, giving what he assumes are the reasons.

This whole increase in fees, is just another straw. I'd bet a lot of money that this straw will be enough to force many members out. Personally, I am going through the calculations myself, and the calculations have nothing to do with benefits received. Instead, it is more like: should I play the blackmail. How important are playing Texas States and Worlds to me vs. $75 and the feeling that I am enabling an inept organization. And I generally like the PDGA.

Ept costs money...

Terry

I did not think Steve's post was anything other than stating a fact. He put in a bid and it was not taken. His bid was for less than the bid that was taken.

I am sure Steve knows more goes into sellecting a bid than price. He did point out that the DVD's were inferior than what he would have liked to seen.

I agree.

Now I have not ever purchased the Worlds DVD and the only reason I got the Marshal Street DVD is from the generosity of Steve and his partners to donate them to all the PDGA TD's last year. I enjoyed the video, mostly because I am friends with Kevin and he won. However I have found every disc golf video borring. (the extras on the Marshal Street DVD are good however)

whats "Ept" ?

Convince them it is needed.



The reason why most organizations do not have majority votes to decide whether or not to raise dues is the near impossibility of convincing members to do such a thing, under any circumstances. That's why there are such things as representational governance. You have wise people, with the best interest of the PDGA at heart, who make such decisions on behalf of the membership. (If not, then why have a board at all? Let's go completely anarchic? All decisions made by the number of pro and con DISCussion board posts?)

Then if the membership isn't convinced, membership numbers go down and maybe board members get voted out. Didn't happen the last time the dues went up, hmmm.

I'll be sorry to see you go, McCaine. Since I know beyond any doubt how valuable the PDGA is for disc golf, even if I personally get nothing out of membership dues, my own calculations involve guesstimating how annoyed my wife will be at me when she figures out that I signed us both up for Ace Club memberships. I'll do that convincing afterwards, too, much easier :D

whats "Ept" ?



Early Pregnancy Test ;)

so we have to send one to every Pro who pays the $75, or what? :D

Convince them it is needed.



The reason why most organizations do not have majority votes to decide whether or not to raise dues is the near impossibility of convincing members to do such a thing, under any circumstances. That's why there are such things as representational governance. You have wise people, with the best interest of the PDGA at heart, who make such decisions on behalf of the membership. (If not, then why have a board at all? Let's go completely anarchic? All decisions made by the number of pro and con DISCussion board posts?)



Terry - are you naive enough to think that James needs a condescending lecture on representative government?! Even to me who is not nearly as smart or experienced or mature as you; I knew what James meant.....and he was not advocating having general membership votes on all paltry decisions (like the words you are trying to put in his mouth).

He was advocating explaining to membership what is going on behind the scenes so that when a decision is made, even if they do not personally like it, they will understand it.

He is advocating treating the membership like mature adults. Is that so hard for you to understand? (I think I already know the answer to that rhetorical question....)

another reason might be lack of clarity in the mission and value statement, and the need for a better value proposition that makes it clear why the dues, however much they are, represent real value.

who was on the BoD when the dues increase was decided? if the Members are unclear, should new Directors be restrained from discussing it? there is a difference between honest discussion and simply trying to manufacture flaws in the discussers or trying to derail honest dscourse.

James is right... if he is trying to decide what he should do, then presumably so are other people. that means we need to do better at demonstrating the value of the membership. no big deal, no skies are falling, no slam on former or present Directors.... we just need to do better at describing the value the organization offers.

Perhaps I misunderstood "convince?" I guess it means: "explaining to membership what is going on behind the scenes so that when a decision is made, even if they do not personally like it, they will understand it."

In that case, nice idea. I hope we all understand that does not equate with satisfying the handful of folks who spend a lot of time on DISCussion.

Personally, I think the membership is "convinced" and that renewals and new memberships will work out fine. Anyone who doesn't agree is welcome to spend time persuading members to renew and nonmembers to join. Sounds like a good use of time, to me.

I didn't even think about it when I just renewed at $175.

I prolly will not play any A-tier next year. (I hope to though)

I will not play enough to justify being current.

I look at is as sponsorship to the PDGA, the governing body of the sport I love.

whats "Ept" ?



Opposite of "inept"?

Thanks - that was very ruth of you to let us in on that. :D

I didn't even think about it when I just renewed at $175. I prolly will not play any A-tier next year. (I hope to though) I will not play enough to justify being current. I look at is as sponsorship to the PDGA, the governing body of the sport I love.



Amen. Only difference between you and me on that is that I do intend to compete at as many big tournaments next year as I can, since on January 1, I will officially be a Senior Grand Master and will be gearing up for Worlds in Wisconsin.

I will officially be a Senior Grand Master and will be gearing up for Worlds in Wisconsin.




Both?

Yep. Got a head start on gearing up, just bought six soft Challengers at lunch. Daily putting begins tonight.

James is right... if he is trying to decide what he should do, then presumably so are other people. that means we need to do better at demonstrating the value of the membership. no big deal, no skies are falling, no slam on former or present Directors.... we just need to do better at describing the value the organization offers.



BINGO! Even before I started asking (as yet unanswered) questions about why DGWN seems to be an irrevocable membership "benefit" instead of an option, I had already taken a long hard look at my finances and decided, regretfully, that while I would renew my membership this year, I will no longer pledge as an Ace Club member.

If at some future point the organization adopts a policy of more fiscal transparency I will reconsider.

I would also like to put my oar in the water to request that we, as a forum, try to refrain from kneejerk attacks on earnest posters rather than addressing their arguement on its merits.

My Ace club membership is also considered sponsorship for the PDGA. But if asked to justify the cost to someone that doesn't see it the same way, I would be fairly hard pressed to come up with tangible rewards equal in value to the cost. I am a strong supporter and elected representitive of the PDGA, and it would be nice if I had a clear listing of what makes it a bargain to belong besides "membership has it's privileges".

It sounds good until they ask what the membership privileges are.

Even on our website, it does not tell you "why" you should join, just "how" you can join.

You get a $5 discount on Sanctioned events,
You get a free subscription to the magazine,
You get a player rating (if you compete in a division large enough to generate ratings),
You get a lifetime PDGA number, disc, and mini,
You get posting access to the PDGA DISCussion board,
You get the satisfaction of knowing you are supporting the growth of the sport.

What am I missing ?

Points.
Ability to play in the most prestigious events.
Voting of board members.
Polls on hot issues.

What else?

try to refrain from kneejerk attacks on earnest posters rather than addressing their arguement on its merits.



Couldn't agree more.

(1)
You get a $5 discount on Sanctioned events.
You get a free subscription to the magazine.
You get a player rating (if you compete in a division large enough to generate ratings)
You get a lifetime PDGA number, disc, and mini.
You get posting access to the PDGA DISCussion board.
You get the satisfaction of knowing you are supporting the growth of the sport.
(2)
Points.
Ability to play in the most prestigious events.
Voting of board members.
Polls on hot issues.
(3)
Course directory.
Course evaluations.
Competition/scoring archives.
Rules.
Technical specs and standards.
National Tour.
700+ sanctioned events, worldwide.
Worlds invites.
International Disc Golf Center.
PDGA Radio News.
PDGA Member News.

All valid points, but membership is not required for all that are listed.


Points.
Ability to play in the most prestigious events.
Voting of board members.
Polls on hot issues.
------------------------
DISCussion. <font color="blue">(membership only needed to post)</font>
Ratings.
Course directory. <font color="blue">(membership not required)</font>
Competition/scoring archives. <font color="blue">(membership not required * )</font>
Rules. <font color="blue">(membership not required)</font>
Technical specs and standards. <font color="blue">(membership not required)</font>
Disc Golf World. <font color="blue">(membership not required)</font>
National Tour.
700+ sanctioned events, worldwide.
Worlds invites.
International Disc Golf Center. <font color="blue">(membership not required)</font>
PDGA Radio News. <font color="blue">(membership not required)</font>
PDGA Member News.



* Scores are saved against your name as long as the event was sanctioned. You don't have one page that lists all of your events like a member would, but the events are archived.

(3)
* Course directory.
* Course evaluations.
Competition/scoring archives.
* Rules.
* Technical specs and standards.
** National Tour.
* **700+ sanctioned events, worldwide.
** Worlds invites.
* International Disc Golf Center.
* PDGA Radio News.
* PDGA Member News.



* Not a "sellable" member benefit since non-members have access to these without having to pay membership dues.
** Subset of previously mentioned benefits (but these are good for clarification purposes)

Several of those benefits available to nonmembers are funded by members or donated by members and wouldn't happen without the contributions of members. Yes, members do pay for things that others who play will also benefit from even if they don't join.

Being able to play at the International Center and feel like you belong to something special is soon becoming another benefit.

i really hope no one takes this the wrong way, but what is the purpose of the IDGC? most Members will never see it. i understand that it can be used to as the site of a pdga major, and is a talking point as a "center" for disc golf, but other than that what benefit does it offer?

I've got:

Direct Benefits:
Allowed to play in the most prestigious events.
$5 discount at other Sanctioned events.
Free subscription to the DGW.
Tracked player rating.
Lifetime PDGA number, disc, and mini.
Posting access to the PDGA DISCussion board.
Voting of board members.
Polls on hot issues.

Indirect Benefits:
(to the public because of membership support)
Course directory.
Course evaluations.
Competition/scoring archives.
Rules.
Technical specs and standards.
International Disc Golf Center.
PDGA Radio News.
PDGA Member News.

Permanent HQ address that's not in someone's home
Permanent location for Hall of Fame that is not roving in someone's pickup
Permanent location for Steady Ed museum for history of the sport.
Permanent location for an educational facility
Less costly place to host Summit meetings
Tournament facility with multiple courses on one site. Not necessarily unique but likely better quality than most.

Remember that the majority has been paid for by the county who wanted our presence to the tune of (I believe) $1MM plus the use of the land.

i think a great way for the PDGA to raise money -- perhaps at the summit -- would be dunking tanks with $5 for three throws
(maybe we could use discs instead of balls).

suggested high-revenue generating candidates:

Terry Calhoun
Theo Pozzy
Brian Graham

they'd have to volunteer though :p

Of course then, they would get their chance to have a member of their choice sit in the chair so they could spend a few of their $5 bills! :D

i really hope no one takes this the wrong way, but what is the purpose of the IDGC? most Members will never see it.



Are you kidding? I'm willing to bet many members, myself included, will be road-tripping there as soon as all 54 poleholes are in the ground!

i understand that it can be used to as the site of a pdga major, and is a talking point as a "center" for disc golf, but other than that what benefit does it offer?



How about three world class disc golf courses on one site, that isn't 4 hours from the nearest major airport and under ice 6 months out of the year! :D

Of course then, they would get their chance to have a member of their choice sit in the chair so they could spend a few of their $5 bills! :D



bring it on! :D

i really hope no one takes this the wrong way, but what is the purpose of the IDGC? most Members will never see it.



Are you kidding? I'm willing to bet many members, myself included, will be road-tripping there as soon as all 54 poleholes are in the ground!



i believe Pat meant most members not some -- if 10% visit that would be nice, but 90% may never see it. not saying we shouldn't support it -- just looking at whether the majority of dues paying members are the beneficiaries of the expenditure... i suppose if it can be used to promote disc golf and secure corporate sponsorship it is a good investment...

How about three world class disc golf courses on one site, that isn't 4 hours from the nearest major airport and under ice 6 months out of the year!



But when it counts for Worlds, who has the better weather? :D

(I guess we'll find out in 7 months)

OK, at the risk of being a bore, I will ask again ...

Is DGWN the official publication of the PDGA? I see the seal on the cover but I see nothing in the masthead that would so indicate.

The listed cost of the magazine is $18 anually (plus $3 per issue for first class postage). Does the PDGA pay $30 per member to Disc Golf World for this benefit?

Certainly I would much rather this benefit was optional. If it was I would forego the magazine and send the money directly to the PDGA for other programs. In this age of e-commerce why could membership benefits not be parsed so that members could support the benefits that they felt truly benefitted them personally? I would certainly rather send $30 to the IDGC than Disc Golf World.

I also inquired about the line items "fulfillment services" and "other member benefits" on the form filed with the IRS. Is the organization really spending that much to fulfill benefits? If so, what is the breakdown? And what is "ratings processing" and how much do we spend on that?

Thanks.

i think a great way for the PDGA to raise money -- perhaps at the summit -- would be dunking tanks with $5 for three throws
(maybe we could use discs instead of balls).

suggested high-revenue generating candidates:

Terry Calhoun
Theo Pozzy
Brian Graham

they'd have to volunteer though :p



I'm not quite sure how or why I made your distinguished list but I'd gladly volunteer if it would raise money for disc golf. :D

The PDGA pages are in DGW because they bid for it. Other pubs could bid to host the PDGA pages but the Board has chosen DGW as the best value for members. Overall, members get a better magazine value for the dollars spent compared with hiring an editor and doing it in house with a small B&W newsletter. It looks like at least half the annual cost is postage and PDGA does not pay DGW $18 per member for the subscription. One way or another, the PDGA needs a media outlet available to communicate with all members and the internet isn't sufficient. It may even be required by Colorado law for membership orgs. So, I would expect to pay for some form of printed publication even if it's not DGW at some point.

Fulfillment is all of the printing and mailing of renewal and member packets throughout the year plus other mailings like invites and info inquiries. That's also put out for bid and Breiner has won that a few times. Not sure if that also includes storage and shipping of PDGA products for sale and other items might be in there. He also hosts the online PDGA Worlds registrations but I don't know whether that expense is in fulfillment or a different budget.

Convince them it is needed.


The reason why most organizations do not have majority votes to decide whether or not to raise dues is the near impossibility of convincing members to do such a thing, under any circumstances.



Kinda like getting the BoD to vote for limited terms eh?

Kinda like getting the BoD to vote for limited terms eh?



No, much tougher than that. The board already did that once and would (probably) gladly do it again.

As I have repeatedly pointed out here, when the board had the opportunity to either shorten or lengthen its current terms of office by six months, it voted to *shorten* its terms of office. That included me, who, if I hadn't done so, would still be on the board.

If it had ever come up to put term limits, say two consecutive terms, on board positions, I and probably the majority, would have voted for it. The problem has been in getting anyone to run, not keeping people from staying on forever.

I know it's not fun to let "facts" get in the way folks, but sometimes it's a good idea.

Well why is it that the BoD can with a majority vote allow themselves to stay in office indefinantly? Shouldn't a term limit be enacted and if nobody runs against them then they can retain thier office.

If a term limit is placed in the bylaws, what happens if no one runs that's still allowed to? That's already happened where there were Board vacancies. That's a little too risky for responsible management. That's not to say that maybe at some point we would have enough people running that it could be a good policy down the road. However, it's not like an incumbent has a particular fundraising or high profile advantage like being on TV, especially when some of our Board members are not known well. I'm not sure too many outside Kansas could pick out Bob Decker in a crowd. He's a tall, skinny guy about 30 years old, right? :D

didn't Bruce research it and find that Colorado law declares that if the bylaws don't specify term lengths and when elections take place the default term lengths are 1 year and a new election must occur each year :confused:

If a term limit is placed in the bylaws, what happens if no one runs that's still allowed to? That's already happened where there were Board vacancies. That's a little too risky for responsible management. That's not to say that maybe at some point we would have enough people running that it could be a good policy down the road. However, it's not like an incumbent has a particular fundraising or high profile advantage like being on TV, especially when some of our Board members are not known well. I'm not sure too many outside Kansas could pick out Bob Decker in a crowd. He's a tall, skinny guy about 30 years old, right? :D



They would retain the office until the next election. I'm pretty sure I said that in the previous post.

didn't Bruce research it and find that Colorado law declares that if the bylaws don't specify term lengths and when elections take place the default term lengths are 1 year and a new election must occur each year :confused:



Well, golly gee, if Bruce said something like that, then it must be so. No matter how you, sort of, exactly, put it.

Maybe I'll run for election next year if all seven board members' terms are up.

&lt;shudder!&gt;Anyone want a haircut?&lt;/shudder!&gt;

But what if they didn't want to because they were expecting to not be on the Board due to term limits? Then you have a vacuum. Term limits lower the overall quality of leadership when lesser qualified candidates replace higher qualified and more experienced Board members because they have to leave. The replacement gets in no matter their qualifications. Of course, that's the case currently since just about anyone can get on the Board. Interestingly, it seems like only highly qualified candidates actually run. Must be because it's not easy and there's no monetary reward, just intangible satisfaction by making contributions.

(Mikey must be chomping at the bit to post about now :eek:)

OK I have a point that I like to use to justify paying for a tourney entry fee and I think it applies here as well but I have to admit that I am an Am so it doesn't effect me as much. I would prefer if nothing ever went up of course as we all would. But when I look at the fact that most of the rounds that I pay are FREE I consider the small fee that I pay once a year a pretty good bargain. I played four rounds on three courses for absolutely no money. And when you look at the cost this would have cost to play our ball golf cousin this alone would have cost about $100 on cheap courses. I know that when i go to a tourney I am going to probably finish last but the entry fee for four organized rounds with usually great people is also usually cheaper than one casual round of ball golf I still think this to be a good value. This sport is almost growing exponentially and I am glad to have an organization that I feel will help guide in this growth.

Continue to follow the force, Robert. Your annual PDGA membership DOES cost less than one tank of gasoline, no matter what the dark side wants you to think.

Well, golly gee, if Bruce said something like that, then it must be so. No matter how you, sort of, exactly, put it.

Maybe I'll run for election next year if all seven board members' terms are up.

<shudder!>Anyone want a haircut?</shudder!>



Terry, thanks for taking the high road -- per usual /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
does condescension come naturally to you or did you acquire that talent?

I don't know what monstrosity you drive Terry, but no way does it cost $75 to fill my car's tank with gas.

$75 is still a lot of money to me. Sorry if I don't fit the demographic the PDGA is looking to market maybe.

Seventy five bucks(grumble, grumble)

BOB
NJSC

I will admit it is a bit upsetting when we put in a bid which I believe would have gotten the PDGA a better product . . . for less money and we did not win the bid.



This is more than just the appearance of a conflict of interest, it is a public statement of a conflict of interest, and of an intent to continue it.

Let me spell it out: A current board member, whose previous bid to sell something to the PDGA was turned down, thus upsetting him, is using DISCussion to criticize that decision and process.

Which video company to use ought to be a PDGA staff decision, which is not to say that the board might not get involved. Now, just think of a staff person going about making that decision in the future, knowing that this current board member isn't at all above arguing his or her decision out on DISCussion.

Another example of inappropriate use of DISCussion: This time by the person responsible for "final" decisions regarding the appropriate use of DISCussion.

Nice.



I've got to say I agree entirely with Terry. Imagine if we did put in another bid. Imagine being the staffer or BoD member - all of whom I work closely with - that thinks our bid is not the best. It is hard enough telling a stranger they've got spinach in their teeth. Imagine trying to tell a friend or employer that you don't like their bid.

I goofed and should not have said what I said in public.

I also wish I had read this thread earlier.

Thank you Terry for guiding me back to the straight and narrow.

Steve Dodge
Communications Director

PS. And I will work hard to make sure that the next worlds DVD is replicated instead of duplicated.

Speaking of communications, and this renewal fee structure, this is good example of where communication could benefit the BOD. Before you attempt to raise the fees, get out to the membership and alert them. Convince them it is needed. Convince them them pros owe more than ams. Do it well; it will lessen the blow. Instead all we have is Chuck, who is not a board member, giving what he assumes are the reasons.

This whole increase in fees, is just another straw. I'd bet a lot of money that this straw will be enough to force many members out. Personally, I am going through the calculations myself, and the calculations have nothing to do with benefits received. Instead, it is more like: should I play the blackmail. How important are playing Texas States and Worlds to me vs. $75 and the feeling that I am enabling an inept organization. And I generally like the PDGA.



I agree entirely James. IMO, all PDGA members should read the above and hold the PDGA to this type of standard. When we don't meet it. Email you state rep and ask them to complain to the BoD. Or email the BoD directly. The more input the better.

<shudder!>Anyone want a haircut?</shudder!>



Ok, Terry. Isn't it about time you changed your moniker to Terry "the Barber" Calhoun?

Joe

i really hope no one takes this the wrong way, but what is the purpose of the IDGC? most Members will never see it.



We have about 2500 current Pro members, 300 went to the Augusta Worlds. That's 12% and many pros who live in the region didn't play. So while it's probably true that "most" (meaning over 50%) members may never visit the center, it's not like less than 1% won't. With over 500 Ams coming to Worlds there at some point, when we have 10,000 Am members, that will be over 5% of Ams for a single event.

<shudder!>Anyone want a haircut?</shudder!>



Haircuts are for "sissy's" how about a "Necktie"
/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

:D

Terry, thanks for taking the high road -- per usual /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
does condescension come naturally to you or did you acquire that talent?



And attacks of the "When did you stop beating your dog," type, are ok? :D Apparently, condescension is in the eye of the beholder and proportional to the beholder's own feelings of adequacy. There certainly wasn't any at my end. If I felt condescending, I wouldn't post at all. Why bother?

Humor, yes. How can I not laugh at people who are so unready to argue a point and so eager to shut me up that they flail at me through the moderators who, in turn, feel the need to waste volunteer time to "investigate" whether my "haircut" reply to Mikey might have been some kind of "sleeping with the fishes" threat.

The stuff of novels, I tell ya. It's clearer than ever that those who most yell and complain about secret power structures in the PDGA are the same people who actually would do that if they were in control - which is why they project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) it onto the leadership. Sad.

This post is condescending, but only to people who actually thought I had made a physical threat to Mikey. So unless you are [him] one of those, don't let it get to you.

A few days back, Mikey was dogging one of the PDGA's most valuable volunteers, Hall of Famer Chuck Kennedy. Among other things, he said: <font color="red">"Flying you in and out of Augusta to design a course at the IDGC, that's pushing it. They've got plenty of people who would've done that for free." </font>

He also said that Chuck was whining and blackmailing the PDGA. That sort of ticked me off. So I replied: <font color="green"> "So, when you're done calling Chuck a blackmailer and a whiner, Mikey (Hey, moderators, isn't that just a bit over the line?) give me a call and I'll arrange to come down and give you a haircut. After all, why pay for a barber when I'd jump at the chance to do it for free."</font>

Get it? Why pay for course design (by the leader of the Disc Golf Course Designers Club) when you can get it for free. Why pay a (licensed, experienced) barber when you can get a haircut for free.*

If you still don't get it, yes I am feeling condescending, but only to you.

* For the record, I cut my own hair except for maybe once a year.

Rob, Terry is always perfect, just accept it. Its easier than worrying about it.

When you are accused of physically threatening someone and you can prove that you did not, just how does that equate to being "perfect," Pat?

I would call that "unscathed." :cool:

Terry, please start posting from a non-Administrator account. all moderators should have two accounts, one for moderating and one for discussing (and ignoring).

thank you.

I have only one account, Pat, d'oh, regardless of how many you prescribe for me.

I presume that someone with access to the right tools can make it a non-administrator account. That would be great. It has been pretty tempting :cool:

If I were you, this is where I might criticize the PDGA power structure for giving me administrator access when I shouldn't have it any longer.

Me, I just figure folks are busy and they'll get around to it, since I certainly have never misused it.

I have only one account, Pat, d'oh, regardless of how many you prescribe for me.

lots of people have more than one account, Terry. its a common thing. i did not prescribe anything to you. i wished that you would get another account and stop posting with your Admin account since it cannopt be ignored. thanks again for putting words in my mouth.


I presume that someone with access to the right tools can make it a non-administrator account. That would be great. It has been pretty tempting

well, i do have access, and since you asked, i revoked your admin rights for that account. now you can continue to have ony one account.


If I were you, this is where I might criticize the PDGA power structure for giving me administrator access when I shouldn't have it any longer

how do you know what you would do if you were me? the very premise is absurd... you cant be me, and you know very little about me. one comes across as rather arrogant when one assumes one knows how someone else would react to anything.

are you denying that you have access to every Board document via the Yahoo Board group even after your Directorship expired? and that while you had that access, which included the very budget files that would answer virtually every finance question people are asking btw, you demonized people including me, for merely saying something about a meeting? how do you think it sounds that you had access to next years proposed Budget while no other Member was allowed that same access?


Me, I just figure folks are busy and they'll get around to it, since I certainly have never misused it.

way to proactively stand up for what is right.

It is very obvious that Terry is criticizing and fault finding every move that Pat and Steve make. I would expect more from some one who constantly preaches on this board to respect our volunteers. Just because people do things in a different doesn't mean it is wrong. I am tired of reading the constant bickering from Terry Calhoon toward our new BOD members. It is starting to smell like sour grapes in every post he makes. Some credibility has been lost.

I can't put words into Terrys mouth, but I think he is trying to get those new BOD member to realize what they are doing now.

Truely I think Steve is getting it. I am starting to see leadership in is posts more than before he was a member of the BOD.

On the other hand, I see Pat doing the same old same old. He is not acting like a BOD member should.

I am not saying he should not post, he only need to read what he posts.

Now that Terry is no longer a BOD member, he can say what ever he likes. (However, he is a former BOD member and still has the responsibility to watch what he posts)

So far I am glad Steve is on the BOD, but the question remains about Pat. I like Pat as a friend, but I wonder if he is going to be an asset or liability for the PDGA. This is why I voted for "anyone else". Please prove me wrong Pat.

I know, Rob, I have lost some credibility. A necessary sacrifice, I think, even when it hurts, and it does. Sour grapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes), BTW, means something else. Check it out. Deep concern is more appropriate.

I am not criticizing everything that Pat or Steve post, not by a long shot. But when they post something that I think harms the PDGA, or is factually wrong, or criticizes me or someone else who works hard for the PDGA, I am sharing my opinion about that. (As I do about positive things, does someone else want to dig up my positive post about Steve's changes to the newsletter, or should I ask him for permission to share with DISCussion my congratulatory email to him about the changes?)

As for the nonsensical charges laid by Pat above, yes, I do deny them. And he already knows that, so it was a rhetorical question misleadingly posed as a real one.

PizzaGod, thanks, I know I've been harsh, but those are my concerns. And, since there is no secret PDGA power structure, all I have are my words, posted here. Quite inadequate.

A PDGA board member should invite feedback and comment, I sure did, but should not him or her self lead or invite public criticism of the PDGA outside the context of wider feedback and commentary. No harm in inviting comments and feedback, but to urge negative postings about what's wrong the PDGA, or to support the postings of those who criticize valuable PDGA volunteers, is simply not appropriate behavior for a current PDGA board member.

My opinion, yeah, and I have a right to state it. But I sure do not enjoy losing all that social capital I had built up. Nor do I admire the relative handful of people who now know me only from these recent postings.

I'd like to stop. But when I see a board member behave in a way that I think is negative for the PDGA, I will comment on it. Likewise, if I see solid PDGA volunteers and staff criticized, or negative statements about the PDGA, I will respond to those as well.

If I don't, experience has shown that it's likely that no one will. Or if they do they will be so harshly criticized, themselves, that they will not persist. And that's one of the really big problems with DISCussion.

Personally, I think Terry is approaching Mikey Kernan territory. Just like Mikey once had a point, so did Terry. And like Mikey, Terry continues to beat and beat and beat and beat and beat that point ad nauseam until most of those who understood and agreed with Terry either don't care or now disagree because he won't let it go (or take it to private discussions).

Two wrongs don't make a right. And neither does constant harping.

As for the nonsensical charges laid by Pat above, yes, I do deny them.



do you, Terry Calhoun, deny that you had access to the Yahoo PDGA BoD Discussion Board, all of the documents posted there, including PDGA Budget files, and all of the priviledged conversations between Directors, after your Director term expired through at least November 16, 2006?

Hello, read the above.

Yep. I do. You have told me that I did, but I have no other reason to think so except your words. Excuse my doubt! :cool:

Hello, read the above.

Yep. I do. You have told me that I did, but I have no other reason to think so except your words. Excuse my doubt! :cool:



since you doubt the words of a solid PDGA volunteer, how about a screen shot (http://www.earthoffice.net/pdga/page_2_PDGABoard_YahooGroup.jpg) to jar your memory.

Your point? Other than revealing my Yahoo! identity, which I think it would have been nice of you to hide.

We've talked about this and you know my response, but you want to tease it out for entertainment.

Pat thinks that I connived to get board correspondence and documents after I left the board at the end of August.

While I don't doubt that it is possible that my identity remained in that account after September 1 - I mean, it was just today that the PDGA remembered to remove my "administrator" privileges here, even though I haven't had that role since May of 2006 - Pat's word for that, even with a possibly doctored image, means little to me.

Mostly because I don't care. A few days before my term was up I filtered out any information coming from that group because I didn't want to be bothered by it. It's not my business, and let me re-state that I do not believe Pat, if it wasn't changed.

Just like I never used the administrator privileges here, which I agree and which was blatantly obvious to anyone who saw the red lettering in my posts, when I shouldn't, I would never use alleged access to documents I should not have.

So, yawn.

some things you need to figure out for yourself. you will be a stronger man if you succeed.

"Pat thinks that I connived to get board correspondence " - when will you ever stop putting words in my mouth? you appear deliberately antagonistic towards me.

"even with a possibly doctored image" - now that is a conspiracy theory for sure.

I wonder about the authenticity of Terry's words when he goes out of his way to ban (I mean suspend) a PDGA member who holds a position within the PDGA. Surely he (the suspended) is a tremendous asset for the sport of disc golf, even if he does not agree with and/or criticize the current actions (and in-actions) of the PDGA. Regardless Terry calls him out and (successfully) calls for his suspension.

NFG in my opinion..

Frederick Doot (#27259)

I wonder about the authenticity of Terry's words when he goes out of his way to ban (I mean suspend) a PDGA member who holds a position within the PDGA. Surely he (the suspended) is a tremendous asset for the sport of disc golf, even if he does not agree with and/or criticize the current actions (and in-actions) of the PDGA. Regardless Terry calls him out and (successfully) calls for his suspension.



Frederick, I'm gonna ignore the first half of that and assume that what you really meant was the second part? Since after you say that I suspended someone you then seem to realize that I don't have that power and it was someone else who did it. Hint: Next time, when you get the second sentence correct, remove the first one, that leaves less dissonance. And it makes replying a lot easier.

*If* you are talking about Mikey Kernan's being suspended, you must know that anyone on DISCussion can ask for the suspension of someone's posting privileges for reasons that the moderators are there to judge.

Mikey called one of the PDGA's most valuable volunteers a blackmailer, a whiner, and other things, as well as disparaged that person's contributions - which are on an order of magnitude well beyond Mikey's or mine - to disc golf over the years.

So, maybe I asked the moderators to consider if those were personal attacks. They decided, based on someone's similar request, that they were.

That calls into question "the authenticity of my words" how? Not in any rational or logical way that I can determine. Want to try again? It's not the topic of this thread, but I'm happy to read your words whenever I can.

P.S. Note the "sig": You can also email, IM, or call me. You'd get everything out of that that you get in DISCussion except for thinking you're going to make me look bad in public.

The stuff of novels, I tell ya. It's clearer than ever that those who most yell and complain about secret power structures in the PDGA are the same people who actually would do that if they were in control - which is why they project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) it onto the leadership. Sad.



Terry, expressing an interest in the type of openess that was put in the original Constitution of the PDGA is hardly yelling. Pointing out that there is always the potential for abuse of power is hardly saying that we have a scandal of Savings and Loan proportions going on. And asking that the leadership do a better job of using the DISCussion board as one guage of membership interest and as a way of communicating with the membership and soliciting feedback is hardly a call to govern via DISCussion Board polls.

quit writing your own novels and you'll stop generating copycat crimes

This post is condescending, but only to people who actually thought I had made a physical threat to Mikey. So unless you are [him] one of those, don't let it get to you.

A few days back, Mikey was dogging one of the PDGA's most valuable volunteers, Hall of Famer Chuck Kennedy. Among other things, he said: <font color="red">"Flying you in and out of Augusta to design a course at the IDGC, that's pushing it. They've got plenty of people who would've done that for free." </font>

He also said that Chuck was whining and blackmailing the PDGA. That sort of ticked me off. So I replied: <font color="green"> "So, when you're done calling Chuck a blackmailer and a whiner, Mikey (Hey, moderators, isn't that just a bit over the line?) give me a call and I'll arrange to come down and give you a haircut. After all, why pay for a barber when I'd jump at the chance to do it for free."</font>

Get it? Why pay for course design (by the leader of the Disc Golf Course Designers Club) when you can get it for free. Why pay a (licensed, experienced) barber when you can get a haircut for free.*

If you still don't get it, yes I am feeling condescending, but only to you.

* For the record, I cut my own hair except for maybe once a year.



so you were offering to fly Mikey in for free to give him a haircut? (otherwise wouldn't it be more expensive for him to have you cut his hair and thus make your explanation seem a little hollow ? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif or were you going to fly to Louisiana since Michigan is a little cold this time of year and the sun might do you some good? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Terry, I am fully aware that you do not have the power to suspend anyone from the MB, and as such I refer to your "call for suspension" at the end of my post. I'm sorry if this was not clear to you. I will make more of an effort to type ..slowly..and..clearly.. so there's no dissonance in future posts.

I understand this topic does not fit the forum, but that has not stopped you from 24 posts on this thread (give or take a few, I admit it's subjective) that are reactionary to the drifts and not necessarily pertinent to the thread's title.

My email can be found in my profile ( dooteronomy@yahoo.com ) and I'd be happy to read your words regarding the issue I presented, as well as the confusion you seem to have over my questioning your "authenticity of words."

Contrary to your assumption , I was not referring to Mikey Kernan in my reference to someone you made an effort to suspend, so your second, third and forth paragraphs are irrelevant. Furthermore, I was not trying to make you look bad in public, as you assume . If you knew me better, you would not have to make assumptions about my motive.

I look forward to hearing from you via email to keep this discussion private (as most poo-flinging via the boards should be..)

Kindest Regards,

Frederick Doot, PDGA#27259

Is there anyway the two of you will drop this mutally abusive behavior and retreat to neutral corners ?

for real......back away from the kid stuff

Is there anyway the two of you will drop this mutally abusive behavior and retreat to neutral corners ?



A voice of reason. I'm disappointed with the behaviour displayed by Pat and Terry. IMO, a demotion in stature for both of them.

so you were offering to fly Mikey in for free to give him a haircut? (otherwise wouldn't it be more expensive for him to have you cut his hair and thus make your explanation seem a little hollow ? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif or were you going to fly to Louisiana since Michigan is a little cold this time of year and the sun might do you some good? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Fly to NO, of course, d'oh! Love that place. And obviously got a severe case of SADD going on.

Oh, and let me say for the record that I was never a SEAL. I was a member of Underwater Demolition Team 13 at about the time the SEALS were first making waves and a lot of my buddies became SEALS. I got out! Those guys patrol the Web nowadays looking for people pretending to be SEALs who weren't, and I would not want them looking for me.

Terry, i tried PM'ing you with a request that you please post using one of your non-moderator accounts, or have the moderator status removed from the "Terry_the_Pirate_Calhoun" name, but got no response yet. moderators cannot be ignored, and it has been the standard operating procedure for moderators to use their other accounts for normal posting.

thanks.

pat

For one, Terry isn't displaying the little "M" beside his name, his name is just in green. And he has no permissions for any of this board.

Secondly, I only have one account. I use it for moderating and posting both. I believe the same goes for Steve Dodge. If I had a second account, I would probably use it, although I don't really post that much.

-Alan

A voice of reason. I'm disappointed with the behaviour displayed by Pat and Terry. IMO, a demotion in stature for both of them.

i'm disappointed with myself sometimes too, especially when frustrated. the ability to "ignore" is the medicine i need, and hopefully that will soon arrive.

in the meantime:

1. the 990s are now posted (progress in the right direction);
2. Directors are required to complete a Conflict of Interest Disclosure form annually (mine is submitted);
3. Transition plans for both ED and Directors are Action Items for the BoD;
4. A new process for approving and publishing minutes more quickly is in place

all of those items required initiative and consensus from the Board and staff.

any frustration i express on here is not directed at the pdga or the BoD, and is not preventing the Board from taking steps in a very positive direction. there is still a lot of progress to be made, and it may not be as fast as some would wish, but it is moving along nicely.

hey Alan, that cool... but why is there no "ignore this user" when you click on that username? i cant figure that one out, just figured it was cuz he was a moderator, since, moderator usernames are green.

Gotta go with Gary, Vinnie and Mike on this one.

Terry, i tried PM'ing you with a request that you please post using one of your non-moderator accounts, or have the moderator status removed from the "Terry_the_Pirate_Calhoun" name, but got no response yet. moderators cannot be ignored, and it has been the standard operating procedure for moderators to use their other accounts for normal posting.

thanks.

pat



I just responded, Pat. For the record, I thoroughly dislike PMs as an added communication venue to all of the others I have, and I rarely* go look at them. My other communications methods, see my "sig", will almost always reach me sooner.

* Rarely is relative. I check email every 2-3 minutes during the work day and might only check PMs once every day or two.

terry, i was able to figure out where the problem is. your "Terry_the_Pirate_Calhoun" account is a moderator of the PDGA Course Evaluation Program thread.

your other accounts, "spotter" and "thepirate" could be used, or moderator status removed from the "Terry_the_Pirate_Calhoun" account is thats easier.

the message board has gone thru this before. both Nick and I were asked to have an account for posting that was seperate from the account for moderating. if you dont want to moderate anymore, lemme know and i can get it changed for you.

thanks,

pat

For one, Terry isn't displaying the little "M" beside his name, his name is just in green. And he has no permissions for any of this board.

-Alan

hey alan, the M shows up only on the therad you actually moderate (i think). terry IS a moderator for the "PDGA Course Evaluation Program" thread, thats why the ignore button is not present

Pat,

Terry has indicated that he wants to continue using the name he has, and would like his moderator status removed. Can you do so? Thanks.

yes, i can, and did, as requested.

thank you, kind sirs!

let me say for the record that I was never a SEAL. I was a member of Underwater Demolition Team 13 at about the time the SEALS were first making waves and a lot of my buddies became SEALS. I got out! Those guys patrol the Web nowadays looking for people pretending to be SEALs who weren't, and I would not want them looking for me.



yeah, in that same vein, you probably wouldn't want them hearing you talk about "haircuts" either...

there might also be some long haired hippie freaks who will stage a sit-in on your front lawn too if you keep up the haircut crap. ;)

Just renewed....$75/year is expensive.

It's one month of just one heart drug that helps keep me alive.

Just renewed....$75/year is expensive.



thank goodness i renewed in early November and got the $55 old school charge for dues. $75 is 3 tanks of gas for me (2003 Saturn Ion), but for some it is just one tank of gas.

maybe we'll have to offer a "student" membership to help attract future members and leaders. when i was in junior high, high school, and college -- $75 was a LOT of money.
unfortunately for me it still is /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

$55 was not that bad, but I agree, a $20 increase for most is a little high. (of course i paid $175 though)

yeah -- and if it seems a little high to the owner of a Pizza business, what about the workers there? i feel we should price to reel members in. it would probably be better to raise per event fees a dollar and take in more revenue that way because at least an extra dollar a pop is easier to cough up for people living from paycheck to paycheck (perhaps a sizeable portion of our membership... ?)

At the last rate increase i almost didn't renew the $100 "birdie club" member. At $125 this year it was an easy choice. Nope. Especially since my pdga events only total 5-8 events a year.

I'll find value in the cost...but I wonder what the uninitiated will decide?

As Sally Struthers used to say for only $0.14 a day (ams) or $0.21 (pros) you too can make a difference in the life of a disc golfer. :D

http://www.beingdaddy.com/archives/sally2.gif

It could be because of my current state of mind but that may be the funniest picture I have ever seen. But what worries me is how fast you found that picture from my statement. Please tell me you are not a Struthers Stalker (good name for a band) :D.

Minutes from December 6, 2006 (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2006-12-06BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf)

Minutes Directory (http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php)

From the latest PDGA Member News:

Working together, here is a synopsis of what the PDGA Board of Directors, staff, volunteers, TD�s, and members achieved together:

* 18% growth in current PDGA memberships

* Record numbers of PDGA Tour sanctioned events and Pro, Amateur, and Junior event participants.

* Our in-house marketing capabilities and results grew, including the securing of sponsorships with Microtel Inn & Suites, Sierra Nevada Brewery, and Green Mountain Beverage. Reflecting the growth of the sport, Bite Shoes launched the first line of shoes made specifically for disc golf.

* Many visitors were welcomed to the IDGC, the association�s permanent headquarters in Wildwood Park, Columbia County, Georgia. The Ed Headrick Memorial Course is now playable. Construction of the building will be completed in early 2007.

* The outstanding collaboration between the PDGA and the host teams in Tulsa and Augusta resulted in highly successful 2006 Am and Pro World Championships.

* The PDGA�s International Program expanded to 15 overseas countries and the inaugural PDGA EuroTour and European Open were held. There are now more than 600 current members in Europe Japan and Australasia.

* Once again an active and committed leadership stayed within budget. A set of new organizational by-laws were approved by the membership, enabling the governance of the association to remain effective and efficient.

* A Women�s Directory was published,helping female disc golfers stay in touch all over the world

* Our websites www.pdga.com (http://www.pdga.com) and www.pdgatour.com (http://www.pdgatour.com) were updated more frequently than ever before keeping members informed with tournament coverage and player stats. Our in house photography capability led to the creation of online galleries and photo archives.

* PDGA promotional material was distributed to thousands of people

* Demonstrations were given bringing the sport to hundreds of people in the Augusta area and beyond.

* Addie Isbell joined the PDGA staff. As the newest member of the team she will ensure, among her many other duties, that all member requests are addressed in a timely fashion.

Thanks to the PDGA Board for this great new standard of getting Board Minutes out to the constituents in a timely fashion.

Happy Holidays to the disc golf family..............

dito.....Thanks PDGA BOD and staff for another great year in the organization!