i will be running for re-election to the PDGA Board of Directors this year.

i'll write more here soon, but i'd like to just mention a couple items quickly now. my first term has been full of surprises, including a realization of just how time-consuming this job is to do well. its been a learning process that continues to this day, both regarding the workings of the association and the practical aspects of serving on the PDGA Board.

there have been some accomplishments, some failures, and some business still to be done. our Board has jelled considerably over the last two years. sure, some of our discussions are vehement and passionate. but that is as it should be; as one would hope. i cannot speak for all Directors, but i am convinced that we all feel very positive about our ability to work together while serving the interests of the Association.

i am greatly encouraged by the recent direction of our conversations. several concepts that i believe are vital to our long term success are gaining momentum. these include positioning the PDGA as an "enabler" of the industry rather than as "vendor" to it, realignments and reductions to our Membership fee structure, invigorating the entrepreneurs in our sport to develop and launch new products and services, and a general review of and recommittment to our fundamental mission.

i truly believe that our opportunities have never been better, bigger, or more immediate. having the right slate of Directors is especially crucial at this time. i have a lot left to offer and a lot more to accomplish. by running, i am asking the Membership to allow me to continue to work with our Board, Staff, Volunteers, and all stakeholders in our sport. i cannot gaurantee i will make all of you happy all of the time. i can gaurantee that my actions as a Director will be based on the best available and broadest input possible, and that my decisions will be motivated by nothing other than the advancement of our sport and the fulfillment of our mission. i am asking you to offer me the opportunity to continue representing you throughout this journey.

please feel free to comment on any topic or ask any question related to my candidacy here or by PM or email.

thanks!

i will be running for re-election to the PDGA Board of Directors this year.

i'll write more here soon, but i'd like to just mention a couple items quickly now. my first term has been full of surprises, including a realization of just how time-consuming this job is to do well. its been a learning process that continues to this day, both regarding the workings of the association and the practical aspects of serving on the PDGA Board.

there have been some accomplishments, some failures, and some business still to be done. our Board has jelled considerably over the last two years. sure, some of our discussions are vehement and passionate. but that is as it should be; as one would hope. i cannot speak for all Directors, but i am convinced that we all feel very positive about our ability to work together while serving the interests of the Association.

i am greatly encouraged by the recent direction of our conversations. several concepts that i believe are vital to our long term success are gaining momentum. these include positioning the PDGA as an "enabler" of the industry rather than as "vendor" to it, realignments and reductions to our Membership fee structure, invigorating the entrepreneurs in our sport to develop and launch new products and services, and a general review of and recommittment to our fundamental mission.

i truly believe that our opportunities have never been better, bigger, or more immediate. having the right slate of Directors is especially crucial at this time. i have a lot left to offer and a lot more to accomplish. by running, i am asking the Membership to allow me to continue to work with our Board, Staff, Volunteers, and all stakeholders in our sport. i cannot gaurantee i will make all of you happy all of the time. i can gaurantee that my actions as a Director will be based on the best available and broadest input possible, and that my decisions will be motivated by nothing other than the advancement of our sport and the fulfillment of our mission. i am asking you to offer me the opportunity to continue representing you throughout this journey.

please feel free to comment on any topic or ask any question related to my candidacy here or by PM or email.

thanks!



Bravo Pat, your dedication is appreciated .

When am I going to see the Ke'Ohana invite? My rating is now 10 points higher than your's , so I should be of
some value ... :D

although you can't spell guarantee, you have proven to be a valuable asset to the pDGA BOD, Mr. Brenner.

although we all thought at the beginning you were just another flip-flop Mitt Romney
http://thephoenix.com/secure/uploadedImages/The_Phoenix/News/Talking_Politics/romney-flipflop.jpg
who would say anything to win (kinda like ole Hillary these days)...

http://sameritech.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/1386_thumb.gif

you've actually been true to your word. your dedication to the principles of liberty, sunshine, and minority rights have not gone unnoticed. thank you for your role in bringing the pDGA almost up to credibility.

I hope in your second term you can accomplish the long-needed overhaul of the Rules & Competition Committees. It won't be easy getting rid of Duvall & his Innova cronies...but you know it must be done. It's embarassing that Peter Shive is so far in Duvall's pocket that he's actually resigning so he can re-join Duvall's money machine.

Replacing Duvall with competent leadership dedicated to fair competition based on knowledge and enforcement of the Rules of Play has been too long ignored by the sport's BOD. If Shive's childish, egotistical stunt doesn't reveal his complete lack of character and display once and for all that he's only an Innova yes-man dedicated to keeping the profits of our growing sport in the hands of a few greedy friends of Duvall, nothing does.

[crickets chirping]

yeah, you can't even get arrested around here these days this forum is so dead. so how was China, Pirate? I heard you went there to study Communism in action so you could get the pDGA to hire you as an expert when they go back to their old corrupt ways like when you were on the BOD.

Strangely enough, everywhere he went riots broke out. I thought maybe he was there on behalf of the CIA.

i am greatly encouraged by the recent direction of our conversations. several concepts that i believe are vital to our long term success are gaining momentum. these include positioning the PDGA as an "enabler" of the industry rather than as "vendor" to it, realignments and reductions to our Membership fee structure, invigorating the entrepreneurs in our sport to develop and launch new products and services, and a general review of and recommittment to our fundamental mission.



Could you please expand on what this means, in language for the common person. Please. Concrete examples would be welcome. The language is so amorphous that any reader could say "yes." I'm just saying "huh."

Please comment also on whatever issue Mikey is railing about manufacturers and the BOD. Please explain what he is talking about and state whether whatever he is talking about is important to you.

Thanks in advance.

You want Pat to explain what Mikey is talking about.

Think about that for a moment and then chuckle at your own expense.

Wait,

Didn't someone post that Pat and Mikey were the same person?

james, i will try, hopefully in the next day or so. kinda swamped at the office today.

but it basically has to do with soemthing like this from today's (5/12/08) Wall Street Jounal"

"Project Government 2.0 is based on the assumption that even governments can't fight technologies that give power to the people. "If governments are to ensure their relevance and authority, they must move quickly to meet rising expectations for openness, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency in the public sector," the project outline says."

james, i will try, hopefully in the next day or so. kinda swamped at the office today.

but it basically has to do with soemthing like this from today's (5/12/08) Wall Street Jounal"

"Project Government 2.0 is based on the assumption that even governments can't fight technologies that give power to the people. "If governments are to ensure their relevance and authority, they must move quickly to meet rising expectations for openness, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency in the public sector," the project outline says."



This is sort of counter to the FCC actions trying to control access to the internet allowing providers to give more access to those who pay more thus limiting the voice of the smaller player. While this battle is currently being won by the open access people one never knows.

Also, this project assumes an open and informed public and ignores the reality that most of the public doesn't pay attention and is easily manipulated by small bites of information.

The theory sounds good, but doesn't play out in the real world in quite the way we'd like it to. Nonetheless, openness and accuracy in what government does is good, as opposed to biased opinions... no matter what the source.

james, basically i mean that some of the concepts i support are gaining a modest following, and i am encouraged enough to want to stay on and help them grow deeper roots.

the mission of the pdga: an effort to review and update (if needed) the mission statement is just underway. fulfilling the mission is fundamentally the highest priority of the directors, because it represents the contract between organization and its members. for that reason, i believe most decisions at the Director level should be guided by a current MS. its been a number of years since the last review, and the industry has expanded and changed significantly. members and directors, and perhaps the industry at large, will benefit from a current understanding of where we are headed and what we are all about.

enabler vs. vendor: at last falls summit i presented the argument that the PDGA will accomplish more by enabling others to develop and commercialize services the industry needs. the reasons for this are simple: a motivated and diverse entrepreneurial class will create better services more quickly. the entire sport benefits.

first example, online registration fees. $7.50 to register online for an NT? wow. only in a monopoly. pursuing a monoploy in online registration services by offering special processes to favored vendors really inihibits the growth of legitimate competitors. we need to make it easy for all online registrars to get data to us, rather than trying to make a profit on the transaction.

ok, my first example is theory. this one has already happened. course directories. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/ kicks our buttocks when it comes to online course directories. they have features we just plain dont have the capacity to implement. so, we have a decision - do we fight these guys by making access to our data as difficult as possible? or do we say "wow, you guys rock, lets help each other"? after all, we do have an interest in vibrant, well-done and accurate websites about discgolf. make it easy for them to grow and flourish!

in both these cases, sharing data cooperatively (enabling) is more productive and builds a stronger industry. first of all, we just dont have the manpower to match everything everyone is gonna do. the sport is obviously growing, and not all great ideas are pdga ideas. sharing data freely lets us extend our brand and relevancy. lets grow a forest instead of a monolith.

my optimism comes from recent conversations that indicated increasing support for the enabler approach.

membership fees: i believe the base membership fee should be significantly lower than it is now. like about $20 lets say. i'd like to see a few more types of memberships, and programs to encourage non-players and supporting entities of all sorts to join. there is movement - or at least increased discussion - in this direction. we are nowhere close to a $20 membership i suppose, but some sort of decrease is at least an ongoing conversation now.

How about possibly having a dollar come out of every Pro entry (or every entry) the PDGA takes in and using the money to help out Pro worlds? I mean they always talk about how they want to hit a "$100,000 Purse" and it seems that we have the resources to make this happen and maybe create an event we could publicize.

Mikey, China was fantastic! I got to throw disc golf drives on the Great Wall, Sheila got to hold a baby Panda, we shared a skewer of fried scorpions (crickets were available, too) in Beijing, cruised for 4 days on the Yangtze River (through the locks at the Three Gorges Dam), went into the dig where the terra cotta warriors are, spent the night in a rural farmers' village, visited a sixth grade classroom . . . amazing stuff.

Chengdu, near the epicenter of this week's earthquake, is a vibrant, modern city that was just a lot of fun to visit.

As Bruce alluded, I would claim that we were on the last tourist flight into Tibet on the day that the rioting broke out, and talk about how the sky above Lhasa was filled with clouds of black smoke as we arrived, except that if I did, then Southwick might use someone else's account to post that I made the whole story up. :cool:

Strangest thing, for a disc golfer, was . . . you know how when you drive or ride along the highway you spot areas that would make really great disc golf holes? Well, we had two 5-hour bus rides on highways during the trip and the place is so intensely built-up or under cultivation, that we did not even see one single potential disc golf hole that wasn't already in use for something else! Second strangest, related thing: In the parks, no one walks on the grass. Ever.

Question,

Would you argue that the Board as a whole contributes to these issues or that it is one individual that has pursued them?

Would you argue that a unified Board acting together could be more effective in pursuing these issues than one with disruptive members that pick and chose information to present to the membership, and misrepresent what the Board has done?

Would you argue that dgcoursereview is being successful and that maybe there are other areas where the PDGA could spend their time? BTW - has dgcr asked for our help and if so what kind of help?

Do you really think the governing body of this organization should be enabling commercial interests in our sport and how does that ensure my best interests? My experience is that when government "helps" industry, in general I pay and gain little or less than I could have if the government hadn't enabled business. I'm not sure I agree with this notion. I do like the idea that our sport enables non-profitable elements of this sport in general ways but I'm not sure that's what you're saying.

How about possibly having a dollar come out of every Pro entry (or every entry) the PDGA takes in and using the money to help out Pro worlds? I mean they always talk about how they want to hit a "$100,000 Purse" and it seems that we have the resources to make this happen and maybe create an event we could publicize.



I agree with this except I think the money should go to Am Worlds, given that, as of the last time I checked, there are significantly more Ams in this organization than Pros... :o

Would you argue that a unified Board acting together could be more effective in pursuing these issues than one with disruptive members that pick and chose information to present to the membership, and misrepresent what the Board has done?

i dont believe the two choices are mutually exclusive, so the question is basically unanswerable. further, i am not interested in discussing behaviourial theory of boards here.

xie xie.

membership fees: i believe the base membership fee should be significantly lower than it is now. like about $20 lets say. i'd like to see a few more types of memberships, and programs to encourage non-players and supporting entities of all sorts to join. there is movement - or at least increased discussion - in this direction. we are nowhere close to a $20 membership i suppose, but some sort of decrease is at least an ongoing conversation now.



Do you actually think this will increase membership enough to offset the reduction?

How about possibly having a dollar come out of every Pro entry (or every entry) the PDGA takes in and using the money to help out Pro worlds? I mean they always talk about how they want to hit a "$100,000 Purse" and it seems that we have the resources to make this happen and maybe create an event we could publicize.



I agree with this except I think the money should go to Am Worlds, given that, as of the last time I checked, there are significantly more Ams in this organization than Pros... :o



Maybe with that kind of remark it is the pDGA. Plus Am world already has a way of helping itself out through Merch sales.

tony, no i dont think so. thats why its not a serious proposal(yet). i do believe that it might be possible to structure something like that, but we are nowhere close at this time.

the only data we have in disc golf is from the international market, where dues have been measurably lower and growth rates measurably higher. how much of that formula would transfer to the US is a guess. but at least there are numbers that show if we lose money on memberships we will get a much higher growth rate :)

Terry, how did you go collect those discs that you threw from the wall? i've wanted to throw some every time i am there, but have resisted since i couldnt go retrieve them.

BDH, speaking of representing truthfully, would you care to tell us how much you get from the PDGA each year for your consulting fees? also, if you could, please list the activities you perform for the PDGA in exchange for that money and explain why those activites require compensation while those of countless other volunteers goes unpaid.

Would you argue that a unified Board acting together could be more effective in pursuing these issues than one with disruptive members that pick and chose information to present to the membership, and misrepresent what the Board has done?

i dont believe the two choices are mutually exclusive, so the question is basically unanswerable. further, i am not interested in discussing behaviourial theory of boards here.

xie xie.



I have to disagree with this position. I'm sorry but there is tons of direct evidence that Board relationships and interactions have a profound affect on the success of a business. It's not theory it's reality. Also, the notion that the two are not mutually exclusive is misplaced at best; I mean, beyond the common sense observation that a team with a disruptive member will not be as affective.

we dont have any disruptive members, so i dont really have any idea where you are going with this or why you would bring it up. hopefully this message board can be used for something better than reiterating common sense: "small groups can become ineffective when one or more people are disruptive". people can be disruptive anywhere. the PDGA Board, and this message board, are no exceptions.

Terry, how did you go collect those discs that you threw from the wall? i've wanted to throw some every time i am there, but have resisted since i couldnt go retrieve them.


Why, I am so glad you asked, PDGA board member Pat Brenner.

I threw four drives, not intentionally 'off' the Wall, but using the Great Wall as a fairway. I got lucky and was in bounds for two of them. I doubt that I would have been permitted to do this on one of the touristy sections of the Wall, but we went deep into the mountains to a section that had not been reconstructed and had no other visitors.

As we were climbing up to the section of 'Wild Wall' I threw some drives up the trail and showed our local Wall guide, Leaping Deer, how to throw and gave him a couple of Storms.

Leaping Deer was very happy about this, and was even happier when I told him I would pay him $2 US to recover each disc that went off the Wall. (He was definitely rooting for me to throw OB and was amazed when I hit two on the Wall!) When we left in our Totoya vans to go down to where we had left our bus, he and his buddies were playing catch.

I would counter that constructive conflict is the key to any productive organization, especially ones trying to innovate.

I also think it should be mandatory for the PDGA board members to read The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Dysfunctions-Team-Leadership-Fable/dp/0787960756) by Lencioni. There are some valuable lessons between those covers. I'll be happy to lend my copy to filthy feets once he's re-elected.

I have to admit that I've thought some about Pat's position and have to agree, I can see some real ways the PDGA could enable people to help grow the sport.

1) Sponsor greater positioning on community T.V. Anyone out there have any ideas on a name for this?

2) You could also sponsor other video positioning on the web, and maybe even a PDGA Radio program.

Don't stop me now I'm just gettin' warm on ideas.

3) Oh man what about an Educational program you could call it something like E.D.G.E. for Educational Disc Golf... um Extravaganza - ish something or other. You could even have someone savy, smart, and well informed run it... I know, Yeti Reading would be great!

Boy, what I great idea to have the PGDA play an enabling role in the sport...

I have a vision of what government's role is and frankly it doesn't agree with the one presented here. The government's role is to promote things that the business world won't, to make important things happen that can't otherwise. Whether it's the U.S., my local city government or the PDGA. The idea that the PDGA should do things that will help commercial ventures is anathema to me.

We have found repeatedly that conflicts of interest between government and commercial interests is the end result of government getting involved in such things. Sometimes such interactions are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.

I think Pat's mention of discoursereview is a good one. Why would we sponsor, link or help this organization? Are they the only one out there? Should they not prove themselves and compete against other ventures available? If they are the best and out compete other contenders would we not expect them to achieve support from other areas, say Innova or Discraft? Why would we expect the PDGA to support them?

I suspect that the PDGA got into the business of course cataloging because in the not too distant past there were no viable, affordable tools available to the community to carry out such a service. The PDGA did what government is supposed to do and brought a needed service forward.

Now, such tools are readily available and cheap! Rather than argue that the PDGA should support one such vendor I'd consider one of two positions. A) get out of the business altogether or B) provide a page where any such tool can link so that our membership has multiple options.

If the PDGA still feels a published version is worth it (based on volume of sales) then I might structure a deal with the best of these sites to provide the content to the PDGA.

Terry, how did you go collect those discs that you threw from the wall? i've wanted to throw some every time i am there, but have resisted since i couldnt go retrieve them.


Why, I am so glad you asked, PDGA board member Pat Brenner.

I threw four drives, not intentionally 'off' the Wall, but using the Great Wall as a fairway. I got lucky and was in bounds for two of them. I doubt that I would have been permitted to do this on one of the touristy sections of the Wall, but we went deep into the mountains to a section that had not been reconstructed and had no other visitors.

As we were climbing up to the section of 'Wild Wall' I threw some drives up the trail and showed our local Wall guide, Leaping Deer, how to throw and gave him a couple of Storms.

Leaping Deer was very happy about this, and was even happier when I told him I would pay him $2 US to recover each disc that went off the Wall. (He was definitely rooting for me to throw OB and was amazed when I hit two on the Wall!) When we left in our Totoya vans to go down to where we had left our bus, he and his buddies were playing catch.



Too sweet! Sounds like a sound business plan to me!

we dont have any disruptive members, so i dont really have any idea where you are going with this or why you would bring it up. hopefully this message board can be used for something better than reiterating common sense: "small groups can become ineffective when one or more people are disruptive". people can be disruptive anywhere. the PDGA Board, and this message board, are no exceptions.



Wow! I do believe I'll have to disagree and agree with you all in one post. It is common knowledge, even here, that there have been disruptions in the Board. Perhaps you are posting to the new members who have just come here and are unaware of such?

That the MB can be used disruptively to present false information is an excellent observation! Albeit, a fairly obvious one.

drop it Lyle. you are not going in a positive direction. you wanna talk about negative stuff, PLEASE go elsewhere. be a part of the solution.

call your Board members. ask them if they feel we are functional. report back with current facts instead of conjecture and assumptions. thank you.


now, regarding the course directory questions.

Why would we sponsor, link or help this organization?
i dont wanna sponsor them. i wanna make sure their data is kept up-to-date, thats it.

Are they the only one out there?
no they are not.

Should they not prove themselves and compete against other ventures available?
absolutely.

If they are the best and out compete other contenders would we not expect them to achieve support from other areas, say Innova or Discraft?
sure, why not? altho the question is best asked of the Discraft and Innova marketing departments i spose.

Why would we expect the PDGA to support them?
i want to support them - ANY ALL ONLINE COURSE DIRECTORIES - by making sure they easy access to a data feed. this will keep their sites uptodate and allow them to focus their efforts on productive tasks like better sites - rather than building tools to grab our published data from our webpages. (which they can legally do, yes.)

making sure the PDGA remains the most complete source of data is critical. we can accomplish that best by working with other sites, rather than against them. by enabling the free exchange of data (we'd also get data in exchange for making ours available, btw)

Terry's website is another example. in many ways, especially user-contributed disc golf content, Terry sites is leaps and bounds ahead of the PDGA's. at one point, we were fielding suggestions that retiring Directors be specifically disallowed from starting sites like his due to the perception of him as competitor. i say hogwash to that - Terry's site is the perfect example of the kind of thing we want to encourage!

now, if Terry wanted to develop an event schedule, and wanted to access a data feed of all upcoming PDGA events, then i asay lets empower him to do justthat. empower Titiledisc and anyone else who wishes.

no single entity can do everything the best. we get farther when a lot of folks try and when we help all "tryers" equally.

maybe i am not explaining this well... ?

I would counter that constructive conflict is the key to any productive organization, especially ones trying to innovate.

I also think it should be mandatory for the PDGA board members to read The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Dysfunctions-Team-Leadership-Fable/dp/0787960756) by Lencioni. There are some valuable lessons between those covers. I'll be happy to lend my copy to filthy feets once he's re-elected.



Ah yes, the team mantras, got them extensively in business school! Heard all about the conflict stage of teams and how they come back together. Shark pucky!

Let's set aside the consultants and talk real world for a minute. What is the real outcome of such things? Does your book tell you that? It doesn't take a lot of brains to figure out that one disruptive member can shut down a team, period. Beyond seeing it numerous times, I'm sure a study of non-consultant driven real world behavioral analysis would counter any such non-sense that any team can over come any individual. There are are two kinds of business text out there, those with ideas by experts, and those with facts about real world outcomes. Real world outcomes show clearly that teams have their limitations.

Let's give an example of teams gone awry. BP. This company lived the team mantra, all decisions were driven by teams.

In the past couple of years this company has been one disaster after another. Environmental mistakes , dead employees, you name it. Of course they still run the MS 150 so all is good! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

It turns out the problem is teams. What happened is the team would make a decision, say, let's cut way back on maintenance, saves money, helps the bottom line. That's great, till someone dies. Then when you go back to the team, and well, it's no one's fault. I mean, each member of the team points their finger at someone else. Who gets the sack?

Even back when I was getting my MBA they knew some of the short comings of teams, it was called group think. Beyond that I've seen all kinds of screwy outcomes come out of teams, most often because there was a dominant or disruptive member.

terry, youre lucky. the parts i have been on have been screaming for a disc to fly... huge, glassy winds, lots of elevation... i bet some throws could go 1000+ (and thats in the air - not even rolling a Wheel!!!) . but i've never been out of the way far enough to try it. using the wall as a fairway is classic :)

drop it Lyle. you are not going in a positive direction. you wanna talk about negative stuff, PLEASE go elsewhere. be a part of the solution.

call your Board members. ask them if they feel we are functional. report back with current facts instead of conjecture and assumptions. thank you.



This is a great idea Pat. One problem, just a couple of months ago, before the election season drew near, it seemed you were taking a slightly different position. Now what was that motion the rest of the Board put forward, you know the one you came here to comment on? Perhaps you can remind us? Oh, and if you don't remember, I believe there were comments about the motion being counter to Colorado State law, a position that as I recall didn't pan out...

Now, I like nothing more than polite communication and fair play, but such things should be applicable to all, not just at one person's convenience.

I have a vision of what government's role is and frankly it doesn't agree with the one presented here. The government's role is to promote things that the business world won't, to make important things happen that can't otherwise. Whether it's the U.S., my local city government or the PDGA. The idea that the PDGA should do things that will help commercial ventures is anathema to me.

We have found repeatedly that conflicts of interest between government and commercial interests is the end result of government getting involved in such things. Sometimes such interactions are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.

I think Pat's mention of discoursereview is a good one. Why would we sponsor, link or help this organization? Are they the only one out there? Should they not prove themselves and compete against other ventures available? If they are the best and out compete other contenders would we not expect them to achieve support from other areas, say Innova or Discraft? Why would we expect the PDGA to support them?


IMO, the PDGA should support the businesses that support the PDGA, as a matter of good practice... as long the goal is to further the sport and not simply control it. Many of the PDGA's current practices benefit the PDGA itself and not the sport as a whole. I'm all for a candidate who can see reason in the PDGA becoming an enabler more than a competitor in markets that are already filled with competitors. Course directories and online registration are good examples. The PDGA has to choose how they want to use their control of the sport. They can either promote innovation by promoting competition in the market, or they can try to lock things down so that the PDGA makes the most profit possible.

Of course, as a non-profit, they must spend all the money they make... so we should probably hire someone to find ways to spend all the new profits that we've hired people to find. It's a vicious circle. A board who realizes that the PDGA can be successful without needing huge numbers in the profit/loss columns is a board who can really move this organization forward.

What Pat is talking about when he talks about enablement is the sharing of data. With just a bit of technology, the PDGA could enable a wealth of new services to crop up. Services that benefit the entire sport. Currently, the PDGA sees no value in this as it generates no profit. This is the very root of why we need people like Pat on the board, even if they can be hot-headed and somewhat disruptive at times. We need people who will resist the convention of "make more to spend more". We need people who are genuinely focused on betterment of Disc Golf as a whole. Most of all, we need people who are willing to speak out when they feel that something isn't right. If nobody stirs the pot, this soup is going to get very sour very quickly.

lyle you are being too vague. also, take this to PM or my email at [email protected] there is no gain to be had from us talking about unknown topics here. i honestly do not know what you are referring to. (so many choices :) )

note: if you are simply trying to stir up trouble, PLEASE drop it. call your Directors. ask them how they feel about the current Board. ask them if they feel we are functional. report back with current facts instead of conjecture and assumptions. thank you. dont pick fights and stir up trouble until you do this due diligence.

if there is a lot of concern on the Board, then fine, we'll talk. if not, then you are chasing a shadow at the expense of productive, constructive discussion.

making sure the PDGA remains the most complete source of data is critical. we can accomplish that best by working with other sites, rather than against them. by enabling the free exchange of data (we'd also get data in exchange for making ours available, btw)


I could not agree more.


Terry's website is another example. in many ways, especially user-contributed disc golf content, Terry sites is leaps and bounds ahead of the PDGA's. at one point, we were fielding suggestions that retiring Directors be specifically disallowed from starting sites like his due to the perception of him as competitor. i say hogwash to that - Terry's site is the perfect example of the kind of thing we want to encourage!


I second, and I'd like to add that Terry Calhoun has succeeded in producing a working site that is very close to a concept I envisioned years ago. So close, in fact, that I have completely stopped development of my site and have offered to help in any way possible. DiscgolfersR.us is a fantastic resource and exactly what this sport needs to move it into the modern age and attract players from the current generation. The PDGA could and very much should be a bigger part of that effort.


now, if Terry wanted to develop an event schedule, and wanted to access a data feed of all upcoming PDGA events, then i asay lets empower him to do justthat. empower Titiledisc and anyone else who wishes.


not just titleDISC, but all online vendors should be able to verify membership status, tournament history, ratings, etc... all the data that defines a PDGA member should be available in a programmatic format. It's an extremely simple thing to do. It would cost far less than most of the projects the PDGA spends money on now. And, it would benefit the technology side of our sport infinitely.


no single entity can do everything the best. we get farther when a lot of folks try and when we help all "tryers" equally.

maybe i am not explaining this well... ?


I think you've explained it just fine.

This is why I'm voting for Pat this year. I can't stand the guy and his feet are filthy as all git-out :Dbut if the PDGA is going to grow, they need to move away from profit generation and towards enhancing their value to the sport. I think Pat is helping move things in that direction.

nice book Josh!

for those interested, the 5 dysfunctions are:

#1: Absence of Trust
The fear of being vulnerable with team members prevents
the building of trust within the team.

#2: Fear of Conflict
The desire to preserve artificial harmony stifles the occurrence
of productive, ideological conflict.

#3: Lack of Commitment
The lack of clarity or buy-in prevents team members from
making decisions they will stick to.

#4: Avoidance of Accountability
The need to avoid interpersonal discomfort prevents team
members from holding one another accountable for their
behaviors and performance.

#5: Inattention to Results
The pursuit of individual goals and personal status erodes the
focus on collective success.


the general prescriptions for overcoming each of these dysfunctions and successfully leading a team through them are

1 - Go first!
2 - Mine for Conflict
3 - Force Clarity and Closure
4 - Confront Difficult Issues
5 - Focus on Collective Outcomes

i'll put my actions up against that list of desirable/imperative actions any day.

How about possibly having a dollar come out of every Pro entry (or every entry) the PDGA takes in and using the money to help out Pro worlds? I mean they always talk about how they want to hit a "$100,000 Purse" and it seems that we have the resources to make this happen and maybe create an event we could publicize.



I agree with this except I think the money should go to Am Worlds, given that, as of the last time I checked, there are significantly more Ams in this organization than Pros... :o



Seriously Lyle, everytime I see you post I think you are joking.

Just when I thought stand and deliver and par 60+ requried for every course was the worst ideas you had, you come up with this gem.

Let's think about why we should give that money to ams. First off, I'm assuming you said this simply b/c you are an am and are probably not that good of a player. This also explains why you are infavor of S&D because it increases your chance of competing.

Anyway, back to am worlds getting more money.The PDGA has towns CHOMPING at the bit to host Am Worlds simply b/c of the profit that club / individual makes from Am Worlds. Added cash in the amateur division is laughable since it merely creates more profit for that club or individual. Now I am all for a club making profit, but do we really know where that profit goes?

Also if most people had a choice between increasing the am worlds payout and the pro worlds payout, most logical people would choose pro worlds. The winner of the event will forever be known in the world of disc golf. Whether its Climo bringing home number 13, Barry or Nate being the 2nd person to win 3 or someone reaching the next level in their career by getting that first one, the winner of pro worlds far and beyond trumps the winner of Am Worlds.

Secondly, ams shouldn't receive prizes anyway, so why increase that - but that is a whole different discussion.

That is about all I got, I seriously hope you never have any power in the PDGA (no disrespect) b/c I don't think you have ever presented an idea I was in favor of.

terry, youre lucky. the parts i have been on have been screaming for a disc to fly... huge, glassy winds, lots of elevation... i bet some throws could go 1000+ (and thats in the air - not even rolling a Wheel!!!) . but i've never been out of the way far enough to try it. using the wall as a fairway is classic :)


Actually, the best throw, in terms of memory, was one that missed. The winds took it and it went, and went, and went, and finally ran out of spin and just dropped. What a visual.

Did Terry's trip to China make you all realize the precious gift of Freedom of Speech is too cherished to dismiss? And now you all want to have an intelligent discussion right here on the very pDGA forum that you worked so hard to destroy, like Terry's Communist friends do to their citizens? How ironic indeed!

Lyle, your expertise is boundless. I had no idea you were an expert on British Petroleum's global corporate tyranny. Is there anything else at which you do not excel, besides entertainment? Where, my good chap, do you find the time to be such an expert at everything? Tell me, what is the cure for my hemerrhoids that reading your drivel has caused my bloated gluteus maximus?

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

As for you Brenner...I support your idea to allow automatic updates to course directory websites. But I do not support the idea that our Rules &amp; Competition Committees and our Board of Directors should contain anyone that works for companies doing business with the pDGA, or is sponsored or otherwise on the payroll of businesses like disc manufacturers. To continue to pretend that Innova controlling our Rules Committee does not harm the spirit of objectivity that this important committee must promote, is to continue to encourage those who mock the sport as unprofessional. It also encourages those who say that "the pDGA is little more than a scam to skim money from tournaments and direct it through the pDGA to Innova". How much did the pDGA give to Innova last year? Or how much did we give to Duvall's charities? None of you see the connection of Duvall's post on one of our most crucial committees to the transfer of pDGA wealth to Innova, his company?

None of you are as disgusted as I that Peter Shive would sell his soul for a few scraps of Innova plastic? Or is Harold just the last sacred cow that Terry Calhoun imported from India???

That's Terry Calhoun, #15117, by the way.

I'm logging out now so I will be able to read your responses after they ban me for thinking again.

as i whistle past the graveyard, i impart this link to you, Mr. Brenner:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing11.html

See if you can spot a certain covert-aggressive manipulative personality in relation to the pDGA now, Mr. Brenner. Amazing how well he has manipulated Mr. Shive to do his bidding, is it not? Do not let that southern hillbilly act fool you any longer :) these are the droids you are looking for after all...

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and don't forget to tip your friendly servers out there. It's been a good three month run here and y'all have been a wonderful audience.

some of you have asked what i'm thinking in general. i offer this swot analysis as a general guide. i wrote it last fall for the Summit and the kaleidescope has shifted slightly since then... but these remain the ideas i hold dear relative the PDGA.

Strengths

Market position � the association is established at the center of organized disc golf. It performs activities essential to the sport on an exclusive basis. Two such monopoly services are rules and equipment approval. Association services that face alternatives generally remain the best available. Ratings, online communication, and the sanctioning program are excellent examples of these.

Divisional Structure - the divisional structure performs several essential services. Players seeking a social experience find a division they enjoy. Those seeking skills development climb various skill-based ladders. The structure�s flexibility allows players to seek, and generally find, a place to play that meets their particular and unique needs. (PLEASE NOTE: I really do believe our divisional structure is a huge strength. I also feel that it ignores our emerging Pro class. We need to solve the later without hurting what we have.)

Program Balance - the assortment of services provided by the pdga is broadly balanced. It addresses competitive and tour issues, international development, youth and educational issues, and host of other issues and objectives. The breadth of its overall program may be the association�s greatest strength, and presents a formidable entry barrier to potential competitors.


Weaknesses

Organization structure � leadership turnover is high due to short Board terms. State coordinators fill a valuable local role, but providing effective management and direction is difficult due to the numbers and range of issues. Traditional committees cover competition issues well, but no (or very minimal) formal structure exists for normal business issues such as marketing, business development and operations.

Scalability and Sustainability � It is not at all certain we could handle a doubling in size. Most of our technology and processes do not scale up or down well. The association faces continuous and rapid leadership turnover. It tends to rely on one or two individuals for several important services, and has limited redundancy in critical areas. Examples include ratings, equipment approvals and course design/review. The result is an organization that can only succeed slowly but can fail rapidly. (PLEASE NOTE: this sounds really negative. Discussing weaknesses always does. The intent is honest reflection and discovery.)

Clarity of Purpose and Program � the association does not do a good job in communicating how its various programs fit into its overall mission. Decisions are made that seem to conflict with our stated goals. The �why� is frequently missing from explanations.

Reporting and Measurement � the association does not typically set a lot of goals, measure success or track progress towards a goal. Many programs do not have stated budgets, or receive funding from various budget areas, making reports and budgets confusing or incomplete. Without measurement, program management becomes more about seeing what happens and less about reaching an objective or delivering an expected return.


Opportunities

General Growth of Sport � all indications are that disc golf will continue to grow. Opportunities to grow membership abound. There are also great opportunities that arise from an expanding base of vendors and service providers.

Pro Tour � never before has the sport been so close to a viable professional tour consisting of high-purse, play-your-way-in events. My opinion is that within five years there will be such a tour. If the time really is right and this tour does materialize, whoever �owns� it will be in a position to steer the professional aspects of the sport for the foreseeable future.

Regional Strongholds � some geographic areas have strong regional organizing bodies. These bodies have sizable memberships and knowledge of the local scene. Substantial membership and knowledge gains could come from creating working partnerships with these regional bodies.


Threats

Competition � this could come in three areas: association, service, and tour management. Legitimate competition to become the organizing body of the sport may not be likely, but competition to provide various services or operate a tour is. There are already several ranking and rating systems in the market, and a savvy regional operator could package up a successful program and franchise it to create a viable national structure. Two of disc golf�s four largest purses in 2007 were unsanctioned by the PDGA.

Low barrier to entry for specific services � Many of our services are reproducible at minimal cost. While providing as broad a program as the PDGA�s may be difficult, stitching together enough of the most critical services to tell a story is a lot more doable.

Economic Pressures � the current economic uncertainties combine with high gas prices to make consumers more cautious. Competition for discretionary dollars will intensify if the economy continues to struggle. Membership and event attendance are discretionary for virtually all of our Members, and we could feel the impact of this round of economic instabilities.

Pat, you could have given me that document and the pDGA could have paid me thousands in "consulting fees" for that report. I'd have split the money 50/50 with you. And I can spell guarantee correctly as well!

I can't believe the censors haven't come to take me away yet. Stork must be rolling in his grave.

Pat,

First of all, thank you for your service to the PDGA. I appreciate you taking the time and making the effort.

I find it mind blowing you claim not to recall the posting Lyle is refering too. Look it up..should be pretty easy to find.

I will NOT be supporting you in your re-election bid. I think you are too disruptive. My personal opinion and my choice.

But I thank you for taking the time over the last 2 years.

Pete Kenny

According to Pete Kenny, the most basic feature of the thought reform environment, the psychological current upon which all else depends, is the control of human communication. Through this control the pDGA seeks to establish domain over not only the individual's communication with the outside (all that he sees and hears, reads or writes, experiences, and expresses), but also - in its penetration of his inner life - over what we may speak of as his communication with himself. Pete Kenny supports an atmosphere uncomfortably reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984.

Such control never succeeds in becoming absolute, and its own human apparatus can - when permeated by outside information - become subject to discordant "noise" beyond that of any mechanical apparatus. To totalist pDGA administrators, however, such occurrences are no more than evidences of "incorrect" use of the apparatus. For they look upon control as a just and necessary policy, one which need not be kept secret: thought reform participants may be in doubt as to who is telling what to whom, but the fact that extensive information about everyone is being conveyed to the authorities is always known.

At the center of this self-justification is the pDGA's assumption of omniscience, their conviction that reality is their exclusive possession. Having experienced the impact of what they consider to be an ultimate truth (and having the need to dispel any possible inner doubts of their own), they, with the support of Pete Kenny, consider it their duty to create an environment containing no more and no less than this "truth." In order to be the engineers of the disc golf soul, they must first bring it under full observational control.

Pat,

First of all, thank you for your service to the PDGA. I appreciate you taking the time and making the effort.

I find it mind blowing you claim not to recall the posting Lyle is refering too. Look it up..should be pretty easy to find.

I will NOT be supporting you in your re-election bid. I think you are too disruptive. My personal opinion and my choice.

But I thank you for taking the time over the last 2 years.

Pete Kenny



I also remember the thread very well. It was very disappointing at the time that PDGA resources were being wasted in such a dysfunctional and unproductive manner.

yes, by all means, lets prevent that ! :)

I do have to admit it has been refreshing not to have seen it lately. But it was a problem.

Regardless, I do give you credit for volunteering your time and efforts to try and move the PDGA forward.

lyle you are being too vague. also, take this to PM or my email at [email protected] there is no gain to be had from us talking about unknown topics here. i honestly do not know what you are referring to. (so many choices :) )

note: if you are simply trying to stir up trouble, PLEASE drop it. call your Directors. ask them how they feel about the current Board. ask them if they feel we are functional. report back with current facts instead of conjecture and assumptions. thank you. dont pick fights and stir up trouble until you do this due diligence.

if there is a lot of concern on the Board, then fine, we'll talk. if not, then you are chasing a shadow at the expense of productive, constructive discussion.



YAWN!

It's not vague at all Pat. All one has to do is read your past posts. The simple fact is that most politicians, when it comes down to election time, want to be seen as enablers. I'm getting things done and I'd never hold up real progress. Your actions on this web site, IMO are counter to that concept.

I find it incredibly disingenuous that when you want to come to this MB and talk about your perceptions of Board actions, that's good, but if someone comes here and talks about your actions, that should go to a PM or e-mail.

Lyle, your expertise is boundless. I had no idea you were an expert on British Petroleum's global corporate tyranny. Is there anything else at which you do not excel, besides entertainment? Where, my good chap, do you find the time to be such an expert at everything? Tell me, what is the cure for my hemerrhoids that reading your drivel has caused my bloated gluteus maximus?





A) I can read the newspapers

B) BP is located right here in Houston and maybe we get a lot more of their shenanigans in the Chronicle then you get over there in NO.

C) Being aware that BP has had two instances where they neglected maintenance and got punished by regulators and in the courts doesn't take a ton of acumen

D) Knowing that they have similar problems in Alaska that resulted in a pipeline shutdown that pushed up oil prices at the time doesn't either

E) The causes of these issues have been widely discussed and written about. The fact that I've taken the time to understand this issue and what drove the bad decision making is my job. I'm a manager and work in teams frequently.

BTW - long experience has also taught me that the last way to influence change is by calling people names in a public forum, but then I'm not an expert on change management and might be wrong about that.

I respect Pete Kenny and Mr. Kieffer and it is with that in mind that I write this. I agree Pat, thank you for volunteering, it is obvious that you care deeply about this sport. That said, I strongly disagree with your methodology finding it disruptive and nonproductive. Consequently, I won't be voting for you either.

Furthermore, I will continue to point out shortcomings or potential mis-perceptions that might occur on this thread. I will try and do so with the greatest of courtesy and respect but as I think you would agree, it is essential that those who come here know the whole story.

<font color="red">BDH, speaking of representing truthfully, would you care to tell us how much you get from the PDGA each year for your consulting fees? also, if you could, please list the activities you perform for the PDGA in exchange for that money and explain why those activites require compensation while those of countless other volunteers goes unpaid. </font>



Question seconded. Would the consultant in question please respond when he has a chance? It would be appreciated.

Rea leboha (Setswana: we thank you)

lyle, and everyone for that matter, that is your right.

to say i am doing this for the election is silly. i introduced the enabler vs vendor topic last fall.

lyle, thank you for one thing. the nature of your posts have positively identified where the real problem lies.

so...

what do you all think about something like "2009: The Year of the Rule"? the idea would be that for a year, the PDGA would push adherance to, understanding of the rules, from top to bottom, no exceptions.

rules are one of the important core values of the PDGA. i am not sure we emphasize them enough.

i am not sure we emphasize them enough.


Or at all, for that matter. I would like to see:
1. Pros have to take a test to know the rules. Not a hard one, just a simple one, on paper, when they renew their membership.
2. Disc manufacturers be fined by the PDGA for manufacturing disc that are overweight THAT ARE STAMPED WITH "PDGA APPROVED"!
3. The RC use common sense for once (at least in the wording of rules). I would also like to see an RC that embraces new technology while still preserving the historic "spirit of the game". And have more visible documents (rule book, tour guide, etc) with a hierarchy clearly defined.

2. Disc manufacturers be fined by the PDGA for manufacturing disc that are overweight THAT ARE STAMPED WITH "PDGA APPROVED"!


hmmm... you could say that if the tech standards are worth anything, then such a mis-labelling dimishes their value and thereby hurts the pdga.

on the rules - there is some talk about decoupling the "rules of play" and the other stuff that is in the rulebook. ie, the two minute warning is how to conduct an event, not a rule of disc golf. i think its a very good idea, and hope it happens.

i also hope they get rid of stroke-PLUS-distance. waaaay too punitive.

Well here's my question:
If you break a rule during play, whether its a falling putt or foot fault or whatever, and you get caught, there is a penalty right?
If you break a rule regarding disc weight (the manufacturers) and stamp it approved, it is still illegal, and what is the penalty?

Pat,

What is your stance on overall rule enforcement?

Should the ultimate decision be put on the TD, or should the RC dictate what happens in specific instances?

The rules are an important part of our sport, and they do need to be more clear. Many players are unhappy that the PDGA does not clearly enforce them.

Pat,

What is your stance on overall rule enforcement?

Should the ultimate decision be put on the TD, or should the RC dictate what happens in specific instances?

The rules are an important part of our sport, and they do need to be more clear. Many players are unhappy that the PDGA does not clearly enforce them.



Craig,

What rules are you talking about specifically, foot faults, cheating or something all together different like disc weights?

Where to begin?

Players conduct

Alcohol and illegal substance policies.

These are just a few topics to start.

Well here's my question:
If you break a rule during play, whether its a falling putt or foot fault or whatever, and you get caught, there is a penalty right?
If you break a rule regarding disc weight (the manufacturers) and stamp it approved, it is still illegal, and what is the penalty?



if you break a rule and get caught, yes there is (should be) a penalty.

if you are carrying an overweight disc TODAY, there wont be a penalty because we do not check discs so we'd never know. if somehow a TD did weigh a disc, the mfgs would say something like "oh no, it weighed correctly when it left the factory. musta picked yup some water weight along the way". of course, the disc is still illegal, but since the mfg says its ok, then its ok. thats how we roll today. heck, we dont currently even require a permanent identification of the disc NAME, let alone requiring the weight to be legal. we all have seen discs with no indication of the mold. just put PDGA Approved on one and, today, no one ever questions it.

^^^ we should change things so the above paragraph can no longer be true - at a minimum for top level events ^^^


Rules enforcement? i would love to make 2009 the Year of the Rule. and come up with visible ways of improving enforcement. there would be no more "hey, KC got up late, can you hold up the Sunday start time?" that kind of shenanigans has GOT to stop if we expect any level of credibility whatsoever.

beer and etc, it should be in the Players Conduct guidelines, not the Rules of Play. sure, enforce penalties for not following tour conduct guidelines, i am all for that. if the organization/tour management say no beer, then no beer. its pretty much that simple. pay the penalty if you get caught.

The rules are an important part of our sport, and they do need to be more clear. Many players are unhappy that the PDGA does not clearly enforce them.



Craig,

Disc Golf, just as in traditional golf, is a self officiating sport. The PDGA writes the rules for the sport, we do not enforce them. Enforcement has and always will be the <u>"responsibility"</u> of the players. The PDGA is not out on the course competing in events so it is impossible for us to enforce rules infractions that we do not witness. Far too often, players complain that we do not enforce the rules when in fact they were the ones who did not make a call or give a warning when it was warranted.

It is really very simple. If a competitor is not willing to make a rules call or issue a warning to someone during the round when the infraction occurs, don't expect the PDGA to do it for you after the round is over.

Regards,
Brian Graham, #5861
PDGA Executive Director

maybe this is one more reason to have the Tour run as a separate organization. the PDGA can write the Rules of Play, and the Tour can decide whether or not to enforce them. at least that way we dont write rules just to ignore them. :)

i kinda feel that when the association is consulted during an event, they could easily say "look, the start time is the start time. we dont care which player is late. if he is late, he takes par + 4's until he shows up at his card."

until we are prepared to consistently make that kind of statement, we have no business telling players to go enforce the rules themsleves.

we CAN and SHOULD set a better example.

i kinda feel that when the association is consulted during an event, they could easily say "look, the start time is the start time. we dont care which player is late. if he is late, he takes par + 4's until he shows up at his card."




I agree but the situation which you are using as an example did not at all happen in the way in which you are insinuating. The PDGA found out only after the event was over that a TD held up an event for a late player. This fact was reported to the office and it was turned over to the disciplinary committee, who reprimanded the TD, just as they should have.

I will bite my tongue really hard and just say that I strongly disagree with the following statement, especially coming from a PDGA BOD member:


until we are prepared to consistently make that kind of statement, we have no business telling players to go enforce the rules themsleves.

all i am saying is that if we do not demonstrate that we care about rules enforcement, we cannot reasonably expect players to. i dont think you should disagree with it more or less because of who says it. and certainly a director is entitled to have, and speak, an opinion.

I think it's bottom up. If the members call the rules then the org backs them up as a reflection of what members want enforced. As Brian indicates, the PDGA cannot be there to call them on every hole even if they send a marshal. As long as the PDGA does discipline the players or TDs for infractions, they are doing what they can. If the infractions are not called and/or not reported, the PDGA can't go on speculation based on hearsay from postings.

If a player questions the weight of another player's disc, the TD will have to make the call somehow. Are the manufacturers responsible for hygroscopic plastic that might put a disc overweight after leaving the shop depending where it goes? What about a player who doesn't clean all the dirt off their disc and makes the next throw with a disc that's now overweight?

If players were really worried about overweight discs being a competitive advantage, they would be forcing TDs to make the call and the PDGA would back them up. Claiming that the PDGA isn't doing anything about it is just a red herring to beat on the org because the org does back up what players actually call. It's just like foot faults - you can call them and award the warning/penalty. But if you don't call them, don't blame the org for it.

I think it's bottom up. If the members call the rules then the org backs them up as a reflection of what members want enforced. As Brian indicates, the PDGA cannot be there to call them on every hole even if they send a marshal. As long as the PDGA does discipline the players or TDs for infractions, they are doing what they can. If the infractions are not called and/or not reported, the PDGA can't go on speculation based on hearsay from postings.


the PDGA can exercise leadership regarding rules, to a greateer degree than we currently do. of course, most calls are gonna be made by the players. but the org can set the atmosphere. to leave it all to the players is NOT fulfilling our current mission to standardize the sport.


If a player questions the weight of another player's disc, the TD will have to make the call somehow. Are the manufacturers responsible for hygroscopic plastic that might put a disc overweight after leaving the shop depending where it goes? What about a player who doesn't clean all the dirt off their disc and makes the next throw with a disc that's now overweight?


no, the TD would not need to make a call. because we aprove the mold, not the disc. manufacturers are NOT currently responsible for discs that are stamped "approved" but that "pick up water weight"... BUT THEY SHOULD BE! if a player leaves dirt on a disc deliberately to acheive some perceived advantage, then they have made a post factory modification, and should be dealt with accordingly.


If players were really worried about overweight discs being a competitive advantage, they would be forcing TDs to make the call and the PDGA would back them up. Claiming that the PDGA isn't doing anything about it is just a red herring to beat on the org because the org does back up what players actually call. It's just like foot faults - you can call them and award the warning/penalty. But if you don't call them, don't blame the org for it.

most players dont deal with overweight discs on an event-by-event basis because of the current environment, not because they dont care. put enforcement in place, and they care. dont enforce, and they dont... why should they?

i can only guess what the TD's reaction would be if a player demanded that another player's disc(s) be weighed.

if that TD called the office for guidance after being asked to check a weight, what would the office say?

no, the TD would not need to make a call.


Per 802.01D the TD must make the call and being overweight is one of the criteria that make a disc illegal since 802.01D refers to all clauses above it which refers to 805B which includes the weight requirements.

My point is that if the players felt overweight was unfair, they would have forced the issue long before now and a procedure would have been worked out. My guess is that the current limit actually helps players who play better than they would with even heavier discs even though they think "the heavier the better." I don't believe a max weight disc ever set the distance record. Until behavior incidents became an issue on tour, we didn't have a Disciplinary Committee or it was inactive. But the PDGA acted when the demand from members was there.

I think someone would have to show there was a problem with players playing better with overweight discs. However, I don't think anyone including those posting for changes truly believes there is and they're pushing this issue to stir things up.

Here's one that I suspect most have violated which is tearing up some grass to toss in the air to check the wind. That's illegal but no one calls it. But the PDGA would back up those who called it. Then we would hear the cry for the RC to provide an exception in the rules similar to the recent exception placed in the rules allowing 1cm thick towels. Why? Because the members demanded it as appropriate behavior despite what the rules said. Bottom up enforcement moves the org to support.

That's why I look for loose leaves, Chuck. :cool:

Several years ago there was a hue and cry about the alleged discourteous behavior of some top pros. The board of directors at that time recognized that top TDs are way too busy at the most important times to intercept that kind of behavior, to be able to do that and also run the event. Part of what resulted, partly from that and partly for other reasons, was the PDGA Marshals program for NTs, Majors, and some other large events. I've marshaled a few times, warned and stroked a few top pros, and last year DQ'd a competitor at the USADGC. That's a clear example of PDGA response to a perceived rules-related problem.

That's why I look for loose leaves, Chuck.


Still not legal if they were in that position before the round started. At the Majestic with the car incident, I suspect several pros illegally tossed or kicked some of the golf range balls out of the way on the temp holes that traversed the driving range. Possible new product for kids to sell before the round starts is packets of loose grass clippings that players could toss during the round. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

OK Mr. B

Here is a question.

TD sells discs from company x to raise money for tourney.

TD gets complaints that overweight disc is being used.
What is the procedure/method to check said disc?
Does TD have to have list of every
approved disc listing max weights?
What if that offending disc is in fact one of the
discs that the TD sold to the competitor?

CoI anyone?

one more:

You got chuck34 and bgraham to respond to your thread.
Do they love you more?
What is the exec director doing responding on a campaign thread?

steve timm

TDs who want players to play their tournaments [that's most of them but there are some...] will provide the level of rules enforcement that they perceive most players want. For this reason TDs are the last people we should rely on for tight enforcement of the rules. I leave my scale at home. And my field drug testing kit. :D

Generally I think TDs usually go for a waffly nice-guy soft interpretation of the rules. Obviously none of the pros want to be called on their leaping airborn putts. They all do it now. No one is going to start calling that. Our IOS players want us to be sticklers for the ratings rules and to extend them to non-members. We actually do a good job of that.

The main two things the PDGA needs to do with the rules is (1) draft bright line rules and (2) draft rules we can actually enforce without slow motion instant replay. When we realize that we have a rule we cannot actually enforce, we need to consider why, and then change the rule to something enforceable.

I don't expect the PDGA to be everywhere all the time when it comes to calling rules violations. I never implied that in anything that I said.

It always seems that there are grey areas in our rules that can lead players to have questions on how rulings are made. I know that the ultimate responsibility falls on the players to help enforce the rules amd I'm OK with that.

What bothers me is that the whole group has to back up the players calling the infraction and that won't always happen. I understand it is not the PDGA's job to make players enforce the rules, but what happens to the players that won't back up a flagrant violation?

I have seen this happen several times over my 28 years of playing disc golf, and it continues to this day.

My point is that until the sport as a whole, including the PDGA can have solid rule enforcement, will we really get where we want to be.

IMO, it seems that we do have some "good ole boy" mentality within our sport!

We can't afford, or more accurately, aren't willing to pay for the type of marshaling that would be required for each group or even just Open groups. However, it's surprising that in a sport where rules are called by the players, that there's no penalty for not carrying a rulebook. That's one proposal for the next rulebook update that everyone in the group gets a 2-shot penalty if no one is carrying rulebook when an official is called to make a ruling that's right in the book.

Possible new product for kids to sell before the round starts is packets of loose grass clippings that players could toss during the round.



If you do that in my group, I'm gonna see about getting you DQ'ed for littering. Or if you get your "wind-check" from another area or lawn, you'll be spreading who knows what kind of weeds/diseases to the course I put a LOT of work into and I'll do my best to get you DQ'ed with a possible suspension of PDGA privledges. :mad:

And thus the reason our rule that currently disallows grass from being torn and tossed would be modified because of the foolishness.

you'd think our so-called "professionals" would have a working knowledge of the rules. obviously our so-called "professionals" will not take the initiative to learn them. i mean why would they anyway? the rules committee changes rules every other weekend it seems. let's face it, our so-called "professionals" don't respect the rules because respect is something that is earned, and our rules committee deserves little. there are sooooooo many people willing and capable of taking over for the present rules committee, but they refuse to yield and they refuse to admit they don't really have the time to write the comprehensive rules of play this sport needs.

OK Mr. B

Here is a question.

TD sells discs from company x to raise money for tourney.

TD gets complaints that overweight disc is being used.
What is the procedure/method to check said disc?


there is no procedure estaqlished by the PDGA to weigh discs at events. trust me, if a TD did, all a player who was pronounced guilty would have to say is "the scales arent calibrated" and the ruling probably would not hold up.


Does TD have to have list of every
approved disc listing max weights?

the TD should. just like detailed financials, its published on this site! :)


What if that offending disc is in fact one of the
discs that the TD sold to the competitor?

ha, good point. i guess it would depend on the TD's disc selling operation's policy on selling illegal discs for competition play.


CoI anyone?

huh?


one more:

You got chuck34 and bgraham to respond to your thread.
Do they love you more?

hmmm... i dont really know. more than what/who anyway? their posts tend to be rather different, so i hesitate to lump them into the same analysis ;)


What is the exec director doing responding on a campaign thread?

hey, thats two questions! i dont know that answer either. i suppose its to offer alternatives to and add to the discussion of the ideas i've posted.

there's a rule that says grass cannot be tossed?

there's a rule that says grass cannot be tossed?



804.05A(2)

804.05A(2) Willful and overt destruction or abuse of plant life, course hardware, or any other property considered part of the disc golf course or the park.

are you serious?!? plucking some grass is NOT Willful and overt destruction or abuse of plant life. i really hope this is a message board ruling and that we do not have official rulings making the grass toss illegal on grounds of plant abuse.

When does it become abuse or potentially unfair? If I tear up some tall grass in front of my lie and toss it in the air feigning a check of the wind even though it now gets those fronds out of the way of my arm movement on the next throw, is that OK? Just saying that actual practice in some cases is in conflict with the strict wording of the rules. The recent towel controversy was just an issue that became high enough profile to be resolved with a Q&amp;A exception.

no, that would be altering the course. DQ him for that, but please not for plant abuse.

applying your "strict wording of the rules", players would not be allowed to walk on the course. their stance would need to be on tippy toes so as to have the least possible disturbance of the flora.

I really wonder about the legality of the actions of folks who walk up before they putt and straighten out tangled chains. Who's to say those chains weren't tangled before the round began and have stayed that way?

I've seen rusted out baskets that are lose on the pole and tilted. Who's to say at what angle that basket was tilted when the round began? If I am putting from the side that has a narrowed sweet spot due to the tilt, shouldn't I at least be able to un-tilt the basket before I putt, or maybe tilt it to my advantage? (Of course, if I noticed before my approach, I am already on the correct side of the pin.)

:cool:

It's really tough to craft rules that are implementable with any precision, without either giving people loopholes for violation of the intent, or giving rules mavens opportunities to raise a ruckus about what should probably be reasonable and allowed behavior.

What I think we should do is have a committee of editors and writers�not rules mavens�take a look at the rules and edit them to as much clarity and concision as possible. People who don't have rules axes to grind and who understand their job is communication, not rules-making. They can consult the Rules Committee as to intent, when needed. Those who make the rules are not necessarily the best people to best communicate them. Heck, forget having a committee. Just hire a professional writer who doesn't play disc golf.

Then, once we have a set of solid, well-written rules, we commission a very condensed version to hand out to newbies and casuals.

I understand. That gets back to your desired enforcement of overweight discs. Players over the years have innately determined what seems to be fair or unfair practices despite the literal wording of the rules, and the PDGA backs up those who call them.

As you point out, changing the course, especially in front of your lie can be another infraction when tearing grass. Because we walk on grass, my question has been when does grass turn into "plant life" that shouldn't be tampered with? Does the stalk need to be a bigger diameter than X when the weed, wild flower or cattail is not "grass" anymore?

if that is true, then i will propose that we do away with weight standards, as they would serve absolutely no purpose in the real world.

terry, that sounds like a good idea. i think you'd still need to include a few players as SMEs though. maybe thats what the RC could be for.

getting the rules fixed is/should be a priority. the Rules are one of the very few functions that the pdga has no direct competition. improving both their readability and their application would help keep us in the leadership role on rules. letting things fester leaves open a door to anyone who develops a better set.

We can't afford, or more accurately, aren't willing to pay for the type of marshaling that would be required for each group or even just Open groups. However, it's surprising that in a sport where rules are called by the players, that there's no penalty for not carrying a rulebook. That's one proposal for the next rulebook update that everyone in the group gets a 2-shot penalty if no one is carrying rulebook when an official is called to make a ruling that's right in the book.




How bout no to that one. :D

if that is true, then i will propose that we do away with weight standards, as they would serve absolutely no purpose in the real world.



I think we may still want the max weight limit to provide the impression that there's some safety element to that limit. Even if we don't have the data backing it up, it only matters if the issue is taken up in a court case. I looked at the ball golf equipment guidelines and there's no golf club weight limit. However, there's a club length limit set at 48 inches. Here are the R&amp;A standards which I believe are the same as USGA now.
www.randa.org/index.cfm?action=rules.equipment.faq (http://www.randa.org/index.cfm?action=rules.equipment.faq)

How bout no to that one.


How about player responsibility, especially pros?

We can't afford, or more accurately, aren't willing to pay for the type of marshaling that would be required for each group or even just Open groups. However, it's surprising that in a sport where rules are called by the players, that there's no penalty for not carrying a rulebook. That's one proposal for the next rulebook update that everyone in the group gets a 2-shot penalty if no one is carrying rulebook when an official is called to make a ruling that's right in the book.




How bout no to that one. :D



I say they get a 2 stroke penalty anytime they are found to not have a rule book between them with or without calling for an easily found ruling.

Just go around the course and do random checks of groups for a rulebook, none in this group, too bad..... :cool:

Kind of like the seat belt law. Normally police catch it as an add-on to another infraction a person is stopped for like speeding. However, every so often they specifically look for seat belt violations.

"I think we may still want the max weight limit to provide the impression that there's some safety element to that limit. Even if we don't have the data backing it up, it only matters if the issue is taken up in a court case."

chuck, so... defending a court case over something that the tech standards say nothing about (safety) with made up numbers as safety standards? wow, thats gonna make for a fat payday for the prosecuting attorney i think!

All I'm saying is that setting the limit is better than not. I don't think the PDGA would get called on the carpet for not doing human testing to confirm the limits. "Reasonable man" concept and all. Since following the rules is left to the individuals playing, I don't believe the org can be held liable if a player hurts someone with what was later determined to be an overweight disc. The disc manufacturer would be accountable.

setting a limit for safety purposes is a bad idea. if you do set such a limit for safety reasons, then you open the door to liability, because you've pre-established that discs over a certain wieght are unsafe. then all you'd need is one unanswered formal request to the office to enforce safety guidelines and bam! you'd have a huge potential liability. no thanks on that.

I think the liability issue would be more along the lines of someone being hurt with a verified "safe" disc than one that was out of spec.

Safety is a continuum. At one end of the scale is a 200 lb disc that might truly be unsafe and also damage baskets. At the other end is a mini disc 10% as light as the lightest mini out there. The PDGA draws the line at a certain point on the continuum only partly based on safety but that's in the overall equation. The prosecutor has no data any better that says a disc 2-3 grams lighter would have resulted in less injury for a specific incident being litigated.

"The PDGA draws the line at a certain point on the continuum only partly based on safety but that's in the overall equation."

is this true? where is safety mentioned in the Tech Standards? my understanding is that it is not. i looked and couldnt find it. please show us where it is.

Never stated of course. But it's implied by the obvious spectrum in likely safety between the two ends anchored by a hypothetical super light mini and a super heavy 200 lb disc. Would you agree that one of those striking a person is "safer" than the other without any testing?

Never stated of course. But it's implied by the obvious spectrum in likely safety between the two ends anchored by a hypothetical super light mini and a super heavy 200 lb disc. Would you agree that one of those striking a person is "safer" than the other without any testing?



I'd say the mini is! At least I know I couldn't throw a 200lb disc and I can do some damage with a mini. :D

Never stated of course. But it's implied by the obvious spectrum in likely safety between the two ends anchored by a hypothetical super light mini and a super heavy 200 lb disc. Would you agree that one of those striking a person is "safer" than the other without any testing?

in the absence of testing, then no, as a director i would not agree. first of all there are too many variables, beginning with edge sharpness. add in other aspects of rim shape, rotational velocity, angle of attack, and so on. creating safety policy while making assumptions about the relative safety of the myriad combinations is too risky for me.

such safety statements would benefit the course designers who advocate the "licensing" of designers. by making a profession out of course design, licensed designers would be able to demand higher fees from P&amp;R departments. with some luck they'd get some sort of legislation that requires their services, and their prices go up even more. free-lancers would be cut out, and new designers would face larger start-up barrier. the influx of creativity into one of our most fundamental skills would be stifled. i doubt that this scenario is best for the sport at the moment.

Never stated of course. But it's implied by the obvious spectrum in likely safety between the two ends anchored by a hypothetical super light mini and a super heavy 200 lb disc. Would you agree that one of those striking a person is "safer" than the other without any testing?



I'd say the mini is! At least I know I couldn't throw a 200lb disc and I can do some damage with a mini. :D



What about a 200lb mini? :D

what if i were using shuriken for a mini?

What about a 200lb mini? :D



Man, that would be a drag.

Joe

did anyone else find that pretty funny?

I really wonder about the legality of the actions of folks who walk up before they putt and straighten out tangled chains. Who's to say those chains weren't tangled before the round began and have stayed that way?




I am.
I always untwist chains using 2 facts.
I'm NOT disturbing anything BETWEEN the lie and target, and I swear someone twisted them, because when I practiced on the basket, they weren't twisted, THEREFORE they must have become a factor DURING the round. :D

Hi Pat and thanks for running for re-election.

that said, while i generally respect and appreciate your qualifications, skills, and inclinations when it comes to leadership -- i also find times when i completely disagree with you. our 2 meter rule wars were good ones, but since i am happy where that has "landed" -- i will drop it as a subject. let me instead engage you on the following:


setting a limit for safety purposes is a bad idea. if you do set such a limit for safety reasons, then you open the door to liability, because you've pre-established that discs over a certain wieght are unsafe. then all you'd need is one unanswered formal request to the office to enforce safety guidelines and bam! you'd have a huge potential liability. no thanks on that.



doesn't setting a weight limit suggest that reasonable attempts to make discs relatively safe have been made and cannot it be left to manufacturers &amp; individuals to ensure the discs they throw out fall within such guidelines? No disc will ever be completely safe, but rigidity and weight standards do help tip the proverbial scales in a safer direction..

if i make a request that you drug test every PDGA player (which by the way i am not in favor of) is the PDGA leveraged to do so? i think not.

disc manufacturers decide what weights their products will be and the PDGA decides what weight ranges are legal for tournament play... am i missing something? (i started reading this thread from the beginning but only got half way through)...

thanks Rob, good to see you here again! btw, when its my sunday to run the local mini, i run it with the 2MR in effect only around the basket. i still believe that anthropology provides sufficient justification for the 2MR, though!

no, setting a weight limit does not suggest we are trying to keep discs safe. the reasons commonly advanced reasons during the last tech standards debate were to prevent the technology-driven obsolesence of our course and to better define what it means to be a disc.

is it leveraged? you mean does it have enough money? no, i doubt that it does. is it prepared logistically? no, i doubt that we are prepared to undertake something like that. i'd also be against that kind of testing. it sounds pretty severe.

From the 2008 proposed budget

Personnel:
Sub Total Staff Compensation 204,035
Sub Total Consultants &amp; Accountant 78,500
Employer Payroll Taxes 20,000
Staff Health Insurance 22,000
Workmans Compensation 1,000
Recruitment 2,000
Other Staff Expenses 500
Sub Total Personnel 328,035


Pat, how many staff, consultants, and accountants does the PDGA have for the 2008 budget?

Pat

Gotta love the free flow of ideas,...
sad emails from Kernan,
Southwick charging $37.50 for his vote,
do your sandals have archeR supports?:D

steve timm

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://widgets.clearspring.com/o/47e153ebce7a497f/48548f3a72acb346/4817fbd08a80221f/c36d6017/widget.js"></script>

Pat, bump

From the 2008 proposed budget

Personnel:
Sub Total Staff Compensation 204,035
Sub Total Consultants &amp; Accountant 78,500
Employer Payroll Taxes 20,000
Staff Health Insurance 22,000
Workmans Compensation 1,000
Recruitment 2,000
Other Staff Expenses 500
Sub Total Personnel 328,035


Pat, how many staff, consultants, and accountants does the PDGA have for the 2008 budget?

i need to check my list for accuracy before publishing anything. gimme a day to make sure its right.

thx

any questions about whats in here (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2008-05-12BODElectronicVote.pdf)?

Looks to me like the quorum of the Board who properly voted, chose unanimously to elect Juliana Korver to fill the vacant position.

Looks to me like members of the Board that didn't exercise their vote (there is no such thing as an abstention), got their objections on record.

Looks to me like Brenner, Dodge, and Shive need a brush up on parliamentary procedure. You don't table something after it's already been decided (the process of selection). You table something that is under discussion.

Looks to me like a majority of the Board continues to operate in a responsible manner.

Thank you all for your continued service.

Carry on.

the process was never decided. it was forced.

"Looks to me like Brenner, Dodge, and Shive need a brush up on parliamentary procedure. "

hahaha... thank you for that belly-laugh! really! :D

the process was never decided. it was forced.

"Looks to me like Brenner, Dodge, and Shive need a brush up on parliamentary procedure. "

hahaha... thank you for that belly-laugh! really! :D




I guess decision/forced is a matter of interpretation...when you lose you may very well feel like you have been forced...I'm sure that the majority of the Board feels like it was decided...

As to your brush up:

From http://www.robertsrules.com

Question 6:
Do abstention votes count?

Answer:
The phrase "abstention votes" is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an "abstention vote."

In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a "no" vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 387, l. 7-13; p. 388, l. 3-6; p. 390, l. 13-24; see also p.66 of RONR In Brief.]

Question 12:
Isn't it always in order to move to table a motion to the next meeting?

Answer:
This question confuses the motion to Lay on the Table with the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. The purpose of the motion to Lay on the Table is to enable an assembly, by majority vote and without debate, to lay a pending question aside temporarily in order to take up something else of immediate urgency. In ordinary societies it is rarely needed, and hence seldom in order. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 201-210; see also p. 127 of RONR In Brief.]

and an official interpretation on objecting to consideration:

2006-20 OBJECTION TO CONSIDERATION - SUSPEND THE RULES

Q. After only a few minutes of debate on a main motion, it became obvious that the motion raised issues which were very contentious and that its consideration would serve no useful purpose. However, when a member objected to its further consideration, the chair ruled that it was too late to raise such an objection. Was the chair's ruling correct, and if so, what could the member have done? Could he have simply moved to suspend the rules which interfered with his objection?

A. The chair's ruling was correct; an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be raised after there has been any debate, since consideration of the question has already begun. RONR (10th ed.), p. 258, l. 35 to p. 259, l. 3. It is simply not possible to prevent debate which has already taken place. As a consequence, a motion to suspend the rules which interfere with the late objection would also be out of order. Rules may be suspended, but facts cannot.

I'm glad you find this amusing. A belly laugh is not a bad thing.

Looks like once again the minority in a Board decision isn't acting professionally. Sorry you didn't get your way. The motion was made, the motion passed, deal with it. Better yet, support it in a positive manner as opposed to pulling punches on a chat board. Many of us feel that conducting business in this manner is not amusing, let alone good for the PDGA. A brush up on more than the Roberts Rules of Order would be beneficial, but probably of limited impact.

Fortunately, the majority of the Board made a tremendous decision in regards to who they chose. I applaud the 4 Board Members.

it was forced. there was no concensus on the Board as to how to proceed with replacing Peter. Peter wanted expand the current election to four spots to give the members a voice. Steve suggested we use the next place finisher from the most recent election. we did not ever decide on a process.

before the summit, bob mentioned to me rather casually that he was going to nominate julia. my response was fine. we all had agreed to talk about the process at the summit, so i thought i was agreeing to bob nominating her when the time came.

instead, he nominated her and called for a vote the next day. apparently, he had found 3 other directors who were willing to go along, and had decided he no longer needed to incluide anyone else. after all, there was a majority, right?

on the surface, yes he might be right. a majority can make this decision. my opinion is that such a decision totally sucks. the new director deserves the full, informed support of the BoD. i was not even given the chance to talk to julia prior to the vote! how "inclusive" is that? if i pulled half the crap that gets pulled under the current setup... wow.....

as far as Roberts Rules goes - Steve Timm was never even nominated for this special vote! Bob knew that, and allowed Steve to stay on the vote. if anyone needs a refresher (or even a first course) in Roberts Rules, i'd suggest we start with the President. we can afford anger management classes for senior employees, we ought to be able to afford procedural classes for officers.

tim, thanks for taking yet another chance to be derisive towards me based on partial facts and complete fabrications. your consistency is inspiring.

those BoD members should be replaced immediately, imo. the same one that went behind my back and told the ED to refuse all info requests made by me. they never even told they had taken that action... a pretty tough position to refuse info requests made by a sitting Director - but compeltely gutless to not even tell me. there ARE ways defined in the ByLaws to remove a director. covertly isolating him from the info necessary to do his job is NOT one of them. i just hope no actual laws were broken.

From the 2008 proposed budget

Personnel:
Sub Total Staff Compensation 204,035
Sub Total Consultants &amp; Accountant 78,500
Employer Payroll Taxes 20,000
Staff Health Insurance 22,000
Workmans Compensation 1,000
Recruitment 2,000
Other Staff Expenses 500
Sub Total Personnel 328,035


Pat, how many staff, consultants, and accountants does the PDGA have for the 2008 budget?




the staff and consultant list for 2008 is as follows:

Staff:
Brian Graham - Executive Director
David Gentry - Tour Manager / IT Manager
Addie Isbell - Memberships Manager
Karolyn Garlock - Administrative Assistant / Office Manager
Jason Allind - IDGC Superintendent / Office Assistant

Consultants:
Dan Roddick - Director of Special Projects
Chuck Kennedy - Tour Consultant
Jeff Homburg - Technical Standards
John Duesler - Marketing Transition
Brian Hoeniger - International Program &amp; E.D. Consulting
Lorrie Gibson - Memberships Consultant
Cliff Towne - Course Directory Consultant

there are also two accountants, but i do not have their names. i understand that attorneys are paid as needed.

i also believe that we are paying, or plan to pay, a consultant to implement the new website also.

does this list answer your question?

- pat

From the 2008 proposed budget

Personnel:
Sub Total Staff Compensation 204,035
Sub Total Consultants &amp; Accountant 78,500
Employer Payroll Taxes 20,000
Staff Health Insurance 22,000
Workmans Compensation 1,000
Recruitment 2,000
Other Staff Expenses 500
Sub Total Personnel 328,035


Pat, how many staff, consultants, and accountants does the PDGA have for the 2008 budget?




the staff and consultant list for 2008 is as follows:

Staff:
Brian Graham - Executive Director
David Gentry - Tour Manager / IT Manager
Addie Isbell - Memberships Manager
Karolyn Garlock - Administrative Assistant / Office Manager
Jason Allind - IDGC Superintendent / Office Assistant

Consultants:
Dan Roddick - Director of Special Projects
Chuck Kennedy - Tour Consultant
Jeff Homburg - Technical Standards
John Duesler - Marketing Transition
Brian Hoeniger - International Program &amp; E.D. Consulting
Lorrie Gibson - Memberships Consultant
Cliff Towne - Course Directory Consultant

there are also two accountants, but i do not have their names. i understand that attorneys are paid as needed.

i also believe that we are paying, or plan to pay, a consultant to implement the new website also.

does this list answer your question?

- pat



Not bad, that averages over $11.000 per consultant.
and averaged, $40,807.00 per employee.

Glad we pay everyone so well.

tim, thanks for taking yet another chance to be derisive towards me based on partial facts and complete fabrications. your consistency is inspiring.



Partial facts and complete fabrications? You came to this chat board to shed a bad light on a PDGA Board majority decision concerning naming a person to replace a leaving board member. There is nothing fabricated nor partial in that. It is all black and white.

The only possible grey area would be whether this type of action is felt to be the proper way for a board member to conduct PDGA business. I think I am very consistent concerning my take on this.

It is the actions taken when certain board members don't get their way that concerns me. You just happen to be the board member pursuing such a course again. Nothing personal against you.

"You came to this chat board to shed a bad light "

absolutely false, sir. place that one firmly in the "complete fabrication" bucket.

you do not know why i came to this chat board, unless you have some amazingly superior mind-reading skills, or are some sort of extraordinarily gifted psychologist.

"You came to this chat board to shed a bad light "

absolutely false, sir. place that one firmly in the "complete fabrication" bucket.

you do not know why i came to this chat board, unless you have some amazingly superior mind-reading skills, or are some sort of extraordinarily gifted psychologist.



Your original post was:

"any questions about whats in here?"

with "here" being a link to a docuument concerning the motion to appoint a new board member.

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps I misread your intent. Maybe it was just to make small talk? Perhaps my wording could have been improved to "You came to this chat board shedding a bad light?" Would this statement be somewhat less fabricated in your mind?

So, enlighten us all as to why you brought this here?

um, because this is a discussion board, and i was interesting in learning if anyone else cared about it.

how did it shed a bad light, anyway?

From the 2008 proposed budget

Personnel:
Sub Total Staff Compensation 204,035
Sub Total Consultants &amp; Accountant 78,500
Employer Payroll Taxes 20,000
Staff Health Insurance 22,000
Workmans Compensation 1,000
Recruitment 2,000
Other Staff Expenses 500
Sub Total Personnel 328,035


Pat, how many staff, consultants, and accountants does the PDGA have for the 2008 budget?




the staff and consultant list for 2008 is as follows:

Staff:
Brian Graham - Executive Director
David Gentry - Tour Manager / IT Manager
Addie Isbell - Memberships Manager
Karolyn Garlock - Administrative Assistant / Office Manager
Jason Allind - IDGC Superintendent / Office Assistant

Consultants:
Dan Roddick - Director of Special Projects
Chuck Kennedy - Tour Consultant
Jeff Homburg - Technical Standards
John Duesler - Marketing Transition
Brian Hoeniger - International Program &amp; E.D. Consulting
Lorrie Gibson - Memberships Consultant
Cliff Towne - Course Directory Consultant

there are also two accountants, but i do not have their names. i understand that attorneys are paid as needed.

i also believe that we are paying, or plan to pay, a consultant to implement the new website also.

does this list answer your question?

- pat


Yes, thanks Pat.

he was going to nominate julia. . . . to talk to julia


http://api.ning.com/files/MY7MAe**Fc2ywTtFYW1nfbhqg9LeI9Suqkxzv1xz1fKypvq-LmFY3DuemOUcnhy7aM49jllw1r7EvpslFQ7bg9nkqKEdVkZ*/images.jpeg Psst . . . it's "Juliana" Korver - not "Julia".

how did it shed a bad light, anyway?


Gotta love that search for continuous improvement. Don't tell him! :eek: It might make him better at it!

in other words.... it didnt - that was a reflection of a posters personal bias.

and yes, gotta love that search. i'd be happy if you were to join me on it.

"Here's one that I suspect most have violated which is tearing up some grass to toss in the air to check the wind. That's illegal but no one calls it. "

i saw Tiger do that in the playoff round. does DG have toughher rules than BG for throwing grass?

Yes. In BG, the rule only prohibits messing with anything on your line of play going toward the hole. So as long as Tiger picked up the grass behind his lie, it's OK. USGA 13-2. In DG, technically no plant destruction is allowed with more stringent requirements related to casual relief in front of your lie. In BG, you can't rub your hand on the putting green to check its roughness or wetness regardless whether behind your line of play. USGA 16-1d.

ok, now i am really curious - is this your interpretation chuck, or is this an RC ruling? if its RC, then i prolly am in violation several times during a round

I don't believe there's a Q&amp;A ruling on this. I'm just going on the wording in these two rules taken at face value: 803.5F and more importantly 804.05A(2). Ball golf doesn't having any blanket statements like these on this topic. In fact, their rules seem to say half as much as ours on courtesy or etiquette issues but has a lot more on gambling and professional no-nos for Ams.

i find this nugget " In fact, their rules seem to say half as much as ours on courtesy or etiquette issues but has a lot more on gambling and professional no-nos for Ams. " fascinating! i guess gambling and other professional "no-nos" have been historical problems for the BG ams :)

speaking of betting... :) wanna place a wager on an RC ruling on the grass tossing thing? i'll take the side that says its ok to grab some grass to check the wind. it can even be grass (the short kind we think of in a normal yard) in front of the lie.

I agree that RC will allow grass to be torn for wind testing. However, this is similar to the recent towel issue. It's difficult to have all or none rulings. They now compromised to allow a towel up to 1cm thick. My concern all along has been where's that transition point when something is "officially" grass versus a plant that can't be moved or bent to take a stance? There are times when I would like to stomp down or tear off grass-like living things behind my lie that are bugging me on my swing or run-up. But I'm not sure where the line is drawn between grass that the RC might allow to be torn (if they so rule) and a plant that can't be bent or damaged?

to Pat Brenner:

A month ago you announced, on another thread, that you would investigate charges that I have acted improperly as Communications Diredtor. I eagerly accepted your offer. Such investigation would 1) give recourse to offended parties, 2) allow me the chance to defend myself, and 3) satisfy the membership that justice had been done. So far we have heard nothing from you about this.

When one Board Member publically announces an investigation of another, something should happen. Obviously, the first step is to bring the matter to the attention of the Board, but you have not even done this. Perhaps you are pursuing your investigation in private. If so, I would object (as it is clearly a Board matter), but it would be better than nothing. However, I have not even heard from any private investigators.

Follow through on this, Pat. You would not have made the offer if you did not consider it a serious matter.

The question should be raised for any member of an organization, if you spend a significant amount of your time accusing other Board members and EDs (past and present) of:

Financial misconduct
Breaking the Law
Not following the rules of the organization
Poor performance in growing the sport and organization

How affective are you going to be in getting your agenda met? Are the same people whom you constantly accuse of misconduct, about whom you claim you're going to personally investigate, going to work well with you? Are they going to support your ideas and projects? Especially when you provide no evidence for the misconduct, but simply present it here as if it is true, or even worse, say you're going to look just to make sure? McCarthy perfected the technique and it didn't work well for him in the end.

I would advise any leader not to take this approach. It breeds like a cancer and is very ugly.

follow through on what Peter?

you mean stay on through my elected term?
or keep my name on the ballot after announcing my candidacy and submitting my paperwork for the election?

i'm not sure what kind of position you are in to demand that i follow through on something. however, if you can show me that post, i will be happy to do whatever it is i said i would do. following through is important, like you noted.

btw, i have not yet received the info from you about how to properly appeal your recent moderation decision to the next level. i'll look again in my email this evening. thanks in advance.

let's throw Pat in an OB pond -- if he floats he's a witch!

Better take the sandals off first...

yeah lyle, it would be soooooo much more productive to let all that stuff slide. for the good of the sport of course. why dont you run for election and then you do it however you think is best. any "attacks" or "criticism" i have offered on our past, current, or future staff is innocuous in comparison to some of the constant berating that goes on here. how are your criticism of me OK but my comment not? as least i am willing to put my neck on the line for you and all members. i might talk, but i do have the nads necessary to stand up, offer my services, and take the arrows.

peter, are you posting as the board Moderator? it seems that your post is meant for me personally. as you know, we do not allow Moderators to post anything other than offical moderator stuff using their official moderator account. you may have also learned by now that moderator accounts cannot be ignored, and that posting from them makes it look as if the things you wrote are some sort of official PDGA position. these are additional situations that you know are to be avoided.

what is the procedure for reporting your improper use of a moderator account? could you just remove that last post and repost it under an allowed account? thanks.

has anyone ever been probed or banned for sarcasm (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080620/sc_livescience/sarcasmseenasevolutionarysurvivalskill)?

yeah lyle, it would be soooooo much more productive to let all that stuff slide. for the good of the sport of course. why dont you run for election and then you do it however you think is best. any "attacks" or "criticism" i have offered on our past, current, or future staff is innocuous in comparison to some of the constant berating that goes on here. how are your criticism of me OK but my comment not? as least i am willing to put my neck on the line for you and all members. i might talk, but i do have the nads necessary to stand up, offer my services, and take the arrows.



What about the concept of providing evidence escapes you Pat? You know, I hear that Brian G. likes sheep sounds great, but if I can't provide evidence, I'm simply trying to create a negative environment concerning the ED. That doesn't take nads, or even go nads go! It's called political pandering.

Having people point out that someone has no evidence for their accusations isn't berating them, it's simply pointing out the truth.

BTW - Brian doesn't like sheep, I just made that up. Yep, he likes cows, I read it on a MB!

let's throw Pat in an OB pond -- if he floats he's a witch!



I think you got that backwards. It's Peter we need to toss in da pond. Remember, it was he that was accused of misconduct. He's simply asking the accuser to step up and prove his accusation.

Oh wait, he didn't accuse, he was just going to go look, just to make sure Peter was on the up and up!

So Peter, how's your backstroke? My advice, get Innova to give you 50 dragons and stuff them under your shirt. That'll keep ya up!

yeah lyle, it would be soooooo much more productive to let all that stuff slide. for the good of the sport of course. why dont you run for election and then you do it however you think is best. any "attacks" or "criticism" i have offered on our past, current, or future staff is innocuous in comparison to some of the constant berating that goes on here. how are your criticism of me OK but my comment not? as least i am willing to put my neck on the line for you and all members. i might talk, but i do have the nads necessary to stand up, offer my services, and take the arrows.



What about the concept of providing evidence escapes you Pat? You know, I hear that Brian G. likes sheep sounds great, but if I can't provide evidence, I'm simply trying to create a negative environment concerning the ED. That doesn't take nads, or even go nads go! It's called political pandering.

Having people point out that someone has no evidence for their accusations isn't berating them, it's simply pointing out the truth.

BTW - Brian doesn't like sheep, I just made that up. Yep, he likes cows, I read it on a MB!


Speaking of EVIDENCE.....from another thread:


given that disc golf is one of the fastest growing sports


I have heard a ton of people say this and have seen it written many times on the MB and just about every disc golf website, but have never seen any actual data on this. So, from what source did you get this info? I have never seen the numbers and wanted to know if this is fact, or myth.

the evidence is there. some of it cannot be released because the board does not wish to release certain types of organizational records. some of it is already in the various minutes documents. the rumor that there is no evidence is one of those unfounded internet/message board rumors i suppose. funny how they pop up.

I'm not saying that there is no data/evidence. All I'm saying is that I have never seen it, and cannot find it, through a rather extensive internet search. The thing I find odd is that I cannot find the data, yet every disc golf related website or news article claims it is the fastest growing sport (or one of the fastest).

I don't know what the PDGA has, but I did some research on similarly sized organizations (all sports related) and I found that few of them had our growth or turnover experience. I posted it on a thread well over a year ago with links to the data.

I believe Pat read that thread (he posted there numerous times but that doesn't mean he did look).

Harold has provided that number at various times based on Innova's observations and presumably their production since the 80s. As the largest disc producer, you would believe that their increases track the increases in the sport in general.

I'm not saying that there is no data/evidence. All I'm saying is that I have never seen it, and cannot find it, through a rather extensive internet search. The thing I find odd is that I cannot find the data, yet every disc golf related website or news article claims it is the fastest growing sport (or one of the fastest).



It took me less than a day of perusing the web sites of different sports to find this information. I just started searching. My research wasn't extensive and I didn't cover every possible sport or situation, I simply found enough info to counter the position put forward. BTW - that position was that our growth was awful and that our turnover was the same. I just wanted to show that the position might not be correct. More so, of the 10 or so cases I looked at randomly, none did better than we did. While that isn't conclusive, it suggests we are doing pretty good.

colin, sorry, i confused the thread. i was talking about the evididence lyle claimed i dont have.

how DG compares to other sports regarding growth rate and the PDGA compares on retention is something i have not seen any credible comparisons on.

Harold has provided that number at various times based on Innova's observations and presumably their production since the 80s. As the largest disc producer, you would believe that their increases track the increases in the sport in general.



Did we make super secret payments to them to get the information? Is the PDGA really owned by Innova and Peter is their spy? Inquiring minds want to know...

Harold has used that number in various interviews over the years where it's been quoted in print. It may even be somewhere on their website. Hasn't been a secret and no other manufacturers have challenged that number and seem to agree. I know I've heard similar from Keasey at DGA. It's not like you can't estimate to some extent simply by looking at the increase in installed courses which is public knowledge. And the basket mfgrs know a better number since they also supply baskets for private courses that may not be listed.

Harold has used that number in various interviews over the years where it's been quoted in print. It may even be somewhere on their website. Hasn't been a secret and no other manufacturers have challenged that number and seem to agree. I know I've heard similar from Keasey at DGA. It's not like you can't estimate to some extent simply by looking at the increase in installed courses which is public knowledge. And the basket mfgrs know a better number since they also supply baskets for private courses that may not be listed.



What!? No conspiracy? What is the world comin' to. Thanks Chuck.

colin, sorry, i confused the thread. i was talking about the evididence lyle claimed i dont have.

how DG compares to other sports regarding growth rate and the PDGA compares on retention is something i have not seen any credible comparisons on.



Yes, it's only credible if "someone" posts it here without any evidence whatsoever... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif BTW - given this, why have you at various times posted that we were poor in these areas, and then posted that we were average in these areas? This seems inconsistent with not having seen any credible information on these issues.

I've been meaning to address the MB Rules and Peter Shive issue for some time and have not been able too. This issue and how it was dealt with is very telling.

Many, including myself, rail it the onerous MB rules structure that Peter and his staff follow at this site. But let's consider how we got here. Let's take Pat's notion to investigate Peter's job for example. Now, if a MB moderator, say Peter, were to use common sense judgment in moderating the MB, and was not 100% consistent in his actions, and someone leveled a complaint, well, that moderator would have to worry about being censured by his fellow Board Member. Instead of receiving support from that Board Member, the moderator would know that he was going to receive, no support.

So what we get instead, is a set of inflexible, very repugnant rules. Yes, they will give consistency, but they will not give rational behavior or fairness. They do not treat us as adult, they kill true criticism, and they inhibit information exchange.

The next time you're here and thinking about how dumb the rules structures are, remember how we got here. Actions like those that Pat took, of promising to investigate a fellow Board Member for misconduct, give you a situation where there must be a hard and fast rule.

BTW - Let me point out that any notion of real misconduct on this site seems ludicrous at best; as does the notion of investigating anyone for such. However, the impact of such situations are not minimal, they build an environment of mistrust, back watching, and rules adherence in the face of common sense judgment that does not serve the membership in any way.

to Pat Brenner:

On 5/15, following complaints about my performance as CD from a number of other posters, you said,
"R U serious??? please provide details, either here or in a PM or email to [email protected]" ([email protected])

On 5/16, I replied,
"Everyone,
Here at last is a wonderful constructive idea. There are very serious charges indeed on this thread, and they deserve a deeper and more professional treatment than any denials or protestations I could make. We need a thorough investigation by an unbiased investigator, and Pat is offering to provide it. I accept with gratitude, because it is the only chance I have of clearing my name.
Please send all your examples of unprofessional and incompetent behavior on my part to the e-mail address that Pat provided. He can pursue his investigation alone, or with a subcommittee of his choosing. I await his judgement.
Peter Shive
Communications Director"

I had expected bv now that you would have informed the Board of your mission, and provided us with a list of particulars to which I should respond. That list should of course include your own complaint of not receiving notification about your appeals (which I sent to you yesterday at 9:43 and 9:59AM).

I responded officially (as pdgashive) on 5/16, as I do now, because investigation of one PDGA Board Member by another should be considered official business. I will continue to treat this as official business until the matter is settled.

Now follow through.

to Pat Brenner:

The issue currently on the table is only the most recent in a long series. You have been flaying me on the message board for some time, and until now I have let you get away with it. No longer. I want to defend myself as a Board member. Perhaps the current issue is too complex for you to effectively investigate, or perhaps you have other reasons for not wanting to proceed. I can appreciate that. Let us go back, then, to a simpler case.

Earlier this year you publically insinuated that I reported posts to the monitors and then acted on those same posts at the appeal level. You have never reported any resolution of that charge. I have the following questions:

1) What led you to concoct that particular insinuation?
2) Whatever possessed you to make it public without first asking me if it might be true?
3) Any responsible Board Member would lay such a charge before the Board before posting it on the message board. But you have never brought any of your publically stated concerns about my performance as CD to the Board. Not one. Not ever. Why not?
4) If you still believe that the insinuation is true, why are you not trying to put a stop to such unethical behavior on my part? If you believe that it is false, why have you not publically admitted as much, and apologized for having made it in the first place?

Pat, if you get re-elected, will you offer to be Communications Director to oversee this D-Board?

:confused:

to Pat Brenner:

On Monday of this week you expressed outrage that Board Members might want to limit your access to confidential material. "These BoD members should be replaced immediately", you said. I was one BoD member who recommended to Board President Bob Decker that we do just that, and I had much deeper concerns than your release of financial data to Steve Timm, concerns that are well known to you.

You had publically posted (to the message board) a promise that you would obtain the names of people who reported posts for any person who requested it, plus all correspondence related to the cases. In fact, such information is confidential. But that didn't bother you. You then went behind my back and tried to bully one of my monitors into giving you that information.

My opinion then, subsequently reinforced by the Timm release, was that you are too reckless to be fully trusted with confidential information. If you believe that confidential data should be released, you might just release it on your own say-so. I have seen no evidence since then to change that opinion.

Now, with regard to your promise to release confidential data privy to the moderating team, I have these questions:

1) What gave you the authority to make such a promise? Did you think that you were the Communications Director?
2) Why did you approach the monitor without my permission? The monitors answer to me, not you.
3) Whatever possessed you to attempt such a scheme on your own, without ever having brought the matter to the Board?
4) Why have you never explained to the disappointed members that you were not able to obtain the information you promised, and the reasons why?

to Pat Brenner:

On Monday of this week you expressed outrage that Board Members might want to limit your access to confidential material. "These BoD members should be replaced immediately", you said. I was one BoD member who recommended to Board President Bob Decker that we do just that, and I had much deeper concerns than your release of financial data to Steve Timm, concerns that are well known to you.

You had publically posted (to the message board) a promise that you would obtain the names of people who reported posts for any person who requested it, plus all correspondence related to the cases. In fact, such information is confidential. But that didn't bother you. You then went behind my back and tried to bully one of my monitors into giving you that information.

My opinion then, subsequently reinforced by the Timm release, was that you are too reckless to be fully trusted with confidential information. If you believe that confidential data should be released, you might just release it on your own say-so. I have seen no evidence since then to change that opinion.

Now, with regard to your promise to release confidential data privy to the moderating team, I have these questions:

1) What gave you the authority to make such a promise? Did you think that you were the Communications Director?
2) Why did you approach the monitor without my permission? The monitors answer to me, not you.
3) Whatever possessed you to attempt such a scheme on your own, without ever having brought the matter to the Board?
4) Why have you never explained to the disappointed members that you were not able to obtain the information you promised, and the reasons why?






Pat - Back in January of this year you posted why you wanted to see the PDGA financial information on this thread. http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=783169&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post7 83169


Is it true you released confidential PDGA financial information to Steve Timm without permission from the BOD or ED?

If this is true, it sheds a different light on the posts made by you and Steve Timm on the above thread.

I would like to add a comparison to this situation that may have eluded some. When one steps into a position, say Board Member of the PDGA, one should conduct oneself in a certain fashion. To some extent the norm, at least in the past, is to take a certain amount of abuse and act professionally nonetheless.

If I may be so rude as to take outgoing Board Member Peter Shive as my example, Peter has taken a great deal of abuse in this forum and he's taken it professionally. This is one of the reasons I am concerned that Peter is leaving. There can never be too many professional voices in any organization.

Contrast that with what we are seeing on this thread.

There is a reason why professional behaviors are the norm in business settings, even in settings like the PDGA. Trust, effective team work, accurate information, these things are absolutely required for success in the business world. I have been incredibly disappointed to see these very items damaged frequently over the past two years - even to the point where disabusing with clear facts has gotten myself and other posters a whipping.

I would not be the first to point out that these techniques of gossip and what I say is true no matter the facts, are now the norm in many aspects of our lives, and we can clearly see the results; dysfunctional businesses, dysfunctional governments, and dysfunctional medical care are just a few of the results.

Why would we want to be as stupid as our politicians, as big oil, as the banking industry? I'd think we'd want to be better...

And BTW - the fact that this organization pays consulting fees to Brian H. and other individuals was a decision made by, and voted on by the Board, a Board we elected and that acts diligently on behalf of the sport as a whole. The fact that Pat keeps bringing the issue up here like it is some dirty little secret is appalling. Since others are too professional to step in and comment on this, let me point out that hiring people and paying them to carry out tasks that support this organization is the job of the ED and Board. Let me repeat that again - this is their job! Trying to make it look bad by insinuation is IMO, disgusting.

BTW - before someone comes on here with the notion that they might not always do this perfectly, wow, like that is a big reach. On the other hand, those leaders act financially responsibly, i.e. they aren't breaking the bank and yet support many mainstream and grass roots efforts, they hire guys like Brian H. (lets see, the most experienced manager of a disc golf organization available), and they hire other highly experienced members of our community. Where I come from that is called wise decision making. Instead, they are presented as poorly serving our sport because they haven't achieved unrealistic growth based on the desires of some members.

Isn't it time we grew up and were thankful that we have outstanding growth and outstanding member retention relatively speaking? Isn't it time we thanked our Board and ED for the great work they're doing instead of taking the mickey out of them on this somewhat repugnant MB?

Thanks Brian G.

And Thanks

Cris B
Peter S
Robert D
Ron C
Steve D
Todd A
Juliana K

The fact that Pat keeps bringing the issue up here like it is some dirty little secret is appalling.

It used to mystify me why people do that sort of thing, Lyle, treating ordinary business process with the presumption that they are corrupt. My working conclusion is that in many cases it is Fruedian Projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) at work, in that perhaps they would themselves be doing it in such a way as it would be a 'dirtly little secret' instead of aboveboard like the PDGA does it now.
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one�s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection."

The fact that Pat keeps bringing the issue up here like it is some dirty little secret is appalling.

It used to mystify me why people do that sort of thing, Lyle, treating ordinary business processes with the presumption that they are corrupt. My working conclusion is that in many cases (not necessarily this instance) it is Freudian Projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) at work, in that perhaps they would themselves be doing it in such a way as it would be a 'dirtly little secret' (if they were in charge) instead of aboveboard like the PDGA does it now.
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one�s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud, and for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as "Freudian Projection."

Post deleted by sandalman

[eliminated a double post]

Hazarding a guess, Peter could be referring to this post (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=828896&an=0&page=0#Post829665), wherein PDGA board member Pat Brenner asked a user to PM or email him details about an instance of DISCussion moderation, which details presumably support the poster's allegation that "stating facts and asking for an apology is now grounds for probation."

That request was made deep into one of Mikey's intended-to-be-humorous-but-falling-short-of-the-mark rambling diatribes in a thread which served only to slander Peter (the kind of thing I think should be removed at once; Mikey, what works verbally doesn't always convert when published as text), and I think a fair reading is that PDGA board member Pat Brenner intended to get to the bottom of the allegation by conducting his own investigation. Certainly that seems to be how Peter read it.

Post deleted by sandalman

Post deleted by sandalman

Thank you.

That sounds way too much like Clinton discussing Ms Lewinski.

It leads to a question about what is considered confidential and who defines it within an organization.

Would the information released have likely been considered confidential by the other members of the board and the ED at the time it was released, or was it publicly available?

Thank you.


Maybe now Mr. "Easy Money" Shive will chime in with his sources on his libel.

Post deleted by sandalman

Pat, please let us know how you define fiduciary responsibility? And what information did you share with other members of the organization with the goal of meeting your fiduciary responsibilities as a director?

terry, that cant be it cuz there is no "promise" to "investigate" contained in that one.


Well, you certainly did not use the word "promise" or the word "investigate," I'll give you that. :cool:

to Pat Brenner:

I took your request for information as a committment to collect data about my misdeeds as Communications Director, especially as you have so often before expressed concerns about my performance. I naturally expected that it would form the basis of an investigation. It was (and is) hard for me to imagine that you would just collect the information and sit on it. What a waste, and what a disappointment to your sources and to me. I fervently hoped you would investigate, because my best chance for exoneration would be to defend myself against you.

Alas, wishing cannot make it so. If you meant no promise, or even some slight intent to investigate, then I do sincerely apologize for assuming too much.

Post deleted by sandalman

to Pat Brenner:

I posed several questions for you recently. You have answered none, but rather responded with questions for me. I have answered those questions, both here and on my thread. Now it's your turn. I'll try to focus.

You said this to the membership: "if i get one request from one member, i will act in my authority as Oversight Director to obtain from the moderating team a full list of all reported posts, the name of the poster and communications within the moderating team regarding the resolution of all reports."

This information is confidential. You got your request from a member, and you then went behind my back to try to obtain the list.

I can tell you that this incident devastated me. CD is a rough job, and I expected that my fellow Board members would support me, not try to torpedo me in public. At the very least I expected that critical Board Members would take their criticisms and suggestions first to me, and then to the Board.

I'll boil the questions down:
Is it justifiable for a Board Member to behave this way?
If so, justify it.

Post deleted by sandalman

Pat, do you believe that current board members understand and fully comprehend that "confidential" is not a judgement call, but rather a black and white, legally defined term for specified information and documents? If not, what do you believe is the best way to "educate" them?

Pat charged on this thread that I should be immediately removed from the Board because I recommended that his access to confidential material be restricted. I began to defend myself against this allegation two days ago. The next exhibit in my defense is from an e-mail that Pat sent to one of my monitors behind my back in an attempt to obtain the confidential records of the moderating team. Pat said,

" i feel [name deleted] has every right to know his accuser. further, all organization records are open. this is well established by the current and previous Board. i am acting in my capacity as Oversight Director to support [name deleted] request. i hope we can supply this information and move on quickly."

It's easy to see what is going on. Two points are worth special mention.
1) Note Pat's appearance here in the guise of "Oversight Director". This makes it seem as though we had been operating improperly, when in fact we had been following correct procedures. (The irony is that, if we did give him the records, the Oversight Director could condemn us for violating confidentiality!)
2) Note also the comment "all organization records are open. this is well established by the current and previous Board". This is a complete fabrication. Many organization records are confidential. And the previous Board, of which Pat was a member, voted specifically to withhold detailed financial records. But a monitor would have no way of knowing that, and might well be intimidated by this ploy.

Fortunately this particular monitor refused to be buffaloed, and referred the matter to me.

I contend that this incident alone justifies my recommendation to limit his access to confidential material. He makes his own determination of what should be confidential, regardless of what the Board or the PDGA lawyer believes.

Now I note that Pat has declared interest in the Communications Director position. That helps me understand better why he would try so hard and so long to discredit me with the membership, but never bring any of his concerns to the Board. I do think often about the person who will take my place. I have great concerns because I know what I've gone through. I will stick my neck out, and make the following predictions:
1) It won't be Pat Brenner.
2) Whoever it is, God help him or her if no one can find a way to restrain Pat's interferences with the moderation team.

Pat, how do we go about voting you in as CD once Mr. Shive's term has come to an end?

I did not see that as an option on the 08 ballot.

The Board votes on those assignments just like they elect the Pres and Treasurer of the Board.

Thanks.

discette,

no, it is not true that i released confidential PDGA financial information to Steve Timm.

further, most corporate records are not confidential. in fact, its remarkable how very few are. technically, for those documents that are not, a Director would not have needed the permission of the BOD or anyone else to release them to a member who had properly requested them.



Shirley you jest, most corporate records are not confidential? Most corporate records for release to the public are not confidential, but on average, most corporate records are highly confidential.

That sounds way too much like Clinton discussing Ms Lewinski.

It leads to a question about what is considered confidential and who defines it within an organization.

Would the information released have likely been considered confidential by the other members of the board and the ED at the time it was released, or was it publicly available?



I agree, the problem is that it is the Board who defines confidential and it seems that Pat disagrees with this. Furthermore, in general, companies require their officers to sign confidentiality agreements. The PDGA has never had to do anything like this to my knowledge, but the irresponsibility of some may be leading us down this path.

Pat, do you believe that current board members understand and fully comprehend that "confidential" is not a judgement call, but rather a black and white, legally defined term for specified information and documents? If not, what do you believe is the best way to "educate" them?



I'm not sure this is absolutely correct. Some things are defined as confidential but a confidentiality statement often includes a clause along the lines of an officer should not release information detrimental to the company. The officer is expected to use common sense and... judgment.

Thank you.


Maybe now Mr. "Easy Money" Shive will chime in with his sources on his libel.



This exactly demonstrates the point. Peter challenges Pat to follow up on a promise to investigate Peter's alleged misbehavior and now it becomes that Peter has claimed libel. Peter didn't create this situation, an attack on this site followed by Pat's chiming in created the situation. Yet somehow it is Peter who is guilty... How does that work?

Look! A monkey!

Look! A monkey!

:D

Where?

Thank you.


Maybe now Mr. "Easy Money" Shive will chime in with his sources on his libel.



This exactly demonstrates the point. Peter challenges Pat to follow up on a promise to investigate Peter's alleged misbehavior and now it becomes that Peter has claimed libel. Peter didn't create this situation, an attack on this site followed by Pat's chiming in created the situation. Yet somehow it is Peter who is guilty... How does that work?


That was in response to this:

to Pat Brenner:

On Monday of this week you expressed outrage that Board Members might want to limit your access to confidential material. "These BoD members should be replaced immediately", you said. I was one BoD member who recommended to Board President Bob Decker that we do just that, and I had much deeper concerns than your release of financial data to Steve Timm, concerns that are well known to you.

You had publically posted (to the message board) a promise that you would obtain the names of people who reported posts for any person who requested it, plus all correspondence related to the cases. In fact, such information is confidential. But that didn't bother you. You then went behind my back and tried to bully one of my monitors into giving you that information.

My opinion then, subsequently reinforced by the Timm release, was that you are too reckless to be fully trusted with confidential information. If you believe that confidential data should be released, you might just release it on your own say-so. I have seen no evidence since then to change that opinion.


Libel: Malicious publication of a defamation of a person by printing, writing, signs, or pictures, for the purposes of injuring the reputation and good name of such person.

Thank you.


Maybe now Mr. "Easy Money" Shive will chime in with his sources on his libel.



This exactly demonstrates the point. Peter challenges Pat to follow up on a promise to investigate Peter's alleged misbehavior and now it becomes that Peter has claimed libel. Peter didn't create this situation, an attack on this site followed by Pat's chiming in created the situation. Yet somehow it is Peter who is guilty... How does that work?


That was in response to this:

to Pat Brenner:

On Monday of this week you expressed outrage that Board Members might want to limit your access to confidential material. "These BoD members should be replaced immediately", you said. I was one BoD member who recommended to Board President Bob Decker that we do just that, and I had much deeper concerns than your release of financial data to Steve Timm, concerns that are well known to you.

You had publically posted (to the message board) a promise that you would obtain the names of people who reported posts for any person who requested it, plus all correspondence related to the cases. In fact, such information is confidential. But that didn't bother you. You then went behind my back and tried to bully one of my monitors into giving you that information.

My opinion then, subsequently reinforced by the Timm release, was that you are too reckless to be fully trusted with confidential information. If you believe that confidential data should be released, you might just release it on your own say-so. I have seen no evidence since then to change that opinion.


Libel: Malicious publication of a defamation of a person by printing, writing, signs, or pictures, for the purposes of injuring the reputation and good name of such person.



Where's the libel? Peter states that he feels Pat can't be trusted, and to support that contention, he gives evidence.

The fact is that if any one points out that in their opinion Pat hasn't conducted himself professionally, there's a small group of posters who defend what Pat has done. You are one of that group. The reality is that you agree with Pat's goals and so you support him.

Surprisingly enough, I agree with many of Pat's goals too, but I don't think that is reason enough to support any behavior that Pat wishes to undertake. The reason I take that position is that I feel Pat damages the very goals he purports to support. His actions, IMO, kill good communication. They damage trust and organizational efficiency.

Steve Dodge once told me, should I not support Pat's ideas if they are good even if I might disagree with his methodology (not a direct quote)? I have no answer, but the process is damaging and nonproductive. It is also, IMO, suspect. All too often, Pat's allegations have proven false. He posts inferences of misconduct or nonproductivity that real data shows to be incorrect. Whether his intent is to damage or not, the end result is that asking such questions is damaging, given they are not true and there is no starting evidence to suggest that such questions should be asked. Many politicians have learned that asking such questions is enough to do the damage you want done. You don't have to prove it, just seed doubt. I'm not saying that is what Pat is doing, but the end result is the same. That's why the rest of the Board is so careful about doing such things, they know it is inappropriate and damaging to behave in such a fashion.

Look! A monkey!

Post deleted by sandalman

Look! A monkey!

:D

Where?



Somebody once told me, you can call people monkeys, but if you do, then you probably have the intelligence of one.

why doesn't "i know you are but what am i?" surprise me on this bored?

i just took Lyle off of ignore long enough to read his recent posts.

Lyle, you are spreading very incorrect info about me. first, i NEVER "promised" to "investigate" peter. even peter understands that and has apologized for this misrepresentation. second, you make some very serious assertions about me in several of your posts. are you sure you do not wish to edit some of that out? think carefully about what you are saying, and think long and hard about checking ALL of your facts.

this stuff DOES matter and it is not the first time i have had to defend myself from statements by you, in print, that seem to have the purpose of injuring my reputation and good name. because of this repetition, it is very much being perceived as malicious.

a moderator gave me good advice once when i told him that i was uncomfortable putting Lyle, or any member for that matter, on ignore. his advice was simple and wise: "some people deserve to be on ignore". so Lyle, if you wish to debate any of this further with me, please use my email address.


So, how many people have you threatened here Pat? Or is my interpretation of your post incorrect? Let me know cause I like to know exactly where those representing me stand. And what are my choices? Are you going to sue me? Or perhaps it's the less onerous choice of probation or banning?

Let's go through the complaint process shall we. Generally, the moderator gets a complaint, directly from the aggrieved or indirectly from someone else. If from someone else, they contact the aggrieved to let them know. Now, when this happens to me (I don't go to the moderator when people attack me here) I ask the moderator to please leave the post up. I figure if I can't take it, I really should find a better use of my time.

So, let me apologize for offending your sensibilities Pat. I know you're a really nice guy who would never break the rules. Any inferences to any wrong doing on your part should be ignored by all posters.

Pat, do you believe that current board members understand and fully comprehend that "confidential" is not a judgement call, but rather a black and white, legally defined term for specified information and documents? If not, what do you believe is the best way to "educate" them?



colin,

no, i do not believe that all current directors understand and fully comprehend confidentiality at all. you are correct, it is rather black and white.

the reason i say i am do not believe our comprehension is adequate is because even though the BoD has been presented with a) the law; and b) a formal legal opinion detailing why certain items MUST be released upon proper demand, there still is a resistance to releasing the info.

for example, there wwas a recent 7-0 vote to release the "detailed financials". guess what - the vote means nothing, because that document must be released anyway. so the BoD has gone from fighting tooth and nail to prevent my from releasing it all the way to approving the release unanamously.

those financials are whats behind most of this. sorry folks, but those recrods MUST be made available upon proper demand. anything less cxan cause the loss of the tax-free status. think about that for a second.

next, think about the ludicrious scenario that has one director calling other directors to gain support for barring another director access to information. this is so wrong on so many levels it defies the imagination. some of you worry about my "methods". what about this? a direcotr cannot fulfill his responsibilities if he is barred from corporate infoermation.

and yes, i will state it very clearly again:

i believe any Director who participates in a non-inclusive meeting that results in a Board directive being delivered to the ED should absolutely be removed immediately.

there is a method already established in our ByLaws for removing a director. banning them from receiving information is NOT part of that method. to do it legaly, one must call a meeting and gain unanamous approval from the other directors. kinda hard tro do that when you dont even talk to all of the other directors, isnt it! there is no method for "punishing" a director. you cant just say "hey this guy is a director and we dont like his methods so we will block him from information". yet that is what happened. of course i am upset about it.

Look! A monkey!

:D

Where?



Somebody once told me, you can call people monkeys, but if you do, then you probably have the intelligence of one.



Somebody once told me, fake scientists may have been exposed to real pathogens that leave them delusional...Just something I was told once. Crocodiles are stupid also, especially one's named Lyle. I hate that book from the 60's.

Wait, I'm confused, is Lyle a Monkey or a Crocodile? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Lyle is a Crocodile...Lyle O. Ross is a real scientist and stuff.

i just took Lyle off of ignore long enough to read his recent posts.

I haven't taken Lyle off ignore in a long time. :D

Pat, do you believe that current board members understand and fully comprehend that "confidential" is not a judgement call, but rather a black and white, legally defined term for specified information and documents? If not, what do you believe is the best way to "educate" them?



colin,

no, i do not believe that all current directors understand and fully comprehend confidentiality at all. you are correct, it is rather black and white.

the reason i say i am do not believe our comprehension is adequate is because even though the BoD has been presented with a) the law; and b) a formal legal opinion detailing why certain items MUST be released upon proper demand, there still is a resistance to releasing the info.

for example, there wwas a recent 7-0 vote to release the "detailed financials". guess what - the vote means nothing, because that document must be released anyway. so the BoD has gone from fighting tooth and nail to prevent my from releasing it all the way to approving the release unanamously.

those financials are whats behind most of this. sorry folks, but those recrods MUST be made available upon proper demand. anything less cxan cause the loss of the tax-free status. think about that for a second.

next, think about the ludicrious scenario that has one director calling other directors to gain support for barring another director access to information. this is so wrong on so many levels it defies the imagination. some of you worry about my "methods". qwhat about this? a direcotr cannot fulfill his responsibilities if he is barred from corporate infoermation.

and yes, i will statei s very clearly again:

i believe any Director who participates in a non-inclusive meeting that results in a Board directive being delivered to the ED should absolutely be removed immediately.

there is a method already established in our ByLaws for removing a director. banning them from receiving information is NOT part of that method. to do it legaly, one must call a meeting and gain unanamous approval from the other directors. kinda hard tro do that when you dont even talk to all of the other directors, isnt it! there is no method for "punishing" a director. you cant just say "hey this guy is a director and we dont like his methods so we will block him from information". yet that is what happened. of course i am upset about it.



Pat,

I know that this was discussed and pointed out to you more than once but I will once again remind you that a budget is not even required by law. How is it then that you claim that we are required by law to publish or release something (the budget) that we are not even required to have? This was pointed out to you by Bob Decker (a Certified Public Accountant who specializes in non-profit finance) and backed up by the PDGA attorney. I am concerned that you continue to misinform the members on this subject knowing full well that the PDGA is not bound to adhere to your own personal legal opinion that you claim to have paid for. The Board asked the PDGA attorney for a legal opinion and it backed all of this up. We are bound to follow the legal advice of our attorney, not yours!

The detailed budget was recently released after a motion was properly made by Peter Shive and voted upon by the entire board. The reason for the release is because we are in the very enviable position of having absolutely nothing to hide. Peter went through the proper process and you did not. It is that simple!

You were blocked from receiving additional detailed financial information ONLY AFTER you chose to release confidential financial information to an outside party without BOD approval and against the wishes of the majority of the Board. You were kindly asked to wait until the PDGA attorney had issued his opinion on the subject before doing so but you refused and released the information anyway. I find it disturbing that you think that rogue BOD members can release confidential information without approval and not face any consequences but the responsible Board members who are standing up to prevent this kind of reckless behavior should be removed immediately.

Brian,

a budget is a corporate record and releasing it when properly demanded is required by law.

How is it then that you claim that we are not required by law to publish or release something (the budget) that we are not even required to have?
"required to have" is not a test to determine the need to release. existance is.

This was pointed out to you by Bob Decker (a Certified Public Accountant who specializes in non-profit finance) and backed up by the PDGA attorney.
true. i am concerned that our attorney is wrong.

I am concerned that you continue to knowingly misinform the members on this subject knowing full well that the PDGA is not bound to adhere to your own personal legal opinion that you claim to have.

first of all, i dont claim to have it. i DO have it, and you have seen it. dont come on here and make it sound like it does not exist. further, i am NOT misinforming or misrepresenting here. you have an opinion that you hope like heck is right. i have one i know is right.


The detailed budget was recently released after a motion was properly made by Peter Shive and voted upon by the entire board. The reason for the release is because we are in the very enviable position of having absolutely nothing to hide. Peter went through the proper process and you did not. It is that simple!

so i guess you are saying that after two years of asking nicely, i did something about it, and now the Board decides to be all nice and go along? nice revisionism, there! :) i luv it!

You were blocked from receiving additional detailed financial information ONLY AFTER you chose to release confidential financial information to an outside party without BOD approval and against the wishes of the majority of the Board. You were kindly asked to wait until the PDGA attorney had issued his opinion on the subject before doing so but you refused and released the information anyway.

its good you are spilling a lot of the details. excellant movement towards transparency! i applaud these improvements. i am also glad to have statements from you that support my contention that i was prevented from performing my duties as director by the info embargo. (i understand that didnt come from you, so its not your fault, btw).

btw, the budget is NOT confidential. keep feeding members that line all you want, but it wont make it so.


I find it disturbing that you think that rogue BOD members can release confidential information without approval and not face any consequences but the responsible Board members who are standing up to prevent this kind of reckless behavior should be removed immediately.
and i find it equally disturbing that Bob and other Directors would rewrite the law with this type of reckless and irresponsible action against a Director. as you know, there are procedures already written for dealing with problems. the Board chose to go off the reservation on this one. just admit that - thats the real issue at this point.

I find it disturbing that you think that rogue BOD members can release confidential information without approval and not face any consequences but the responsible Board members who are standing up to prevent this kind of reckless behavior should be removed immediately.

I find it disturbing that you think that rogue BOD members can release confidential information without approval and not face any consequences but the responsible Board members who are standing up to prevent this kind of reckless behavior should be removed immediately.


i find it disturbing that our ED can come on here and spread these kind of un- and half-truths without any ramifications and that so many of our members will believe it without question.

A combination of recent posts has made clearer what it was that I first saw in PDGA board member Pat Brenner's actions after his first couple of board meetings. He doesn't just want to be PDGA board member Pat Brenner, he wants to be the whole PDGA board, and the decision making PDGA staff, and even the PDGA attorney&mdash;all wrapped up in one ego.

So it's simple, he can even skip board meetings as long as the board, staff, and our attorney run all of their decisions past him by email for a "yeah" or "nay" before implementation. Pat, don't be shy. You could have just demanded all of that up front and saved us the time spent figuring it out.

Imagine:

The board sits around discussing which Worlds submission to accept and someone says, "Let's just email Pat." Pat writes back, "Go with proposal 3." And it's all done.

The staff sits around trying to figure out where to get the best advice and representation on international issues, when someone says: "Let's ask Pat." One simple phone call later and the answer is, "Anyone but Brian Hoeniger," which certainly narrows the field.

And when Brian Graham or Bob Decker call our attorney for advice on public versus confidential documents, instead of him actually researching it he can have his legal assistant call Pat and ask, "Hey Pat, what do you think about this one?" And Pat says, "I already shared it with my preferred board candidate," so it's public.

Man, it does become simpler. And just think of the staff and volunteer time saved, not to mention legal fees! Once staff figures out that the attorney is just calling Pat, then they can just ask Pat directly. No need for any legal fees at all! :cool:

Post deleted by sandalman

I'm not Terry so I don't know if you want my response.

I might move reporting and measurement into opportunities as a chance to develop metrics that can be used to adapt and manage disparate procedural and operational gaps that have become apparent due to our recent growth instead of a weakness, but I generally agree with your appraisal of our current position.

I might also put the Pro Tour out to 5-8 years. I don't see it working until 3-5 years after a rebound in the general economy.

Look! A monkey!

WOW! A dissertation. Frankly, any first year business student, or for that matter undergrad with a business major and a modicum of intelligence can write out this list. I do credit Pat with that. Indeed, with a little more effort the same student could provide some insight as to ways to approach these issues that are relevant to the business world as a whole. It isn't hard and despite the fact that Bob and Brian and the rest aren't here tootin' their horns, they pretty much know this list. The real secret is your ability to get your solutions and ideas acted on by your co-managers. It's called managing up or sideways depending on your position.

I think I can make a good argument that what is going on here shows that Pat might not have the ability to get his issues on the table and enacted no matter whether those ideas are good or bad...

BTW - I disagree with Pat on one idea (probably on more). The notion that Board positions don't stay filled long because of short Board terms seems incorrect to me. I might argue that the biggest contribution to turnover is burnout caused by a number of issues, and that many Board members quit before their time is up or are glad to see their two years behind them and only stay on out of loyalty to the sport. If that's true, why in the world would Pat argue for longer Board terms?


so Terry, if you could pull yourself away from attack Pat mode long enough to read the following, i'd like to know what you think about this analysis, and what items you would add or delete.



Strengths

Market position � the association is established at the center of organized disc golf. It performs activities essential to the sport on an exclusive basis. Two such monopoly services are rules and equipment approval. Association services that face alternatives generally remain the best available. Ratings, online communication, and the sanctioning program are excellent examples of these.

Divisional Structure - the divisional structure performs several essential services. Players seeking a social experience find a division they enjoy. Those seeking skills development climb various skill-based ladders. The structure�s flexibility allows players to seek, and generally find, a place to play that meets their particular and unique needs. (PLEASE NOTE: I really do believe our divisional structure is a huge strength. I also feel that it ignores our emerging Pro class. We need to solve the later without hurting what we have.)

Program Balance - the assortment of services provided by the pdga is broadly balanced. It addresses competitive and tour issues, international development, youth and educational issues, and host of other issues and objectives. The breadth of its overall program may be the association�s greatest strength, and presents a formidable entry barrier to potential competitors.


Weaknesses

Organization structure � leadership turnover is high due to short Board terms. State coordinators fill a valuable local role, but providing effective management and direction is difficult due to the numbers and range of issues. Traditional committees cover competition issues well, but no (or very minimal) formal structure exists for normal business issues such as marketing, business development and operations.

Scalability and Sustainability � It is not at all certain we could handle a doubling in size. Most of our technology and processes do not scale up or down well. The association faces continuous and rapid leadership turnover. It tends to rely on one or two individuals for several important services, and has limited redundancy in critical areas. Examples include ratings, equipment approvals and course design/review. The result is an organization that can only succeed slowly but can fail rapidly. (PLEASE NOTE: this sounds really negative. Discussing weaknesses always does. The intent is honest reflection and discovery.)

Clarity of Purpose and Program � the association does not do a good job in communicating how its various programs fit into its overall mission. Decisions are made that seem to conflict with our stated goals. The �why� is frequently missing from explanations.

Reporting and Measurement � the association does not typically set a lot of goals, measure success or track progress towards a goal. Many programs do not have stated budgets, or receive funding from various budget areas, making reports and budgets confusing or incomplete. Without measurement, program management becomes more about seeing what happens and less about reaching an objective or delivering an expected return.


Opportunities

General Growth of Sport � all indications are that disc golf will continue to grow. Opportunities to grow membership abound. There are also great opportunities that arise from an expanding base of vendors and service providers.

Pro Tour � never before has the sport been so close to a viable professional tour consisting of high-purse, play-your-way-in events. My opinion is that within five years there will be such a tour. If the time really is right and this tour does materialize, whoever �owns� it will be in a position to steer the professional aspects of the sport for the foreseeable future.

Regional Strongholds � some geographic areas have strong regional organizing bodies. These bodies have sizable memberships and knowledge of the local scene. Substantial membership and knowledge gains could come from creating working partnerships with these regional bodies.


Threats

Competition � this could come in three areas: association, service, and tour management. Legitimate competition to become the organizing body of the sport may not be likely, but competition to provide various services or operate a tour is. There are already several ranking and rating systems in the market, and a savvy regional operator could package up a successful program and franchise it to create a viable national structure. Two of disc golf�s four largest purses in 2007 were unsanctioned by the PDGA.

Low barrier to entry for specific services � Many of our services are reproducible at minimal cost. While providing as broad a program as the PDGA�s may be difficult, stitching together enough of the most critical services to tell a story is a lot more doable.

Economic Pressures � the current economic uncertainties combine with high gas prices to make consumers more cautious. Competition for discretionary dollars will intensify if the economy continues to struggle. Membership and event attendance are discretionary for virtually all of our Members, and we could feel the impact of this round of economic instabilities.

William Buckley may be dead, but his techniques are alive and well.

Buckley always debated using only information that supported his point of view. Why in the world would you want all the information, you might lose?

The problem with that is that often enough the other guy came with all the information and he'd point out that you were only telling half the story. So, when that failed Buckley would resort to name calling. "communist, intellectual snob (like knowing the truth or having all the information is a bad thing) and so forth." Well, that didn't always work either so then Buckley would go to threats, "I'm going to sue you" (or at least have you banned) and if that wasn't enough he'd get physical, "take that back or I'll punch you in the nose!" And of course some use the "I think I'll go home and clean my guns now" implied threat.

Well, like in a good Louis L'Amour novel, some debaters won't back down from that so then he'd go to the well I'll just ignore you technique. The problem there is that he couldn't force all the audience to ignore the other guy. And if the other guy pointed out that Buckley had done something onerous, well then Buckley would just go into denial. "I didn't do that, you can't prove it!" Oh wait, bad me, that wasn't Buckley, that was Nixon. No, Buckley was more aggressive, he'd use justification. "There's a very good reason why I did that and if you weren't an idiot you'd know why." All the way from intellectual snob to idiot in one debate...

Now, unsurprisingly enough, we've seen every one of these techniques on this thread. Buckley would be proud!

BTW David, spending your time on the who's online thread so you can call me a monkey before I post has to be really boring... Yawn!

Not as boring as reading your deluded diatribes...

[QUOTE]
i'd like to know what you think about this analysis, and what items you would add or delete.[QUOTE]

It's clearly a SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. "If SWOT analysis does not start with defining a desired end state or objective, it runs the risk of being useless." Without knowing that it would be senseless to try to add to it or tweak it. [Hat tip to 28003 for revealing the land mine.]

Oh, and Pat, it's not "attack Pat mode" it's "protect the PDGA mode."

Isn't that the SWOT analysis that the BoD did collectively earlier this year?

I found this interesting poll from September, 2006 when Pat Brenner started his term as a BOD member.

Check it out:



Pat Brenner PDGA BOD Member (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=OtherPDGATopics&amp;Number=58 1137&amp;page=0&amp;vc=1&amp;fpart=1)


Before Pat even had his first meeting as a BOD member, some members were concerned he would not be a team player and would not accept group consensus. Many thought Nick was being a troll for starting the poll, but two years later it appears at least some of his concerns were legitimate.

I found this interesting poll from September, 2006 when Pat Brenner started his term as a BOD member.

Check it out:



Pat Brenner PDGA BOD Member (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=OtherPDGATopics&amp;Number=58 1137&amp;page=0&amp;vc=1&amp;fpart=1)


Before Pat even had his first meeting as a BOD member, some members were concerned he would not be a team player and would not accept group consensus. Many thought Nick was being a troll for starting the poll, but two years later it appears at least some of his concerns were legitimate.



Looks like positive poll results.

I never thought Pat would be a team player. I thought his presence would be disruptive. That's why I wanted him to win.

I never thought Pat would be a team player. I thought his presence would be disruptive. That's why I wanted him to win.


Amen.

Pat is the "Cam Todd" of the BoD. Hopefully it ends better for Pat, though.

Post deleted by sandalman

to Everyone:

As I summarize the case for the defense, I ask you all to act first as jury, and then as judge.

My Crime (alleged by Pat): Trying to restrict his access to confidential material.
My Proposed Sentence (prescribed by Pat): To be immediately removed from the Board.

In my defense I will use only evidence and statements appearing on this thread.
1) Pat attempted to publicize confidential records of the moderating team, which would have violated Board-approved procedures and betrayed the trust of members who had been guaranteed that their correspondence with team members would be privileged.
2) He tried to obtain those records by subterfuge.
3) He claims, "all organization records are open. this is well established by the current and previous Board." There are three lies here. All organization records are not open. The previous Board specifically established confidentiality of some records. The present Board has never voted to release all records.
4) He unilaterally released detailed financial records to Steve Timm, in direct violation of existing Board policy forbidding such release.
5) He claims that the opinions of the Board and the Board lawyer are irrelevant. All that matters is what he (and his lawyer) think.
6) The "first thing" he would do as Communications Director is to "start publishing the details of reported posts". Another unilateral release. Even if it has occurred to him that the Board might not approve such a 180 degree shift in policy, he doesn't care.

The Verdict: I ask you, as jury, to find me 100% guilty as charged. I certainly did try to limit Pat's access to confidential material. I would in fact do even more. I would argue that, Board Member or not, he should never be allowed access to any confidential material.

The Sentence: I ask you, as judge, to find that I committed no crime by recommending that his access be limited.

It would have been a crime not to recommend it.

I never thought Pat would be a team player. I thought his presence would be disruptive. That's why I wanted him to win.



Great, let me make sure I understand, Bruce didn't vote for Pat because he thought he'd make a contribution, or because he thought he'd help advance the sport, or because he thought he could help with the Pro Tour or to grow the sport, no, he voted for him so he could disrupt the organization. Well, I'd say he got what he voted for by my measure. Problem is, that the rest of us got that too.

What recourse in the by-laws is there if a board member does something not agreed to by the rest of the board. please follow them if they exist.

If a crime is committed, don't play at law with the members to win popularity. Charge them and have the lawyer follow through.

Post deleted by sandalman

Post deleted by sandalman

I don't know if either of you are lying but you are both incorrect about the status of PDGA records. A majority of the board voted to make all PDGA records confidential except those identified in the colorado statute, unless the Board subsequently voted otherwise on a record by record basis. I think this vote was in February. It is in the minutes. The Board member from Oregon running on a platform of openess was one of the ones who voted to make all PDGA records confidential. I think it was Pat and Steve who voted against.

*** You are ignoring this user ***


:D

yeah Lyle, would it be better to just disregard Bruce's vote since he didnt agree with your position? what about going along with the consensus???



That's not what I said Pat, I pointed out that if Bruce voted for you because he wanted disruption, well he got that. I did state, indirectly, that there were other issues that might have been considered, however, I don't necessarily agree with all of those other issues either.

On the other hand, I agree with much of what Bruce supports. His views on amateurism and ways to grow the sport from the bottom up are excellent. He has introduced so many unique tournament formats that have great potential that I am truly impressed. Imagine that, actually making a contribution to the sport. Right on Bruce!

I don't know if either of you are lying but you are both incorrect about the status of PDGA records. A majority of the board voted to make all PDGA records confidential except those identified in the colorado statute, unless the Board subsequently voted otherwise on a record by record basis. I think this vote was in February. It is in the minutes. The Board member from Oregon running on a platform of openess was one of the ones who voted to make all PDGA records confidential. I think it was Pat and Steve who voted against.



Thanks Bruce, actual facts, what's the world coming too now?

BTW - in this I support Pat and Steve. I'm not surprised, given the situation, that the vote happened, I think it clearly demonstrates how a disruptive voice can result in an unfavorable outcome. On the other hand, I'd still rather it hadn't.

Maybe it was March. I found it and forgot the date already!


Disclosure and Confidentiality of PDGA Records (Decker): Motion (begun as electronic motion) (Convers): That the PDGA Board of Directors as a whole will make decisions regarding disclosure of confidential information in accordance with Colorado law, including the determination of what constitutes confidential, and that no individual board member may release such information without permission of the Board
(Bellinger second).
Motion (Shive): To move the previous question.
For: Bellinger, Shive, Andrews, Decker, Convers
Against: Dodge, Brenner
Motion passes 5-2.
Vote on the original motion:
For: Bellinger, Shive, Andrews, Decker, Convers
Against: Dodge
Abstain: Brenner
Motion passes 5-1-1.
Brenner requested the insertion of the following statement:
My objection to the motion is that there is an unanswered question before the Board about whether this action leads (or could lead) to the limitation of member rights that are currently granted by the current ByLaws. Even though Bob has discussed the matter with the PDGA attorney, we have yet to request a formal opinion from that attorney.
Motion (Shive): The PDGA will define �confidential information� as all PDGA records, reports and data not specifically listed in Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 7-136-101(5) (Bellinger second).
Motion (Brenner): That the above motion be tabled (Dodge second).
For: Dodge, Brenner
Against: Bellinger, Shive, Andrews, Convers, Decker
Motion fails 2-5.
Vote on the original motion:
For: Bellinger, Shive, Andrews, Convers, Decker
Against: Dodge, Brenner
Motion passes 5-2

This was the same meeting where the majority voted to abolish the position of the oversight director. What I don't understand is why they don't just vote to send Pat and Steve to Siberia.

To Everyone:

Pat says "There are several lies here: 1) i never said all organizational records are open."
<font color="red"> From an e-mail sent by Pat in January to one of my monitors: "all organization records are open."</font> Yes, Pat did say it.

Pat says, "previous Boards did not establish confidentiality for "some" records."
<font color="red"> Last July the previous Board defeated (2-5) a motion to make monthly budget updates available to Active members upon request."</font> Yes, a previous Board (of which Pat was a member) did establish confidentiality of some records.

Pat says, "when you took over you presented a list of actions you were taking that were different from your predecessor. you told us that you were doing those actions. you presented it as if it was a condition of taking on the role. now you want to treat an incoming CD differently. very classy. it seems like its either your way or no way with you."
This is completely false. I took over the job in September, and made no conditions then (how could I? -- I had no idea what the job entailed) or at any other time. In November I proposed some changes in the message board protocols. I sent the original and proposed new texts of the protocols to all Board members well before the teleconference, asking if the Board had any objections to the changes. No one did, not even Pat, so I instituted the changes in December. I would never consider making a major change to message board protocols that the Board had not approved.

To Everyone:

Pat says "There are several lies here: 1) i never said all organizational records are open."
<font color="red"> From an e-mail sent by Pat in January to one of my monitors: "all organization records are open."</font> Yes, Pat did say it.

Pat says, "previous Boards did not establish confidentiality for "some" records."
<font color="red"> Last July the previous Board defeated (2-5) a motion to make monthly budget updates available to Active members upon request."</font> Yes, a previous Board (of which Pat was a member) did establish confidentiality of some records.

Pat says, "when you took over you presented a list of actions you were taking that were different from your predecessor. you told us that you were doing those actions. you presented it as if it was a condition of taking on the role. now you want to treat an incoming CD differently. very classy. it seems like its either your way or no way with you."
This is completely false. I took over the job in September, and made no conditions then (how could I? -- I had no idea what the job entailed) or at any other time. In November I proposed some changes in the message board protocols. I sent the original and proposed new texts of the protocols to all Board members well before the teleconference, asking if the Board had any objections to the changes. No one did, not even Pat, so I instituted the changes in December. I would never consider making a major change to message board protocols that the Board had not approved.



I apologize for reiterating this point but it is so very important to a well functioning organization.


What a concept - documenting proposed changes or actions, submitting said changes to the Board for approval, acting within the structure approved by the Board. It's just amazing, Democracy in action.

What we need are signing statements. You know those little statements that Bush puts out every time Congress passes a law he doesn't like where he says, "I am not going to obey this law because I think the executive branch, i.e. me, is above it ." We'd have a pretty good idea of what Pat was going to do by his signing statements. :D

This saga is still going on?

Hope you guys can work this out.

These guys just can't play nice in the sandbox.

*** You are ignoring this user ***


:D


You are wise beyond your years.

no, it is too idiotic to continue. it would be nice to redirect the thread towards the future and other issues. i'll try my best to do that. my ignore button has been given a good workout.

it would be nice to redirect the thread towards the future



http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/6630/kneelsuckers2pf2.gif

Done! :D

no, it is too idiotic to continue. it would be nice to redirect the thread towards the future and other issues. i'll try my best to do that. my ignore button has been given a good workout.



Which part is idiotic Pat? The part where you post that our performance as an org is average (just upstream) or the part where you post that there is no credible evidence to make any judgment on our organization's performance (also just upstream)?

I realize that pointing this out might offend those who like your style, and they frequently let me know that, but that does not change the fact that any leader of an organization has an obligation to make sure they accurately represent that organization, good or bad.

BTW - Since one of the reasons this thread exists is to promote your run for office, should it not be more than a presentation of your goals, but also a reflection of your actions? I think Bruce's position, supported by Colin, is an excellent one, I disagree with it, but it has value. One of your roles in this organization is that of disrupting the status quo. That position has value to some members. That should not be hidden, but instead should be a central part of your run.

I think Bruce's position, supported by Colin, is an excellent one, I disagree with it, but it has value.


Why thank you, Lyle. You can be such a sweetheart sometimes. I support this position because disruptive technologies have given us some of the greatest technological advances over the past 100 years. Organizations who's executives and managers all agree and try to slowly improve on the status quo get overtaken and become obsolete. Sometimes a complacent group of decision makers needs to get shaken up a bit to realign/redirect their vision in order to be successful now, tomorrow, and in years to come. I think Pat has done good and bad things so far, but what troubles me is that the Board is reacting so negatively. I do think that this organization needs more new faces to get new ideas and new opinions. By employing ex-board members as consultants indefinitely only magnifies the problem. More new faces, better leaders, and more disruptive people, handled the right way will make this organization stronger in the future. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it happen.....yet.

Pat, why did you delete so many of your posts?

The Board probably voted that he had to, 5-2 in favor.