Friday these very brave individuals were listed as candidates for the new board.

Cris Bellinger, #18301 - Oregon
Pat Brenner, #10403 - Texas
John Dorn, #13295 - Wisconsin
Rand Eberhard, #7584 - Georgia
Matt Gillis, #20021 - Pennsylvania
Tim Kieffer, #12545 - Wisconsin
Ray Murray, Jr., #9553 - Texas
Joe Rotan, #13827 - Oklahoma
Rick Rothstein, #2458 - Missouri
Steve Timm, #29408 - Louisiana
Michael Wildner, #12132 - Michigan

My first question is:
With the inherent abuse board members take, especially in this forum, why in the world would you subject yourselves to such treatment?

Don't all of you type at once now.....

Note to Moderators - Maybe give recently suspended members a one week furlough to make sure this topic gets the typical level of animosity.

Vote for Rand!!

Great guy who does so much for disc golf.

I'm sure all of them are dedicated members and have a vision of what the organization should/could be. It really takes a special individual to volunteer time to this because the rewards are not as obvious as the personal costs.

I posted this as a group question in the hope that the candidates would use this forum to actually debate issues, much like they will in closed session if elected. It would give a central location for this exchange instead of asking each candidate in separate topics (and locations on this discussion board) the same question.

I really hope this will be a open, respectful exchange among colleagues.

My question is why don't you step up and fix the problem from the inside instead of griping about it from the outside. If you can do it so much better than them, show us all how its done.

I don't know how one person can fix a problem of civility and respect. I certainly didn't claim that I could at all, and not better than those who are running for office or others on this discussion board.

I am trying to provide a place for those who are willing to do the hard work of our organization to help us know what they think and how they might interact among themselves once elected.

Even if Peter didn't resign at the end of one year, he planned to stop being the D-Board overseer. Among the new candidates and remaining Board members, one of them will be elected by them to assume these duties. I'm interested to hear who among them might volunteer to oversee this D-Board and if he plans to follow Peter's approach or would suggest changing direction, including the possibility of closing down the D-Board?

In addition, it's apparent that the staff workload has made it difficult for them to produce the member email newsletter on a regular and more frequent schedule. It appears they could use help doing this since it was initially started and handled by a Board member. Any potential or current Board members willing to take on this useful communication responsibility?

My personal view is that this discussion board is very important, but have wondered why it all has to be public. No one has explained to me why it could not be a 2 part Discussion Board. One part that is public and moderated with the Public face of the organization protected and a separate part accessed by the current members password, thus not being available to the general public, where minimal moderation would be necessary. That way members could be as just about as rude and hateful as they like.

Is there a major technical reason the board can't be split?
Public on one side and Member Only on the other?

to fossil:
There is no technical reason why it could not be done. Still, I doubt that the PDGA would want to sponsor a program that condoned the posting of rude and hateful material, even if (perhaps especially if) only for its own members.
I would suggest that the folks who want to do this should just set up their own message board/newsgroup outside the PDGA. Then they could do anything they want.

The better thing to push for on the discussion board would be to find a way to allow non-members to post, but still be able to manage a way to limit the amount of junk that some posters would feel they can get away with. This would have to be along the lines of blocking IP addresses for non-member accounts that violated the etiquette of the message board. One would need to evaluate the amount of effort to implement the code changes for the board and the additional moderator responsibilities against the long term increase in PDGA membership by those that participate in the message board before they join.

There are many public message boards out there that do not have the problems with the juvenile posting that this site has. I'm not sure what that says about our demographics.

i'd support making the MB two-part, assuming it can be done technically.

re the original question: its really only bad here on the MB, and then only from a couple/few posters. as long as you can keep that in mind, handling the MB is not that bad. and true disruptions between Directors are far less frequent than the myths say.

As someone who is interested in each of these candidate's ideas, but is too incompetant or lazy to search long and wide, I would appreciate it if candidates would create their own thread, summarizing the important stuff like vision, what they consider important issues and how they view them, etc. It's much easier than sorting through one gigantic thread.

ETA. How many positions are available for this list of candidates?

Even if Peter didn't resign at the end of one year, he planned to stop being the D-Board overseer. Among the new candidates and remaining Board members, one of them will be elected by them to assume these duties. I'm interested to hear who among them might volunteer to oversee this D-Board and if he plans to follow Peter's approach or would suggest changing direction, including the possibility of closing down the D-Board?

In addition, it's apparent that the staff workload has made it difficult for them to produce the member email newsletter on a regular and more frequent schedule. It appears they could use help doing this since it was initially started and handled by a Board member. Any potential or current Board members willing to take on this useful communication responsibility?





I would think of all the current BOD Members and Candidates, Pat Brenner seems the most qualified to hold the Communications Director position. Pat has been active on the message board for many years and he already contributes to many of the forums, as a personal user, on a daily basis. He has probably made more posts on this message board than all past, present BOD members & Directors and all the current candidates COMBINED. Pat has also promoted himself as wanting open communication. It seems like a perfect fit.

james, three. peter's vacant seat was filled by the BoD.

Who filled it?

i've brought up the idea of a 2 part discussion board as well... i think some like Peter see that as a way for us to be lude/crude behind the scenes but I dont see that as the purpose/mission.

the 'open' part should be for things like tourney threads and equipment, etc that newbies and outsiders could give good input (yes im assuming that would mean that we'd allow non-pdga'ers to post there) and read about what is going on.

the 'closed' part might be for pdga announcements that only pertain to members, for threads like this one, etc.

Charlotte has our own discussion board www.charlottedgc.com/forum (http://www.charlottedgc.com/forum) and we have a public/private side and i think it works rather well with that setup.

Peter
I don't really look at the private portion of the DB being the PDGA 'sponsor(ing) a program that condoned the posting of rude and hateful material', but an acceptance that a few very vocal members make it appear so. I think it is a waste of your and others valuable time to have to police that aspect of our organization.

Pat
I'm glad to hear that currently there are no major Personal squabbles between board members. And you are far better than I to judge the number of shall we say 'disgruntled' members that make this board appear so petty and vicious to the public. And how much of your volunteer time is spent dealing with them and not able to spend on more constructive aspects of our organization.

In the past there have been cliques that have developed on the board. [Something I have heard about periodically in my 23 years of membership]. One thing that I hope this thread will accomplish is maybe to find out that candidate 'A's positions are also reflected by candidates 'C', 'F' and 'H' and not so linked with candidates 'B' and 'G'. If there is a mutually agreed upon platform that distinguishes one group of candidates from another group, that would be useful in determining the votes I would cast.

And James
It is easier for me to scroll down one thread to see that 'A' said ... and 'C' responded with ...... than it is to see on one thread 'A' said ..... and then have to have another different thread (on a separate browser window?) open to see the response from 'C'. But that is just my preference. I do realize that 'A' could answer one day and then 20 member posts be between that and 'C's response. I don't really know the most concise way to accomplish a dialogue between candidates on this board. With 11 people running and possibly 11 different threads I am not sure separate Ask Candidate 'A' ... Ask Candidate 'K' is any better.
Again I don't know what is best to accomplish a concise dialogue. One possibility is that questions could be posed on this thread and then answered on a Official Post only area like the PDGA Announcements where the candidates would be the only people to post.

i'd support making the MB two-part, assuming it can be done technically.

re the original question: its really only bad here on the MB, and then only from a couple/few posters. as long as you can keep that in mind, handling the MB is not that bad. and true disruptions between Directors are far less frequent than the myths say.



I too support the dual message board set up and I am glad to hear you think handling the message board is "not that bad".

Pat, if re-elected, would you put yourself up for Communications Director? If not, which other BOD position do you feel more qualified to hold?

One easy way to keep said forum subject only BOD posting and responses it to make it PDGA staff only. Like PDGA announcements, and all others could reply in a separate forum like they do now.

Suzette, i am not sure. i'd have more to bring to the communications/marketing aspect of the job than i would the part that has to do with this message board. running this MB seems like a tough gig. i would llook forward to doing the CD tasks, but i would probably be worried a bit about the part related to the MB.

One easy way to keep said forum subject only BOD posting and responses it to make it PDGA staff only. Like PDGA announcements, and all others could reply in a separate forum like they do now.



That is a good idea, but I would like someone independent of the board to choose and combine questions that would be posed on the restricted thread.

Suzette, i am not sure. i'd have more to bring to the communications/marketing aspect of the job than i would the part that has to do with this message board. running this MB seems like a tough gig. i would llook forward to doing the CD tasks, but i would probably be worried a bit about the part related to the MB.



And what happens if everyone elected feels the same way? "I don't want the Message Board responsibility either". How do we make it so it isn't such a tough gig?

i guess the best answer for that one would come from Steve adn Peter. they have stood in those shoes and would have the best insights.

if everyone felt that way, we'd still pick someone to do it. only one task can be the most fun... but they all need doing :)

how to make it easier? probably cant. its not a position that makes everyone happy. the moderators do the heavy lifting, so it seems helping them would have the most impact.

I'll oversee the MB. :D

So, what have we got in the PDGA right now, I think 10,000+ currently active members?

And, on the two threads in the 'Other PDGA Topics' section of the MB that are active today, so far, we have a total since each thread's inception of something like 109 posts by a total of 31 PDGA members - ranging from some who posted once to one member who has posted 16 times. (Unless someone is letting Southwick use their account again, so that's maybe 32.)

I'll go with 32, just to be conservative. :D

Hmm, 32 divided by 10,000. If I'm doing the decimal point right, that makes these two threads totally the product of 32/100ths of 1 percent of PDGA members. Wow. I had no idea this section of the MB was so important.

and your point is...

Who did the Board choose to fill Peter's spot on the BoD? Or are we voting for 4 this election? It would be nice to know ahead of time.

Chap

james, three. peter's vacant seat was filled by the BoD.





Who was appointed to the vacant BOD position?

Dear Members,

Juliana Korver-Sinclair was appointed to fill Peter Shive's vacant board seat effective September 1, 2008.

I have posted the platform statements of all Board candidates here:

PDGA Board Candidate Statements - 2008 Elections (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=830874&page=0&vc=1&PHPSE SSID=095e3b0e2b77fc72cc6809a00a8c5db9#Post830874)

The BOD candidate statements, as well as the state/provincial coordinator platform statements, will be available in PDF format on the PDGA website sometime in the next couple of days.

Regards,
Brian Graham, #5861
PDGA Executive Director

Great choice, board members :cool: a woman, a top pro, and a calm and reasoning individual.

Thanks, Juliana!

I'll second that opinion.

In response to Mr. Bellinger's statement. He claims to be concerned with communication with members.
I find this very difficult to believe. Over the past month I have contacted Teresa and others concerning the Beaver State Fling.
I note that he is the first registered player and as such believe he has communicated with the TD of this tournament.
I have received no responses from BSF staff and note that the website they are using is not set up for useful communication.
I realize this sounds like a rant. It is! If Mr Bellinger is truly interested in good communication with members I suggest he start at home and get it done there first to show he is capable of following through.

Great choice, board members :cool: a woman, a top pro, and a calm and reasoning individual.

Thanks, Juliana!



Second on all of that! I was fortunate enough to talk to Juliana while volunteering at Dineen at Am Worlds last summer. Besides all of what Terry said, I can also add that she is very smart, well spoken and has great insights into some of the difficulties the current org faces. We are lucky to have the services of such a person!

Ditto for your own service, Tim, and best of luck in the election. Yours is a valuable voice of reason on this message board and I look forward to seeing your name on the list of PDGA board members.

Dear Stuart,

Cris is one member of a team of volunteers that oversee the workings of the Beaver State Fling. I am sorry that your experience in trying to communicate with us has been less than desireable. Cris has been swamped at work lately and has been unable to keep up with the many updates that the website needs. If I can help in any way, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Todd
todd(dot)andrews(@)orsdiscgolf(dot)com

Excellent Mr. Andrews. Thank you for your time. I still am somewhat concerned regarding communications with the rest of the PDGA. My reasoning being that should Cris not being able to respond due to work concerns, truly a reason we all should be able to understand, then what happens through out the year? Does he have the time? I can understand the desire to be involved and volunteer; yet one must consider what is truly involved. Personally I realize my work will take my time first. I donate what I can be it time or something else as I can. Cris may have the time for many things but I see a promise for better communication is often construed as a personal commitment on his part to be directly involved in that communication. Perhaps he should not include this as part of his platform. Too often I have been deeply disappointed in such "promises" from past board members that have not followed through. At times other disc golfers have expressed to me a similar dismay in not being heard.
Should Cris make this commitment and follow through I applaud his investment and courage in taking on such a task.
Again, Thank you Todd for responding and I hope to communicate soon and meet you in Oregon.
Stuart

open to all candidates:

it is not an uncommon criticism of pDGA leadership to be labeled a "good ole boy" network. i've heard it many times. over the years i've observed cliques and heard many stories to this effect. the groupthink produced by such an environment has contributed to the pDGA's inability to attract and retain members. the pDGA has never, in my membership, struck me as thinking outside the box. right or wrong, the good old boy perception is a common criticism.

do you believe the current pDGA leadership is susceptible to "good ole boy" thinking? what distinguishes you from such a group? what one or two "outside the box" ideas are you most excited about regarding the future of the pDGA?

thanks

I'm not a candidate, but also not unwilling to share my perspective: There is no "good ole boy" network. It's natural that some people perceive there is one, but there's not. We'd actually be in better shape if there were.

lol. never underestimate the power of denial. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nile)

I'm not a candidate, but also not unwilling to share my perspective: There is no "good ole boy" network. It's natural that some people perceive there is one, but there's not. We'd actually be in better shape if there were.



i agree 110%.

... has contributed to the pDGA's inability to attract and retain members.



Hasn't the PDGA membership grown every year? Didn't HQ say that this year they're seeing a record number of renewals / new members?

This sounds like perception replacing reality...

I thought the problem was retaining members. We continue to grow the new member count much faster than the overall member count.

lol. never underestimate the power of denial. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nile)


Paul, why don't you provide us with a definition of "Good Ole Boy Network"? That would probably make for a better discussion. As I noted earlier, I never saw such a thing - under any definition I would normally use.

For some people, it can be defined as "any decision making structure that doesn't do what I want it to do," and that really doesn't hack it.

from the averages and industry norms that i have seen, the association has just about average membership growth and retention rates. the real question is do you want an average organization. that's not to disparage average. there is nothing wrong with average, really. most things are, and they do just fine.

personally, i think average is a waste of time, especially as an objective.

as far as a good ol boy network, of course there is. all industries have them. do an affinity diagram for the sport and you'll see. a reasonably small group of folks make, or influence greatly, the direction and significant decisions in the sport. (please dont read that as disparaging those in those folks, i am not.) the chinese call it guanxi, the japanese call zaibatsu. americans call it the good ol boy network. it's everwhere.

the association is viewed by many as the central force in a disc golf hegemony. if should not be difficult to see why that view developed. there are close and longtime ties between association leaders and the coalition. members of the group profit directly from the association and are protected from competition. the shoe fits pretty good.

this kind of structure is seldom a completely bad thing, and just as seldom a completely good thing. recognizing the phenomenom is the first step to harnessing its power and using it for the most good possible.

As usual, this question digresses us :cool:

I agree that when we've looked at the numbers, the PDGA's retention rates are fairly typical for associations. However, I'm not sure that's a problem, because we don't know why it isn't higher and there are a number of things unique about the PDGA that would lead me to expect certain membership losses on a regular basis. For example:<ul> People who join in order to play a single event;
People who join to get into competition but who find they do not care that much for it;
The ups and downs of people's jobs and incomes, to which I suspect we are on average more susceptible; and
Life changes - lots of youngsters who end up getting married, jobs, having children, and who begin gung ho but simply run out of time to play that much.[/list]I think it would be a wonderful thing to engage in some sort of "exit interview" process and collect information from people about why they do not renew.

Terry,

We are in the process of developing a number of (long overdue) membership surveys for release later this year. I think that a survey regarding renewals would be a great addition.

I also agree with your assesment of why people don't renew from time to time and the Board is in the process of addressing some of these issues. BTW, we are seeing an 8% increase in memberships this year.

Regards,

Todd

it is not an uncommon criticism of pDGA leadership to be labeled a "good ole boy" network. i've heard it many times. over the years i've observed cliques and heard many stories to this effect. the groupthink produced by such an environment has contributed to the pDGA's inability to attract and retain members. the pDGA has never, in my membership, struck me as thinking outside the box. right or wrong, the good old boy perception is a common criticism.



I'm not a candidate but several of the candidates may not be able to answer at least the part regarding "GOBN" - having no experience yet with our Board evnvironment.

Let�s examine the four words in the phrase �good ol� boy network� that some feel has a negative connotation and might be bad for managing our sport. The first word is �good� so that�s a positive to start with. You don�t ever hear of a �bad ol� boys network� � �bad boys� maybe but that�s not the same. Likely few if any prior Board members would have been cool enough to have been bad boys in their youth � or might we be surprised?

The second word spelled - ol� � seems to have a southern flavor more than just � old � but both mean: alive for many years. Until recently, most running for Board ran unopposed and those running were older. No conspiracy there. And when younger versus older candidates were in the mix, the older ones likely had more experience and name recognition. Not surprisingly, our members actually voted in the older ones with more experience into office.

The third word �boys� shouldn�t imply a conspiracy in a sport with less than 10% women members, and possibly just 1 in 14. We have had women Board members including Commissioners. Haven�t done the math but I think we might have had 1 in 14 women Board members over the years. Of course, you usually can�t become a Board member without running and we haven�t seen women candidates for a while. However, our so-called �good ol� boys� voted in youthful Juliana to replace �good ol� boy� Shive. Go figure. I doubt she�s practicing smoking cigars to get ready for the fabled blue cloud at Summit meetings.

And finally, we have the word �network.� Usually, that implies there�s a level of organization to regularly and efficiently swap and share ideas (plot conspiracies) among peers. Having been one of the veteran observers at Summit meetings, many of the Board members had never even met each other until then. That�s not to say that events like Summit doubles and evening dinners don�t become bonding rituals. But there haven�t been smokey poker games, steamy group saunas or fox hunts, by jove, unless� maybe I just didn�t qualify for an invite.

So, I fully expect mostly �good ol� boys� plus Juliana to continue to run our sport because that�s who will run and the members will elect. In fact, I really hope they are �good� and �network� well together. With regard to thinking outside the box, there are and have been �outside-the-box� ideas scattered all over the IDGC waiting for implementation but no one with time to implement them. The staff barely has time to keep up with the basic demands to serve members but can handle incremental improvements. The Board and others have been good at producing many ideas but most haven�t themselves followed thru or couldn�t follow-thru because it couldn�t be taken over by staff once initiated. Some of the things members now take for granted were implemented in the past ten years, but were �out-of-the-box� ideas at the time they started such as ratings and the PDGA Pro Shop.

Or, maybe the term doesn't need to be parsed to be understood. Maybe, everybody knows what it means: insular, secretive, closed to outside thought and input.

I have no idea if the BOD is this way, and certainly don't intend to imply that it is, but it bothers me to have discourse thwarted before it even starts.

this is not about just the BoD. the network in disc golf is bigger than that, and any given Director may or may not be part of the inner circle.

Maybe, everybody knows what it means: insular, secretive, closed to outside thought and input.


I think I pointed out that none of those terms are relevant at least since the early 90s. Before that, the sport was small enough that key movers and shakers probably did hold the org together and knew each other well which, among the candidates, maybe only Rick would know.

I have no idea if the BOD is this way, and certainly don't intend to imply that it is, but it bothers me to have discourse thwarted before it even starts.



What post has ever 'thwarted' discussion in the past?
It would be great to hear outside-the-box ideas from candidates.

separate "good of the sport" and the tour. two budgets, or even two organizations. one gets the IDGC, HOF, rules, tech standards, course directory. the other gets the event schedule, sanctioning, event fees, event/registration/results data.

the tour would survive almost entirely on event fees and whatever sponsorships it can dig up. there could be a modest mem fee, no more than $10?

the other is the governing body, industry historian, and data provider to the sport. a universal commons and the keeper of all things good and pure. it would survive on memberships, donations, sponsorships, and whatever goodwill it can muster. maybe memberships could start at $20 and go up to however much you can afford.

maybe thats an out of the box idea. but it could work if their combined strength and overall contribution is higher than when combined as they are now. the case for that happening can be made.

separate "good of the sport" and the tour. two budgets, or even two organizations. one gets the IDGC, HOF, rules, tech standards, course directory. the other gets the event schedule, sanctioning, event fees, event/registration/results data.

the tour would survive almost entirely on event fees and whatever sponsorships it can dig up. there could be a modest mem fee, no more than $10?

the other is the governing body, industry historian, and data provider to the sport. a universal commons and the keeper of all things good and pure. it would survive on memberships, donations, sponsorships, and whatever goodwill it can muster. maybe memberships could start at $20 and go up to however much you can afford.

maybe thats an out of the box idea. but it could work if their combined strength and overall contribution is higher than when combined as they are now. the case for that happening can be made.



Pat,

Great idea.

Many non-profit organizations have wholly-owned, for-profit subsidiaries. The PDGA could own The PDGA Tour, with it's own budget, administration, etc., that would return a portion of its profits to the parent organization, to promote 'the good of the sport.'

You've got the MBA. Dig into non-profit organization law and figure out how to do it.

A $20-25 PDGA membership, which allows you to apply for a Tour Card for an additional, nominal fee (and, I would suggest, after passing a reasonable rules test, and signing a Player's Code of Conduct Agreement), maybe another $20-25. Members with Tour Cards would pay discounted Event Fees (not purse feeding Entry Fees) and get other benefits (Ratings, World Points, Rankings).

A PDGA Tour, run as a business, could raise the legitimacy of the sport in the eyes of sponsors and media. It might take a year or two transition time, but there's no reason it wouldn't work.

Run with it.

jon (former good ol' boy network member)

A $20-25 PDGA membership, which allows you to apply for a Tour Card for an additional, nominal fee (and, I would suggest, after passing a reasonable rules test, and signing a Player's Code of Conduct Agreement), maybe another $20-25. Members with Tour Cards would pay discounted Event Fees (not purse feeding Entry Fees) and get other benefits (Ratings, World Points, Rankings).




Jon,

I presented something very similar to the Board at the Spring summit. In addition to a new low cost supporting level membership, I proposed a lower cost standard membership fee for all members whether they are pro or amateur but touring pro's could purchase an additional touring pro card which would entitle them to additional benefits. Under this plan, the touring pro's would be required to pass an officials test among other things. The presentation was more about introducing the idea and sparking thought and conversation on the subject than it was to get approval. We discussed it for awhile and there was interest from some Board members in exploring this avenue. I plan on developing the idea further and coming back to the Board later with a more detailed and polished proposal. Please feel free to send me any ideas you have on the subject.

Regards,
Brian Graham, #5861
PDGA Executive Director

separate "good of the sport" and the tour. two budgets, or even two organizations. one gets the IDGC, HOF, rules, tech standards, course directory. the other gets the event schedule, sanctioning, event fees, event/registration/results data.

the tour would survive almost entirely on event fees and whatever sponsorships it can dig up. there could be a modest mem fee, no more than $10?

the other is the governing body, industry historian, and data provider to the sport. a universal commons and the keeper of all things good and pure. it would survive on memberships, donations, sponsorships, and whatever goodwill it can muster. maybe memberships could start at $20 and go up to however much you can afford.

maybe thats an out of the box idea. but it could work if their combined strength and overall contribution is higher than when combined as they are now. the case for that happening can be made.



Pat,

Great idea.

Many non-profit organizations have wholly-owned, for-profit subsidiaries. The PDGA could own The PDGA Tour, with it's own budget, administration, etc., that would return a portion of its profits to the parent organization, to promote 'the good of the sport.'

You've got the MBA. Dig into non-profit organization law and figure out how to do it.

A $20-25 PDGA membership, which allows you to apply for a Tour Card for an additional, nominal fee (and, I would suggest, after passing a reasonable rules test, and signing a Player's Code of Conduct Agreement), maybe another $20-25. Members with Tour Cards would pay discounted Event Fees (not purse feeding Entry Fees) and get other benefits (Ratings, World Points, Rankings).

A PDGA Tour, run as a business, could raise the legitimacy of the sport in the eyes of sponsors and media. It might take a year or two transition time, but there's no reason it wouldn't work.

Run with it.

jon (former good ol' boy network member)



that's what i'm talking about. the biggest challenge for the pDGA is trying to satisfy way too many competing interests. this would be a long overdue step in the right direction.

from the averages and industry norms that i have seen, the association has just about average membership growth and retention rates. the real question is do you want an average organization. that's not to disparage average. there is nothing wrong with average, really. most things are, and they do just fine.

personally, i think average is a waste of time, especially as an objective.

as far as a good ol boy network, of course there is. all industries have them. do an affinity diagram for the sport and you'll see. a reasonably small group of folks make, or influence greatly, the direction and significant decisions in the sport. (please dont read that as disparaging those in those folks, i am not.) the chinese call it guanxi, the japanese call zaibatsu. americans call it the good ol boy network. it's everwhere.

the association is viewed by many as the central force in a disc golf hegemony. if should not be difficult to see why that view developed. there are close and longtime ties between association leaders and the coalition. members of the group profit directly from the association and are protected from competition. the shoe fits pretty good.

this kind of structure is seldom a completely bad thing, and just as seldom a completely good thing. recognizing the phenomenom is the first step to harnessing its power and using it for the most good possible.



Well, at least we've moved from bad to average, I'm glad that your impression of our growth has improved...

So what industry are you comparing us to Pat and can you give us the data? Pardon me for being suspicious but in the past we've gotten data from organizations that had no structural relationship to ours with an admission that the data wasn't relevant but with a request to draw our own conclusions. I'd like to know what your basing your conclusions on so we can actually look at it.

Thanks

separate "good of the sport" and the tour. two budgets, or even two organizations. one gets the IDGC, HOF, rules, tech standards, course directory. the other gets the event schedule, sanctioning, event fees, event/registration/results data.

the tour would survive almost entirely on event fees and whatever sponsorships it can dig up. there could be a modest mem fee, no more than $10?

the other is the governing body, industry historian, and data provider to the sport. a universal commons and the keeper of all things good and pure. it would survive on memberships, donations, sponsorships, and whatever goodwill it can muster. maybe memberships could start at $20 and go up to however much you can afford.

maybe thats an out of the box idea. but it could work if their combined strength and overall contribution is higher than when combined as they are now. the case for that happening can be made.



How is this separation of the two parts of the sport going to impact our cost structure? Does it utilize the same staff but simply split the organization into two parts? Do we have to double our record keeping to keep track of the two parts? Do we have to have separate bank accounts to keep the money separate?

I have no idea if the BOD is this way, and certainly don't intend to imply that it is, but it bothers me to have discourse thwarted before it even starts.



What post has ever 'thwarted' discussion in the past?
It would be great to hear outside-the-box ideas from candidates.



I have to agree with Chuck here, I'm actually impressed at the responsiveness of this organization, even to the tripe that occurs on this MB at times.

I will admit, if you come on here with misleading information and present it, you're likely to get some flack, but that rarely comes from the organization, rather it comes from other members.

So, what are you basing this on James? Have you seen the Board shut down an idea or kill discourse? Give us an example my good man.

How is this separation of the two parts of the sport going to impact our cost structure?

dont know yet, but we could run numbers on the two sides to get an idea where we'd be if the split did not cost us anything.


Does it utilize the same staff but simply split the organization into to parts?

in my suggestion, it would be a split. in Brians, not a split. in Jon's it probably depends.



Do we have to double our record keeping to keep track of the two parts?


no, because we track all the same stuff now. there might be some overall increase due to overhead, but i'd guess it would be minimal.


Do we have to have separate bank accounts to keep the money separate?

absolutely.

i was referencing the information that others gathered a year or two ago to support the proposition that the PDGA was doing about average for organizations of its size. do your own comparisons if you wish. its always fun to see how one org or industry compares to others.

separate "good of the sport" and the tour. two budgets, or even two organizations. one gets the IDGC, HOF, rules, tech standards, course directory. the other gets the event schedule, sanctioning, event fees, event/registration/results data.

the tour would survive almost entirely on event fees and whatever sponsorships it can dig up. there could be a modest mem fee, no more than $10?

the other is the governing body, industry historian, and data provider to the sport. a universal commons and the keeper of all things good and pure. it would survive on memberships, donations, sponsorships, and whatever goodwill it can muster. maybe memberships could start at $20 and go up to however much you can afford.

maybe thats an out of the box idea. but it could work if their combined strength and overall contribution is higher than when combined as they are now. the case for that happening can be made.



Pat,

Great idea.

Many non-profit organizations have wholly-owned, for-profit subsidiaries. The PDGA could own The PDGA Tour, with it's own budget, administration, etc., that would return a portion of its profits to the parent organization, to promote 'the good of the sport.'

You've got the MBA. Dig into non-profit organization law and figure out how to do it.

A $20-25 PDGA membership, which allows you to apply for a Tour Card for an additional, nominal fee (and, I would suggest, after passing a reasonable rules test, and signing a Player's Code of Conduct Agreement), maybe another $20-25. Members with Tour Cards would pay discounted Event Fees (not purse feeding Entry Fees) and get other benefits (Ratings, World Points, Rankings).

A PDGA Tour, run as a business, could raise the legitimacy of the sport in the eyes of sponsors and media. It might take a year or two transition time, but there's no reason it wouldn't work.

Run with it.

jon (former good ol' boy network member)



that's what i'm talking about. the biggest challenge for the pDGA is trying to satisfy way too many competing interests. this would be a long overdue step in the right direction.



I guess I don't understand this MD. Isn't that exactly what this does? Satisfies two competing interests, those who want to maintain and grow the sport and those who only want a simple structure that runs a tour?

It is hard to tell whether this is a good idea or not at this point, but it is simply another way of refashioning the concept that there should be a low cost membership for those who only want to play in tournaments, don't want the mag or other benefits, and don't want to pay for them. Frankly, the low cost tournament alternative seems much more practical and simple than splitting the organization out in this fashion. I can't envision any way that splitting the organization will be cheaper, in cost and volunteer effort, than the alternative.

i was referencing the information that others gathered a year or two ago to support the proposition that the PDGA was doing about average for organizations of its size. do your own comparisons if you wish. its always fun to see how one org or industry compares to others.



If you're going to reference that info at least provide the source. I presented numerous links to data that shows that our growth and retention is near the top for similarly sized organizations built around growing sports. I'd like to see this information that now overturns research I've already presented to you.

I don't think it's necessarily a low cost tourney membership that's desired (now that the mag has been pulled out) as much as a low cost membership for those who don't play sanctioned events and just want to support the non-tournament activities the PDGA does "for the good of the sport."

Since we haven't had that type of membership before, it's hard to know how to budget for the half of the org that would pursue that mission in the event of a split. Seems like we would need to have that low cost "supporter" type membership for a few years with the current org structure to better understand the economics of a split and the financial support it might receive.

Platform statements for BOD and State/Provincial coordinator candidates are now available in PDF format and can be accessed via the links in the updates box on the front page of PDGA.com.

Regards,
Brian J. Graham, #5861
PDGA Executive Director

i ran a few super quick numbers from the detailed budget posted on this site. of course there are MANY ways to slice things up, but i did find one believable scenario that might work numberwise. the tour would show a profit of close to 100K, and the governing body would need to close a gap of between 200-300K (and thats assuming a membership fee of $20 for 12000 members)

For any board candidates:

How much emphasis / importance would you put on efforts for disc golf to reach the "big time" (ESPN, big sponsorships, big payouts for top pros), as opposed to efforts to grow and/or improve disc golf as a recreational sport?

I recognize that tremendous growth in the number of recreational or tournament players should eventually provide a support base for sponsorship, etc., and that these aren't mutually exclusive. But some members suggest a greater emphasis on more media, money, etc., at the top, while some of the PDGA's efforts are more grassroots (IDGC, growing tournament schedule and number of courses, etc.).

When decisions must be made by the board as to where to focus the greatest effort---where might potential board members stand?

For any board candidates:

How much emphasis / importance would you put on efforts for disc golf to reach the "big time" (ESPN, big sponsorships, big payouts for top pros), as opposed to efforts to grow and/or improve disc golf as a recreational sport?

I recognize that tremendous growth in the number of recreational or tournament players should eventually provide a support base for sponsorship, etc., and that these aren't mutually exclusive. But some members suggest a greater emphasis on more media, money, etc., at the top, while some of the PDGA's efforts are more grassroots (IDGC, growing tournament schedule and number of courses, etc.).

When decisions must be made by the board as to where to focus the greatest effort---where might potential board members stand?



David,

Per my platform, statement I believe that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive. The growth of DG into areas other than tournaments needs to be facilitated by the PDGA. School programs and (Parks and Rec) Leagues will build the sport and offer an opportunity to get new members, that are not yet interested in tournament play, at a reduced rate and reduced benefits. This will start to get DG into the local media. When that media is comfortable with the sport, more coverage will follow. These media outlets will then be more willing to do write ups and 20-30 second stories about local DG events, including tournaments. This in turn will get more sponsorship as it becomes more of a common sport and not a fringe sport as many non-DG sponsors currently view DG.

To answer your question, I'd put more emphasis on growth, with an eye to media coverage/sponsorship goals.

Ray Murray, Jr.