Wanted to title the thread

Stump the Chump

Will do my best to answer every reasonable question.

thanks

steve timm

Hi Steve,

first, thanks for running! your commitment to the sport and desire to work through the PDGA is admirable.

in your statement, you said you wanted to reduce membership fees by a certain amount. obviously, this would mean less membership fee revenue to the association and require some adjustments. do you have an idea as to how long it would take to achieve the full reduction? what programs and expenses, if any, would you look to trim to meet your goal? what revenue increases, or new sources of revenue, do you expect that would help close the gap?

Pat

The recently opened budget figures of the org. are not the easiest to digest. I do not claim to have the magic wand to eliminate expenses and attract more members overnight.

The reduced fee idea has been presented by Brian Graham and is being refined.

There is a perception that the PDGA is overcharging for membership and non member "privilege-to-play" fees.
These excessive rate increases and the past history of hidden financial information only compound the image problem.

Why do people join their local and regional Disc Golf org$?
They feel they can see the benefits and trust that the money is being spent to advance the sport.

steve timm

thanks steve. you are right that its probably a longer process. it IS encouraging that the topic is being actively discussed at these levels.

if you succeed in helping get a fee reduction, will you allow us to call you Steve TRimm? :)

Hi, guys. Steve and Pat, anyway.

I wonder if anyone would like to hazard a guess what percentage of PDGA members would say that they think dues are too high, just right, or too low?

It's kind of like asking someone, "Do you get too much email?", but, hmm, what do you think people would end up sharing on this one?

this may or may not belong here, but one key thing to remember is that one of the main reasons for picking up this sport is because it is relatively cheap - this may not be the reason why people continue to play it for years after they start, but it is certainly one of the main reasons why they try the sport out to begin with

so newer players wanting to experience tournament play (because all their buddies tell them how tournaments are so much fun), then get hit with having to pay an extra $10 or $50 if they want to be a member, can be a bit of a deterrent

its been argued to death over whether or not the amount of membership is worth it, per each individual person, but I do like the idea that there could be cheaper fee options for such potential members (and there are LOTS of them in my area)

It belongs, bazkitcase5. I've spent a lot of time lately, on the tee pads of various courses' Hole 1, talking to people about how much they play, how often, and why, etc.

But does this have to be a *PDGA* membership, or a membership in some larger-than-life disc golf connection to others who love to watch discs fly through the air, spend time outdoors, decorate the objects of play as objects of art, and so forth?

I think what we all want is to be connected with others who love what we love: Discs flying through the air, competition, being exposed outdoors (not the norm nowadays!), athletic competition that is not dodgeball, the list goes on.

People who want to step up to COMPETITION or to step up to supporting the SPORT'S GOVERNING BODY (http://www.pdga.com) . . . *and* who can afford to do so, need to get on that case.

If not, there is still no obstacle to getting CONNECTED.

Steve, would you be in favor of the PDGA mirroring what the Sn does by taking in a dollar from each entry and putting it towards the "Championship" which could possibly be Pro worlds?
I see this as a great way to pump up this event and I am already giving $3-$5 so why not have a buck of that go towards something that Pros can actually see?

Scooter,
Yes, NEFA and SN both collect fees and apply them to
end-of-the-season events, points winners,...
The absence of paid staff is key to this $ flow-through.

I am not convinced that JUST more money will pump up
your 'BIG" event enough to make a difference.
Sure, it may excite the 40-60 competitors that
feel they have a shot at winning.
Does a big payout bring sponsors, media, and crowds?

$1 towards that big final event is surely more
exciting than paying the light bill in GA.

thanks
steve

Of course having the light bill paid in GA so there can be a Pro Worlds is pretty exciting too.

Scooter,
Yes, NEFA and SN both collect fees and apply them to
end-of-the-season events, points winners,...
The absence of paid staff is key to this $ flow-through.

I am not convinced that JUST more money will pump up
your 'BIG" event enough to make a difference.
Sure, it may excite the 40-60 competitors that
feel they have a shot at winning.
Does a big payout bring sponsors, media, and crowds?

$1 towards that big final event is surely more
exciting than paying the light bill in GA.

thanks
steve



Absolutely this will help grow the sport. Bigger purses make the event more fun to watch, and help non-players hear about the event. Not to mention, my good friend is a producer for ESPN. He has pushed for DG many times. Thay say the same thing. $10,000 dollars for first is nothing to get excited about. I hope you see that.

Any new money should go to the hosts before adding anything to purses. The reason we are doing combined Am/Pro Worlds is that no one really wants to bid on a standalone Pro Worlds, since even the money to run it is hard to get let alone add money to the purse. The PDGA already puts a good chunk of the difference between Pro and Am member fees into Pro Worlds. The next $5,000 acquired should go right to the pockets of the host team which would cost about $2 more per Pro member. That way, maybe some places may finally bid. No spectators, no big sponsorship. Get mucho spectators and media coverage will be there even if the purse is what it has been.

The hosts make money on the Am side of worlds.

As a UPA member, I find the argument against the non-member fee quite amusing. The UPA has charged non-members $10 for as long as I've been a member (7-8 years now)...and you have to be a member to play in their Championship Serieseseses - where the Sectional events are treated like a regular tourney, with the not-so-serious playing with the serious. They've recently made a push to increase the number of UPA-sanctioned events to include leagues and smaller tourneys, and that has been accepted quite well in my limited observations. Folks seem willing to accept the cost for the benefits (ie, insurance) and the UPA is thriving and growing beautifully....and the sport of Ultimate is doing the same.

And then you come to the PDGA side of things and apparently charging anything to non-members is a disaster.


At what point is it fair to members to allow non-members to have any benefit for no cost?

If you want people to join, let them have 1 or 2 events wihout charge. I got hooked on event s because i played one.

The hosts make money on the Am side of worlds.


Ask Terry how much he and staffers personally got paid for their efforts versus the time and value expended. Even hosts for Am Worlds don't get sufficient compensation if any for running the event. If they did, Am Worlds would be a loss, especially when adding in the PDGA contribution towards staffing and expenses.

How much of a percentage does the host take from the flymart?
I sure hope they do take some %. In any other business environment, they would. There are plenty of ways to make money.
-make lunch and charge
-provide drinks for sale at course
-charge for beer after rounds
-rent players party area and charge entry
-charge vendors a %
-take percentage from hotel
-Set up deal with a gas station, and encourage players to fuel there
-purchase bulk adult beverages and sell to players
-Sell event suoveneirs- bag patches etc
-encourage donation box
just to name a handful

T, it depends on the mission of the org,. if it is to serve the sport, non-member fees might be questioned. if it is to run a tour or sanction events (something more narrow), then there is less room for those questions.

it depends on the mission of the org


PDGA Mission Statement (http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2006/MissionStatement03Summit.pdf) (PDF)

1. Continue to develop the professional and amateur tours to complement national sponsorship.

2. Work to develop the PDGA as the external face of competitive Disc Golf.

3. Continue to add value to our membership while encouraging competitive growth.

4. Establish, enhance and govern the standardization in the rules of play, tournament formats, and all other aspects of the sport of Disc Golf.

5. Prepare our Organization for growth.

How much of a percentage does the host take from the flymart?
I sure hope they do take some %. In any other business environment, they would. There are plenty of ways to make money.
-make lunch and charge
-provide drinks for sale at course
-charge for beer after rounds
-rent players party area and charge entry
-charge vendors a %
-take percentage from hotel
-Set up deal with a gas station, and encourage players to fuel there
-purchase bulk adult beverages and sell to players
-Sell event suoveneirs- bag patches etc
-encourage donation box
just to name a handful



I would be surprised if there is only a charge for the booth at the flymart. Who is really going to pay a percentage?

The hotels are not going to give you any of that money! They are offering a discount to players that come to your event. That helps to draw more people to your event.

If you had to pay $10 to come to a players party, would you really come?

The process of obtaining a liqour license is not an easy one and I really doubt that is something that a host club wants to get involved in for several reasons the main one being liability.

-Hotels can let you do the booking and you can keep a precentage. Many orgs do this.
-It is normal to take a percentage from booths. Doesnt have to be big. The more people to opt out because of this percentage fee, the more $ the people who do will make.
-Yes, I would come to a players party for $10(if it had food, and or music)
-A one or 2 day liqour license is not that impossible to get.

Sent out a little survey last night. Have about 350 responses in so far, 80 percent of which are from PDGA members. One of the questions asked about people's perceptions of PDGA dues. Here's an informal, preliminary report:

The nonmembers are split ~50:50 between "too high" and "just about right."

The members are ~75 percent "just about right" and ~25 percent "too high" (with a handful of "too low" responses).

On another thread David Sauls asked:

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?

--------------------
Visit us at Stoney Hill Disc Golf Course
www.saulsinsurance.com/stoneyhill (http://www.saulsinsurance.com/stoneyhill)

David S

The idea of a splitting of the org into a
separate tour-promoting group and
another group that kept rules, tech standards,
ratings, ... certainly has merit.

Both groups would have clear missions and goals.
Their results could be measured against those goals.

thanks
steve

Ask Terry how much he and staffers personally got paid for their efforts versus the time and value expended.


Funny, Chuck, I've never even taken the pay for the times I've marshaled, so I've never gotten paid a penny to help run any event.

I did figure out once, though, for the Great Lakes Open tournament in, I think 2004 or 2005, that if we had paid minimum wage to each volunteer who planned for and staffed the tournament, we would have had to have doubled the registration fee to cover that cost.

T, it depends on the mission of the org,. if it is to serve the sport, non-member fees might be questioned. if it is to run a tour or sanction events (something more narrow), then there is less room for those questions.



UPA mission statement:
"To advance the sport of Ultimate in the United States
by enhancing and promoting
Character, Community and Competition"


Serving the sport and charging $10 per non-member....

Thanks Steve. I was going to copy that post into this thread but hadn't got to it.

Though separate organizations might narrow focus on their goals, would they not also divide efforts and limited resources (human, as well as financial)?

Barring that, it seems the PDGA should pursue growth in multiple directions---Pro Tour and schoolyards, tournament-every-weekend players and casual players alike. I'm just curious where BOD candidates place greatest emphasis.

Ask Terry how much he and staffers personally got paid for their efforts versus the time and value expended.


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


Funny, Chuck, I've never even taken the pay for the times I've marshaled, so I've never gotten paid a penny to help run any event.


Sorry Terry Calhoun, I meant Terry Miller who ran last Am Worlds.

"Though separate organizations might narrow focus on their goals, would they not also divide efforts and limited resources (human, as well as financial)? "

to me, this is one of the most interesting points in this discussion. one could argue that two staffs would be less efficient. but look at what the two staffs would be doing. when divided along "run the sport" and "run the tour" lines, it doesnt seem there would be much overlap at all. and the clarity of purpose and motivation that would take hold might easily overcompensate for whatever efficiencies are lost.

I was thinking not just of 2 paid staffs, headquarters, websites, etc., but the fact that a talented volunteer---say, a board member or committee member---might find himself or herself only devoting energies to one of the organizations instead of the overall organization, as now.

Not dismissing the idea, mind you, just tossing in a thought or two.

If two organizations are better, why not 3 or 4 or 5, which could really focus on tightly-defined goals?

Is there merit, instead of separate organizations, for perhaps divisions within the PDGA---a Pro Tour Division, etc.---still sharing some resources?

Sorry...not trying to argue or advocate, this is a forum for BOD candidates' views. Just tossing in questions, for whatever they're worth.

those are important considerations, David. my perspective is that the goals of the different orgs are sufficiently different that having one staff may actually be inhibiting growth and performance of both sides. neither side needs to wildly succeed, because the other side can cover for it. (not trying to arge or criticize either, just tossing around ideas)

H.G.H. - that stuff will grow anything !

Sunlight , water , food , etc....
That helps too


+

Speaking of sport and competition, any candidate want to comment on those ideals of have any ideas about their current relationship to disc golf?

Specifically, if these ideals are worthy, how should they manifest themselves in our events? If these ideals are worthy, should they affect our divisional structure in any way?

Does our divisional structure and performance rewards affect the type of members we attract and retain, and are there certain types of members we should hope to attract and retain?

not sure about the definitions, but i'll hope this wont become a semantic argument :)

to me, the current divisional structure does not emphasize true competition the way we need to for a real, pro tour. we kinda throw tons of divisions up there and let the events structure themselves however they wish. thats great for social golf, but its hurting us on the competitive side!

our divisional structure is simultaneously one of our best and one of our worst features. its great when you want to socialize in a faux-competitive situation. pick your division, pick your competition, etc. the sport needs that kind of fun! but... we have some of our best players hiding in masters as soon as they hit 40 and regardless of their world ranking... we have not yet focused strictly on the top division for the top events - and that is diminishing our media attractiveness.

sorry, but its not a showcase event if we have almost as many 42 year old playing in their own division while the 39 years olds with the same (or lesser) ratings are in another pool. thats seems counterproductive if you are trying to showcase our best.

i'd love to see NT and up go to Open only, or perhaps include a small 50+ field. this is not for every event - just the very top ones. a grand slam tour perhaps.

the structure surely affects who joins and plays. right now we try to attract everyone and then put them into the same structure.

J Mac
Wrote:
Does our divisional structure and performance rewards affect the type of members we attract and retain, and are there certain types of members we should hope to attract and retain?


Reply:
The divisions offered are under the control of the TD.

The types of events offered has an influence on the
types of members that are attracted and retained.

Living in a region that has few PDGA events,
there is even more "pressure" on those 2-3 events
to get those non-members to play and consider joining.

The TD is the vital link.

steve timm

Steve, we're experimenting with a PDGA C-Tier event here in Florence in two weeks. I received a competition endowment and so far have five non members signed up. I'm guessing that even with the endowment, I'll have some local folks sit this one out because they cannot drink beer during the rounds. rWc3523

Steve, we're experimenting with a PDGA C-Tier event here in Florence in two weeks. I received a competition endowment and so far have five non members signed up. I'm guessing that even with the endowment, I'll have some local folks sit this one out because they cannot drink beer during the rounds. rWc3523



Good luck Russ.
You make my point for me.
If you predict that locals will sit out due to the beer rule,
that will surely happen.
Why not stress the positives that the
Endowment Program is offering?

Show your participants that this PDGA tourney is
another Beth, Will and Russ Corey production
that all can enjoy.

steve timm

Steve, I know that you run a business, so you have experience with the sometimes unexpected impact both of external environmental forces on an organization, and on changes in operations internally.

As I think you know, I am a nonprofit association staff member, and I've been in board meetings where a board member proposes a vote on a new initiative that will cost tens of thousands of dollars and/or hundreds of hours of staff time, but has not previously talked it over with the staff to get those numbers and discuss what the consequences might be.

So, here's the refined question: How would a responsible board member work with staff and others to build a proposal for an initiative in a way that includes its costs, direct and indirect, as well as opportunity costs?

Steve, I've tried doing that. There are still some folks who always ask, what's in it for Me! They don' t care about a rating, or the magazine and they still complain about the $2 fee. I reminded them that the $2 SN fee is only valuable to THEM IF they attend the championships. Otherwise, it's simply a donation to an event they're not attending.

For all intents and purposes, this will be no different than one of our SN events, except for the beer thing and not mixing divisions. Not that we allow the blatant disregard for that rule in our SN events. We did DQ someone who got out of hand in the spring. We had no complaints about anything else. Russ C.

Terry C

Serving on many local non-profit boards has taught me to
be an active listener and to attend meetings prepared.
I do not speak just to hear my own voice.
When I do speak up, it is usually to summarize the subject
and offer personal insights.

The board meeting is not the place to introduce new initiatives.
The committees are better suited to work out such ideas.

An agenda is a vital part of any meeting and any new ideas
need to be placed on that agenda with supporting information
available to all participants.

thanks
steve

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/371762740_41593bc637.jpg?v=0

Thanks Pat B.

Any more questions?

steve

sure , there's always questions!

Steve, what would you do if the BoD simply refused to follow the agreed upon Roberts Rules of Order while passing motions? would you a) keep insisting that proper processes be followed; b) make it public in hopes of alerting the membership; c) abstain from voting because the process was flawed; d) other

your guidance is appreciated. i hope some of the love that is on my thread comes on over here. i am ALL about sharing :)

Selective use of the rules is worse than no rules at all.
Violations need to be called without personal feelings
getting in the way.
Not that much different than DG rules of play,
you can do little by yourself.
Besides noting the infractions when they occur,
you can make mention of the differences when
the minutes are presented for approval.
Again, assuming no support from others on the board,
the minutes can be accepted over your objection.

Hang in there brother,
steve

I am optimistic.

The sport needs leaders with heart.

vote

Woops, editing time...

You know you have to delete a long post when your eyes pop open first thing in the morning, and you ask yourself, "What have I written?"

The Japan Open is going on right now. Did the PDGA pay for anyones flight to the event.

Brain Graham is there and playing. But I'm guessing he paid his entry fee. Travel expenses should be one of the largest budget items in any global org if they are truly serving the membership.

The Japan Open is going on right now. Did the PDGA pay for anyones flight to the event.



S S

I understand the organizers in Japan have requested the presence
of a PDGA official instead of a lump sum dollar amount for their
event.
This quarter has $3,250 in the budget for Asia travel.

steve timm

Brain Graham is there and playing. But I'm guessing he paid his entry fee. Travel expenses should be one of the largest budget items in any global org if they are truly serving the membership.

thats kinda funny. with IMs, email and videophone, travelling the globe for face-to-face meetings is not as necessary as it was before. add in the costs of travel, and... regardless, in past years the Japan Open has forgone the standard NT donation so that Gentry could attend. i have not heard what this year's arrangement is, but i'll be happy to make an inquiry.

Not as necessary and yet still an important human activity, especially when interfacing with other cultures.

very true. i have been running an international business of my own since 2001, and have worked internationally for others since 1991. i do business with 50+ US and Europe-based manufacturers and sell through a handful of representatives, agents and distributors throughout Asia. i have never met any of my suppliers, and have not had face-to-face meetings in Asia since 2002. meanwhile i've had an unbroken string of YoY increases in both revenue and OI - multiplying 3X in the last three years.

so there should be no surpsie when i say that i believe meeting in person is important, but not nearly as important as many would have you believe. it all depends on what your motivations are. being sensitive to the "needs" of other cultures to meet more often face-to-face is fine, but satisfying that sort of need (its really a Want not a Need) gives it a little too much priority. when we are paying someone 15,000 a year to run our international program at a loss, maybe its time to go with fewer meetings and more focus on results and accountability.

While those numbers sound excellent, it's apparent that some of the best run companies have CEOs who literally visit every location each year such as the Costco exec and Sam Walton before he passed. If you get a neighbor girl hitting you up for girl scout cookies in person, aren't you more likely to buy than getting an order blank in the mail?

sure, no problem with that. i didnt say it was not a good idea. i said it was not as necessary as some would have you believe. and that in the face of a losing financial proposition, maybe meetings could be viewed with business realities in mind, and not just the cultural aspects. heck, i'd like to pop on over to japan and europe every year also. but that is a luxury compared to running profitably.

re the girl scout cookies, i buy them from a girl scout mom here in the office. she puts a blank order form in my mailbox. i'm usually good for a case or two of thin mints.

Waste of our member fees. Put it toward something more worthwhile.

I'm guessing you don't think TDs should get paid for their efforts either like many other pros?

how does not wanting to spend member $$$ on travel to europe and japan equal not thinking TDs should get paid?

speaking of getting paid, who is the biggest money winner on Tour?

how does not wanting to spend member $$$ on travel to europe and japan equal not thinking TDs should get paid?


Just an example of an ingrained point of view that's evolved such that those doing the work to lobby for/design/install courses, run events, work on committees should do what they do essentially free.

so you would expect that if someone wishes we wold not spend money on overseas travel then they also believe TDs and designers should work for free? i'm sorry, i'm not following the connection here at all.

Not saying that players have to perceive all of these as the same things. But many do perceive all of these the same way as some sort of "right." The sport has developed this culture over many years so it's not like there's anyone to blame. But once the amount of volunteer work reaches a certain amount, the economic value being provided becomes more apparent to those providing it but takes longer for those who have gotten used to getting it free. The perception of pay-for-play versus free courses is just another area where you see this values conflict.

i dont have any argument with any of that. i dont think it is inconsistant to wish to avoid wasting money AND to want TDs to earn a fair share.

The PDGA's 2008 budget for all overseas travel, which includes the Japan open, the European Championships and the Scandinavian Open is $6500 or .005% of our annual budget. This is a budgeted amount and we will probably not spend all of this money due to special arrangements with the Japan Open and the Scadinavian Open, who both subsidize travel expenses to some degree. Bottom line is that our top overseas partners want a PDGA representative to meet face to face with them at least once each year and they are willing to help defray the costs to ensure that this happens.

So far this week, I have met with disc golf leaders from Japan and Korea as well as several of our European partners who are in attendance.

The Board did vote to expand the budget of the international committee this year by $3,000 folllowing the recommendation of Pat Brenner. A good move in my opinion as that is where the largest percentage of our growth is currently coming from.

Regards,
Brian Graham

"The Board did vote to expand the budget of the international committee this year by $3,000 folllowing the recommendation of Pat Brenner."

the recommendation? please expand on that. i voted to approve the budget, yes. i certainly didnt want to continue the current 15,000 consultancy fee, so i doubt i was truly in favor of adding a net positive 3000 to the international budget.

"...as that is where the largest percentage of our growth is currently coming from"

that is scary. the largest percentage of our growth is coming from the segment of our business that loses money. lets not try to emulate that segment too much elsehwere, ok?


another btw. its great you met with the Japan and Euro leaders. who are they and what are their roles? have you met them previously? thanks

Good post Brian Graham. Answer questions honestly and you�ll be able to move on to the next thing right away.

I voted. Pat Brenner and Steve Timm each owe me $37.50, plus half of the processing fees. That's what it cost me to join the PDGA. But instead of giving it to me -- unless you have really good beer the next time we meet -- give five bucks to each BoD member that helped publish the finances. Assuming you both get elected, of course.

Good job PDGA, whoever it was. You pretty much published the real finances! It�s amazingly astounding, considering the general total clueless goofball nature of everything you do and strive for.

Wait wait wait...that came out a little harsher than intended. You guys never actually said what you're working and striving for, unless you're using the bulleted list attached to the index that's on microfilm in the basement. How many new members were inspired to join by reading the PDGA�s current mission statement? How many people ever �read� it? Good think you have pleasant speaking voices.

Not to belabor the point, but your pleasant Southern female speaking voice makes me want to forgive everybody for everything. But first a little rant, disguised as something else, with nuggets of truth, and perfect punctuation.

************************************************** **************

The back-ups at Hole 13 at all Pyramids tournaments are little mini-parties. Hole 13 during tournaments might be my favorite spot in the world. I've talked to many people there for the first time. And, while I can't say I met my wife right there on that spot, I DID marry her there.

Of course we always have a keg on Hole 13, the Airport Hole, at tournaments. Hardest hole on the course, sandwiched between a couple other harder holes. Backups sometimes go four groups deep, for some strange reason of course design that, admittedly, we haven�t yet quite grasped. How could we NOT have a keg there? We do it every time. Why wouldn�t we? It�s a disc golf tournament, a festive one.

I�d like Pyramids 20 to be a C Tier. I�d also like to once again to serve free beer. Yes, DURING rounds. If it came to one or the other we could put it to a player vote. But why compromise on excellence?

And what�s the necessity of banning something that�s otherwise legal? Like we need more rules for no reason at all. Legal ought to be legal with the PDGA, too. We got a rule here at Marshall Street, one that either Steve Dodge or I came up with one day in our frenetic three and a half, maybe four years together: If you can�t come up with a good reason to say �no,� you have to say yes.

Mikey you�ll be relieved to know that we pretty much allow all forms of bestiality now. It�s Massachusetts. You just can�t buy beer at gas stations. Plus you can�t defend yourself here you cretinous mutant. You can�t even complain to a moderator you dilweed. Threw your paintbrush at the teacher during art class. What did you think would happen? The tiny little wrinkled nugget of twisted tissue that�s your brain, if you look at it not even with a microscope, just a magnifying glass � sorry about the brain burns, btw � it�s actually the Island of Misfit Toys.

And they�re all plotting against each other. They�re all whacked, whacked like you Mikey. You�re totally whacked, whacked without a complain to the moderators button. Wow. This is sort of like having a Mikey voodoo doll. Cool.

I know it sounds like anarchy but if you embrace anarchy you can direct and control it. Think for one second about Kelley, Vinny and me and tell me that�s not true. Think of Gill. We invite Gill. Gill is one of our closest friends. Deep down, if you think about it, there is obviously something wrong with us.

You know, your basic �Have fun without limits just don�t flick bottle caps and put glass in the fire,� go wild kinda fun. Playing catch with burning sticks is totally allowed.

There was a point somewhere�I had a point. What was it?

Oh yeah, I�d like to run a PDGA event some day. Tell you what. We�ll run a splendid event, fulfill all the PDGA requirements regarding data collection and bookkeeping, and adhere to the law.

Pyramids 20. If not the PDGA, what other orgaizations want to affiliate? NEFA and SN are givens. With those guys you just do it. You run your event without compromise.

I love/hate the PDGA/pDGA.

************************************************** ****

Steve Timm I hope I'm not hurting you with my unfettered, unreserved, naked endorsement of you.

I do not -- let's repeat it as if we were in a Baptist church on the wrong side of the tracks -- "I...DO...Not...hallelujah...condone hyperbole in any way shape or manner, against your brother and your sister and your mother and your father and ALLLLLLLLLLLLL your first cousins, and everyone's second cousin twice removed.

I'm talking ALLLLLLL the people sayin' the same: We will not, under pain of death, overstate, exaggerate, hyperbolize, or otherwise, in the public eye, dictate, pontificate, elaborate or hypothosize -- or hypnotize mass hysteria.

We�re just about the facts, maam, just the facts. We have no time for fantasy.

If you took a thousand mathematicians, equipped them not only with supercomputers, but abacuses as well, and told them to work diligently on the largest number imaginable�

�It would take them a thousand billion years to calculate the number of times Steve Timm is better than God. It�s not like I�m looking for an argument here; this is pure mathematics.

Okay okay so that�s a little over the top. I don�t want to mess with the elections. How about this: Just talking to Steve for an hour makes you think about becoming a better person.

There.

If people have criticisms bring it. We call that feedback and we sneakily steal the best ideas from your vitriol.

Don�t take this to mean you don�t hurt our feelings sometimes.

$6500 or .005% of our annual budget.

Is that too many zeros somewhere? Okay, I give up. How much is the PDGA's annual budget?

Jason
Total expenses for 08 $1,129,505.

thanks

steve timm

thatd be $130M.

ok, in that case i agree we should multiply our intl budget by 50x.

I'm guessing you don't think TDs should get paid for their efforts either like many other pros?


Chuck,
Go out and play some Discgolf. You might like it.
I have been an advocate of paid TDs for years. They are in fact the only people the PDGA should be giving money to. Better TDs get more money which, in turn, creates better TDs. I have been saying it for years. What if, instead of free airfare, the PDGA paid that money to the NT tournament directors? Imagine that.

"The Board did vote to expand the budget of the international committee this year by $3,000 folllowing the recommendation of Pat Brenner."

the recommendation? please expand on that. i voted to approve the budget, yes. i certainly didnt want to continue the current 15,000 consultancy fee, so i doubt i was truly in favor of adding a net positive 3000 to the international budget.





Pat,

When the BOD was discussing what to do with the $3000 budgeted dues of the sports federation that we decided not to renew our membership with, you recommended that we move that money to the international program. I remember it well because I was pleasantly surprised with the recommendation and happy because I believe in our international program.

Sorry Steve Timm for posting on your election thread. This is my last post here.

Regards,
Brian Graham, #5861
PDGA Executive Director

"The Board did vote to expand the budget of the international committee this year by $3,000 folllowing the recommendation of Pat Brenner."

the recommendation? please expand on that. i voted to approve the budget, yes. i certainly didnt want to continue the current 15,000 consultancy fee, so i doubt i was truly in favor of adding a net positive 3000 to the international budget.

"...as that is where the largest percentage of our growth is currently coming from"

that is scary. the largest percentage of our growth is coming from the segment of our business that loses money. lets not try to emulate that segment too much elsehwere, ok?


another btw. its great you met with the Japan and Euro leaders. who are they and what are their roles? have you met them previously? thanks



Pat

A suggestion. Perhaps you should attend the next PDGA Europe teleconference and gain some kind of clue as to what you're talking about. This is a meeting between as many as 15 people, for which English is the first language for myself and the 3 PDGA reps. These meetings typically take 3-4 hours, finishing beyond midnight for most of us, and are without fail cut short because it's late, people have to go, and attention is wandering. It is incredibly difficult to focus and understand people with the variety of accents and competence in English.
Incidentally, the presence of Brian H at these meetings is invaluable, as he is fluent in French, which enables him to explain finer points to several of the attendees, and to seek clarification of their statements when their English breaks down. Without him, you could easily add 30 minutes to the meeting, or more accurately, greatly reduce the amount of work we get done.

I believe the actual effective content of these meetings could be achieved in around an hour in a face-to-face meeting, which would greatly aid understanding and communication.

I'm delighted that we are all getting together at the European Championships before the tournament to have a day-long session, we will without doubt be able to achieve a great deal, probably more than we have done in 3 years of teleconferences.

As you well know (I've told you before certainly), the future strategy is to form a self funding PDGA Europe that will cease to be any kind of financial drain on you. The way to achieve that is to build a substantial and loyal player base, and the current model is succeeding at that admirably.

I'm sure you are aware of the concept of a 'loss-leader'? This isn't one in the strictest sense of the word in that you won't directly get back the funds you are putting into the international program, but instead you get a truly global sport, with disc golfers and PDGA events all around the world. If that isn't value for money, I have no idea what you want to spend it on.

Brian G, SS, JS, CK,NW,PatB

This exchange is important.
The release of financial information
should lead to some questions.
Have not $een much of a discu$$ion of thi$ info.

Might as well hash it out here.

steve timm

I have been an advocate of paid TDs for years. They are in fact the only people the PDGA should be giving money to. Better TDs get more money which, in turn, creates better TDs. I have been saying it for years. What if, instead of free airfare, the PDGA paid that money to the NT tournament directors? Imagine that.



How about something a bit more direct like the people who are utilizing the service (i.e. the tournament participants) paying the TD? A percentage of the proceeds (entry fees, sponsorship and so on) essentially coming out of the purse going to the person putting in the time and effort. Allowing or even expecting that the percentage allowed by the payout guidelines are actually taken without the TD being criticized for low payouts or 'skimming' off the tournament.

It seems to make more sense than this nebulous "PDGA should pay them" thing. I think this is where Chuck is coming from regarding the current culture of expecting services without having to pay for them.

I think we could do both. PDGA and % tournament funds.

By no means am I saying it's players' faults for the expectations. It's been ingrained for years. TDs feel bad about keeping anything partly because there are other unpaid volunteers helping or they are doing it for a club or they want to show how much they can pay out. Unfortunately, this is just another area that undermines the value of our sport in the eyes of outsiders, in this case park people. Since there's no way their department could run an event under our anemic financial model, very few try.

To become mainstream we need to have Park Departments running events just like all of their other sports leagues and events. But historically, we don't teach them how, they don't learn how in college and the financial format would either be a loser for them OR players might not attend if they did finances the way they do for other sports. It's an unfortunate cycle that we have to start breaking within the sport because there's no incentive for them to try and break it.

Might as well hash it out here.



Why? Surely there has to be more productive ways of working on the financials of the PDGA than shedding a poor light on the org, upsetting fine people like Mr. Webber and subjecting everyone involved in the process to the negative tone and often factless banter that can prevail on the PDGA discussion board.. Do we really want to tie up people like Mr. Graham to jab and argue here for the amusement of a very small percentage of the PDGA? Or bash on him for not joining in on the circus if he wisely stays away?

Do we really feel this will accomplish something? I can understand expressing ideas and opinions. But expect to hash out the PDGA financials on the chat board? No.

TKief wrote Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Surely there has to be more productive ways of working on the financials of the PDGA than shedding a poor light on the org, upsetting fine people like Mr. Webber and subjecting everyone involved in the process to the negative tone and factless banter that prevails on the PDGA discussion board..
----------------------------------------------------------------

TKief

First thing, please stop calling me Surely.

No intentions to upset Mr. Webber or waste Brian G's time.
Not talking just to keep the pdga in a good light is folly.

The customer has many choices.
An educated customer usually makes better decisions.
Financial disclosure is an excellent start.
Discussion of those dollar figures is the next step.

Chuck
Your comment about TD's is on target.
Given the choice to "pocket" a few hundred dollars,
most TD's would rather bump up the payout by that amount.

The model to give it all back to the players does not
translate well to park directors and others outside the sport.

It is certainly a delicate balance between financial discussion
and bashing the spending of our sports organizers.

Balance, baby

steve timm

I am not bashing, Just trying to find reason behind the spending. I think 9 baskets in an area where discgolf is growing quicker than the courses can handle, does a lot more than sending someone to Japan.
Problem could have solved with a simple vote, or an agenda put out before the trip.

Sjur,

It may be preceived as somewhat of a "gamble", but if Brian travels to big events and 1) "schmoozes" with local "dignitaries", 2) acts as the "face" of the PDGA "properly", 3) talks "business" with all those who will listen (and anyone else for that matter!), and 4) other things that executives do, there MAY be benefits to our sport WAY bigger than 9 additional holes (paraphrased slightly, but you get the picture). We have elected him into that position. If he "serves us well" (ie grows the sport commensurate with someone in that position) we should re-elect him; if not, we get him out. Let him do his job as he sees fit. It's our "job" to then judge accordingly.

Karl

If it's worth having a course somewhere, it's worth it for the citizens and players to pay for those 9 baskets anyway. The time should be past when players should have to bust it to raise money to get baskets in a park. At minimum, the model should be for the donors to be reimbursed for the baskets once the city sees the popularity of the course and budgets for reimbursement payments, presuming it's successful. Even in very successful disc golf areas, I see what I think is Park Departments continuing to take advantage of disc golf volunteers by not taking over maintenance functions at courses that are wildly popular and could be active or passive revenue generators for them to cover the costs.

Neil,

i'd love to sit in on your next teleconference. thanks for the invite. can you forward the call details? i am very interested in understanding exactly the "actual effective content" of these meetings.

believe me, i am all for a strong international precense for the PDGA. i feel its imperative. i also understand loss leaders, so no need for a lecture on that.

i'm also pleased your meetings are effective. i kind of instinctively recoil at the cost of a face to face meeting with all those folks though. it would have to be some mighty compelling content to make it cover that kind of cost. it is interesting you could do things quicker face to face. that is rather rare these days. i'm not saying you're wrong, just making an observation. seems like email is the core for most progress.

If it's worth having a course somewhere, it's worth it for the citizens and players to pay for those 9 baskets anyway.

if you follow that logic wouldnt you also say that we should not run any program at a loss? this 9 hole could be a loss-leader. gosh, how many members and players would a 9 holer in the right place generate? i bet it could be substantial. the point is every expense is a trade off. we do not have unlimited funds. there is NOTHING wrong with discussing how are ARE and COULD BE spending those funds. it is no surprise that someone or some program feels "attacked" - thats what it feels like when you talk about changing how dollars are spent. the sad thing is when every idea is taken as an afront.

The org already does oversee/run several programs that are under funded or uncompensated if you consider the true net cost to all parties involved, so it's true there's an overall balancing act. Now if the 9 baskets were for the Foundation, that's another thing but those are paid for by donations not the operating budget.

thats for sure! (the running uncompensated/under-funded programs). i guess thats true for almost all non-profits. it always gives me a strange feeling when i wonder why we have one narrowly defined consulting job (international) as paid, but many other just-as-critical roles go on as unpaid volunteer spots. i know its hard to pose that thought without getting someone upset, so apologies in advance if necessary.

As one of those involved over many years, it's just a matter of an ongoing process to gradually ramp up these areas as the org can afford it and making the case to members that the value is there. Some areas already have income streams such as doing the tech measurements for new disc and baskets. Some initiatives have incremental income streams that can also potentially justify higher/new compensation.

thats right, and finally the tech measurements is gonna be compensated. long overdue, imo.

my question is this: why should be pay for international consultingwhen the program is a money-user at the moment? i am sure we can find qualified folks willing to do thiswork as a volunteer, at least until the program starts reaping the rewards that make it financially viable to pay someone.

in other words, if we pay for intl consulting, why shouldnt we pay for consulting in many other areas? or, from the opposite side, why should we pay for intl consulting when so many other positions are filled so competently with volunteers working for free?

That's why you're a Board member - to make those calls. I think if you consider International as a subset of the org's fundamental efforts to increase membership, the cost versus potential may not be out of line compared to some other initiatives in this area. But I'm not familiar with the potential income stream from that effort compared with North American initiatives.

yeah, it gets hard to seperate sometimes, no doubt.

as far as "That's why you're a Board member - to make those calls. " goes... i know you are not one of the archers, but even talking about making those decisions seems to result in arrows in the back :) but i guess that comes with being a Director also. turf protection happens everywhere, theres no reason to think the PDGA would be immune.

yeah, it gets hard to seperate sometimes, no doubt.

as far as "That's why you're a Board member - to make those calls. " goes... i know you are not one of the archers, but even talking about making those decisions seems to result in arrows in the back :) but i guess that comes with being a Director also. turf protection happens everywhere, theres no reason to think the PDGA would be immune.



Well said for a former archer.

yeah, it gets hard to seperate sometimes, no doubt.

as far as "That's why you're a Board member - to make those calls. " goes... i know you are not one of the archers, but even talking about making those decisions seems to result in arrows in the back :) but i guess that comes with being a Director also. turf protection happens everywhere, theres no reason to think the PDGA would be immune.



Well said for a former archer.



Former???

Neil,

i'd love to sit in on your next teleconference. thanks for the invite. can you forward the call details? i am very interested in understanding exactly the "actual effective content" of these meetings.

believe me, i am all for a strong international precense for the PDGA. i feel its imperative. i also understand loss leaders, so no need for a lecture on that.

i'm also pleased your meetings are effective. i kind of instinctively recoil at the cost of a face to face meeting with all those folks though. it would have to be some mighty compelling content to make it cover that kind of cost. it is interesting you could do things quicker face to face. that is rather rare these days. i'm not saying you're wrong, just making an observation. seems like email is the core for most progress.



Pat,

I believe our next meeting will be the face to face in Germany, so it'll be a while before the next voice call.

I'm a consultant who works almost entirely from home, so I'm well aware of the relative values of email, phone and face to face meetings, so I guess you'll have to take my word that it will be worthwhile. After all, apart from any US reps, everyone else will already be there, and the value of a full day meeting is obvious.

Regarding some of your other posts, my 'defensive' comments about the international program are limited to the value of flights, and not any consultancy fees. Who you pay for what is down to you guys, all we want is an international rep within the PDGA, IMO Brian H is filling that role admirably, and as already stated, I feel the cost of a face to face is justified.

Neil

We appreciate your efforts and views.
I have respect for Brian and am sure that
he will be honest about the "value" of his trip.

On another note, the $10 non-member
privilege-to-pay fee is ill conceived, at best.
That $10 can be a "deal breaker" for some.
As my fellow TD's know, loosing 15-25 ams
can make the difference in an successful tourney.

The details of the effect of the $5 to $10 increase
will be difficult to determine from the numbers.
Those of us in the field can attest that $10 can be
just as big as the rising gas prices.

thanks
steve timm

Steve, I am curious as to how you can be so confident that the $10 fee is conclusively "ill-conceived."

First of all, I think there was a lot of discussion before it was raised, and I doubt that the people who voted for it had "bad" (ill) reasons for conceiving of, and subsequently imposing, it.

Second, you say that the "details of the effect of the $5 to $10 increase will be difficult to determine from the numbers." If not for numbers, how can you know so conclusively it is ill-conceived, unless you are operating on a preconception?

I'll agree with your statements - which have nothing to do with the reality of whether the $10 fee is having a positive or a negative impact, but which are just general statements, such as (emphasis added by me):

� "That $10 can be a "deal breaker" for some.
� Losing 15-25 ams can make the difference in an successful tourney.
� $10 can be just as big as the rising gas prices."

Those are a lot of "can be"s. But if not with numbers, how can they be converted to reality-based knowledge about the impact of the fee increase? I ask that because some of the numbers I see show an increase in PDGA members, which is good for the PDGA. Do we have verifiable numbers of decreases in non-member competitors (not attributable to them having become members now, which is a positive thing) on a large scale, across many tournaments - in such numbers that the economic situation alone isn't enough of a factor to be the cause? Forget the economic situation, do we even have reduced numbers at all, once you take into account the folks that would have been in those numbers but instead have joined? Is there more than a handful of people anecdotally saying they didn't come due to cost - which I bet you could find (I know you could find.) in any year for any tournament?

P.S. Are those irregular line breaks in your posts a software thing, or are you being poetic with them? :D

Not to mention that on the Unintended Consequences thread, lots of TDs are commenting that they are seeing no effect... :o Do you have any numbers Steve?

TCal

From viewing the actions of the BoD,
studying the minutes, conversations with DGers
and then attempting to measure results,
MY conclusion is:
The increase from $5 to $10 of the privilege-to-play
fee was the result of poor planning.
Were TD's consulted to determine the impact?
Was the previous non-member number just
doubled to project the increased revenues?

Lyle and TC
I feel that the numbers will be difficult to draw direct
conclusions from. Yes, that is all we have to work with.
There are many changes this year over last year.
The endowment program has added events,
Do we back out those tourneys?
How many new members joined because of
the $5-$10 increase?
How many TD's chose not to sanction?
The economy has had an effect on travel.
How do you quantify those numbers?

thanks
steve timm

Terry, poetry schmoetry,
just irregular line break dancing

Steve, here's a way to consider it. Fundamentally, if you believe that playing in sanctioned events should be a member benefit, then the financial value of being a member versus not has to be considered. If you believe it should not be a member benefit then there should be no fee at all for non-members to play sanctioned competition. If you believe it should be a member benefit then would you not agree that the non-member fee needs to be related to the PDGA membership fee? For the members to perceive this membership value as legit, enough members need to see the cost/benefit as worthwhile.

The average member plays 5 events per year. That's a $25 dollar "savings" on non-member fees at $5 and $50 at $10. However, estimated 30% play less than 4 events (based on our rating records). If you're trying to do better than breakeven on your budget, it's even more important that the value be there for your less active players. So, to capture the 30%, the $10 makes more sense than $5. Now maybe a case could be made for $7.57 or $8.25 as the "perfect" ratio to the current member fees. But the policy has been to make fewer and larger jumps when necessary.

Actually, this seems pretty straight forward to me and an analysis could be done even now.

Where are we compared to last year at this time with sanctioned tournaments? Is the number up or down.

Where are we compared to last year at this time with new members?

Where are we compared to last year at this time with non-members playing in PDGA events?

Where are we compared to last year at this time with members playing in PDGA events?

Are total numbers at events down?

This is a pretty simple analysis and we can determine directly if the $5 increase is having a good/bad/non-existent effect

BTW - we can't leave out the effects of the economy on this issue per say. But we can look at relative numbers, that is, the over participation might be down, but have we seen a shift in how and where players are playing?

I'd be willing to look at the numbers if someone could provide them to me, but I would think that info should be protected, i.e. not released to the public in general.

BTW - I'd think the increase in $10 was a reflection of no raise to match inflation for many years. I might also speculate it was in part meant to drive players from non-member play PDGA to member play PDGA status. Will it work? Don't know, but I wouldn't necessarily conclude it won't simply because it happened. I'd also, in general, trust the business acumen of our leadership in such decisions, with a plan to check the numbers and determine if such a change should be permanent.

Lyle

Steve's location has to influence his perception also. The non-member fee is going to be much more of a problem factor, the fewer PDGA members in the area. That's why when the Minnesota Frisbee Association was faced with that issue in the mid-90s, we had a promoter set up a series of 10 PDGA sanctioned events that year so there was no question the value was there to join the PDGA. And that's before ratings. Efforts like that can get those low PDGA areas over the hump. It's hard for players to complain when they make a value judgment whether it's easier to personally pay the membership fee versus make the effort themselves to run non-sanctioned event(s) in protest.

"If you believe it should not be a member benefit then there should be no fee at all for non-members to play sanctioned competition."

chuck, your conclusion is not the only possible one. there could be some fee for processing, participation, whatever. i'd rather pay someone $5 for "because i run the tournament and i have costs" than $5 for "because you cant play unless you are a member, so here is a one day membership that gets you nothing other than the right to play today".

thats the primary reason i advocate for actually delivering some real benefits to these temp members. make them real members, then ask them to renew.

it is easier to get someone to renew than to get someone to join for the first time!

i'd rather pay someone $5 for "because i run the tournament and i have costs" than $5 for "because you cant play unless you are a member, so here is a one day membership that gets you nothing other than the right to play today".



That $5 fee in the first case is applied to both member and non-members which was my point about no differential in fees whatever they may be for membrs versu non-members.

As far a renewals, I'm not sure why we ended up with the new member and renewal fees being the same other than simplicity. Don't new members still get a disc that renewing members don't get? Seems like about half the disc golf clubs have the renewal fee at $5 less than for new members because of some added benefit. Some have had multi-year renewal discounts also like the MADC at one time.

When was that Chuck?

Bob Graham
MADC President

Probably have to pull out some old DGWNs to find out.

MY conclusion is:
The increase from $5 to $10 of the privilege-to-play
fee was the result of poor planning.
Were TD's consulted to determine the impact?
Was the previous non-member number just
doubled to project the increased revenues?



I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

The non-member increase was not the result of poor planning. Just because you do not agree with the decision made by the BOD, does not mean it was poorly planned. If elected to the BOD how will you react when uninformed message board posters accuse you of making poorly planned decisions?

TD's do not have to be consulted. I elect BOD members to act on my behalf, not poll me every month to get my opinion. It is a tremendous waste of time and resources to poll TDs and or members before the BOD makes a tough decision. This raises an important question: If elected, will you be able to make tough decisions in a timely manner on your own and then stand by them without wasting time and valuable PDGA resources polling the membership?


From everything I have read about the decision, the increase helps cover the staff resources that are drained by non-members. The fee is also another way to encourage non-members to join.
Based on events in my area, the fee has not had a negative impact on attendance, and it appears to be creating new members. In other words, this appears to be a well thought out decision that is providing additional PDGA revenue and is bringing in new members to the PDGA. It's a WIN-WIN!!!

I have another question for you: Apparently you come from an area with a lack of PDGA members and events. If elected, will you be able to represent me well? I come from an area with a large PDGA membership, a large number of PDGA events and members that actively support our local organizations and the PDGA.

If elected to the BOD how will you react when uninformed message board posters accuse you of making poorly planned decisions?

Members are allowed to voice their opinions, even when uninformed..

If elected, will you be able to make tough decisions in a timely manner on your own and then stand by them without wasting time and valuable PDGA resources polling the membership?

When is gathering proper background information a waste of time?
It seems proper to consult with those most affected by an action prior to voting.
Do you want another "Turbo Putt" quick action?
How about the rush job to replace Peter Shive?

If elected, will you be able to represent me well? I come from an area with a large PDGA membership, a large number of PDGA events and members that actively support our local organizations and the PDGA.

Suzette, who can represent you? Must your representative agree with you on every issue? Must they come from a large thriving PDGA area? If this is the case, our organization is doomed to be governed ONLY by reps from such regions. The feeling of isolation in those "underdeveloped areas" will increase. NEFA and the Southern Nationals, to name a few, are regional organizations that are doing a fine job growing this sport in such areas. It seems to me that an INCLUSIVE model will produce better results.
The Comp Endowment Program is good example.
BTW, muchos KUDOS to the BoD for this program.

The reaction to my PDGA interest in this region ranges from:
"Keep up the good work." to
"If I was current, you would have my vote." to
"Those people don't care about us, you're wasting your time."
The best one was last evening when Kernan greeted me with-
"Have you lost the election yet?"
My response to him was "Hello Mike, working on it."

respectfully
steve timm

"If this is the case, our organization is doomed to be governed ONLY by reps from such regions"

Is this so bad?

"If this is the case, our organization is doomed to be governed ONLY by reps from such regions"

Is this so bad?



SS
It is great for the strong areas.
It develops an "us vs them" mentality.
National and International growth of the sport
requires consideration for all.

s t

consideration....sure.
In reality, if it is governed by areas, there will be more attention to actual needs in areas where they create the best membership growth. If we give equal attention to low membership areas, is that fair?

It seems to me, by the tone of your posts, that you have a chip on your shoulder. If elected, are you going to work with the other board members or are you going to simply create controversy?

ss, you are on to something there, yes. we are setting up more of that model in europe, with seperate entities in various countries. this topic is similar to the state-federal arguments on US structure and governance. the idea that smaller regions could be more effective in managing a lot of aspects of the sport deserves serious consideration. in spirit, the push away from a strong center is identical to the argument for becoming more of an enabling body rather than being the vendor of everything. that is: be strong and tightly focused at the center, and let the branches grow and build as they wish.

on another angle: strong regional associations are imperative. NEFA and SN demonstrate this extraordinarily well. if you were forced to make a choice between one central association and 4-7 solid regionals, which one would you take?

It seems to me, by the tone of your posts, that you have a chip on your shoulder. If elected, are you going to work with the other board members or are you going to simply create controversy?



Dean A.

It is difficult to reflect one's true character here.
On the boards that I serve, I strive to get work done on the committee level.
Controversy seldom produces results.

No chip on this shoulder.
I did have the pleasure of playing with Coach Dave Pennington,
from your region, earlier this year at our park.
We had many laughs, I gave some putting pointers,
emailed him a spreadsheet of our scorecard and
developed another friend with similar interests.
Small steps.

steve timm

Do you support BeLLs and/or encourage other people to do so?

Do you support BeLLs and/or encourage other people to do so?



S S

My growing beer belly is a clear indication of my support.
I also wear shoes with Vibram soles.

The support of these fine companies (and many others)
is vital to our growth.

s t

Exactly!!!!!
Is the PDGA working to encourage suPPort for next years worlds. Bring Bells aboard. Or, is this a TD thing.

SS

I do not know who is courting sponsors for the next worlds.

Steve Dodge worked some magic getting Vibram to sponsor.

I need to pay some bills.

thanks
steve timm

consideration....sure.
In reality, if it is governed by areas, there will be more attention to actual needs in areas where they create the best membership growth. If we give equal attention to low membership areas, is that fair?


SS, that is one way to look at it. I prefer this way:
In areas of low PDGA participation and membership, this is a virtual "gold mine". Do you think Wal-mart doesn't build stores when there is already a Target or Whole Foods, etc in town? No, of course not. The PDGA should see these areas as having the highest number of potential members, just as they see Europe, Japan, etc. When an area is "saturated" with members, recruiting in said areas will lead to minimal gains as a percentage, and as a whole. The needs of high membership areas need to be met, but they already have a high voting sect and can do more from a club stand-point than the PDGA can and much more-so than developing areas. Steve, do you agree?

If elected, will you be able to make tough decisions in a timely manner on your own and then stand by them without wasting time and valuable PDGA resources polling the membership?

When is gathering proper background information a waste of time?
It seems proper to consult with those most affected by an action prior to voting.
Do you want another "Turbo Putt" quick action?
How about the rush job to replace Peter Shive?





When is gathering proper background information a waste of time? Gathering proper background information is not the same as polling the membership/TD's as you implied was necessary before enacting a raise in non-member fees. A fair, unbiased and properly organized poll of the membership costs money, it also delays the final decision. Depending on the timing of the polling, it could delay a decision into the next director's term of office. I do not want my BOD representative to spend my PDGA money polling the membership for every increase in fees or major expenditure. I trust the people I elect to the BOD will be decisive, exhibit leadership and stand behind all BOD decisions whether they are in the majority or not. I don't want them to be polling the membership every time they need to make a tough decision.

It seems proper to consult with those most affected by an action prior to voting. You asked why the TD's were not polled. TD's are not the most affected by the $10.00 non-member fee. The non-members are most affected and they are not represented by the BOD, nor should they be.

Do you want another "Turbo Putt" quick action? Excuse me, but there was no "quick action" in the approval of the Turbo Putt. Polling the membership would not have prevented this situation. I believe a member of the Tech Standards Committee acted unilaterally in approving the Turbo Putt. To prevent this scenario from happening again, the BOD enacted rules that require the BOD to officially approve all discs that are tentatively approved by Tech Standards.

How about the rush job to replace Peter Shive? I do not believe there was a rush job to replace Peter Shive. The organizational documents spell out exactly how the replacement is to be done, and the BOD followed these procedures. Three potential candidates were nominated, including yourself. Perhaps you are biased in this particular situation. I do not think polling the membership is appropriate when the BOD must replace one of their own.

None of the above situations calls for polling the membership. Polling the PDGA membership in an unbiased, fair and organized manner costs a great sum of money and it takes an inordinate amount of time. Our BOD members are running a small organization, not a billion dollar enterprise. One of the problems with our government today is the lack of leadership in our elected officials. They seem to want a committee for everything, a poll or official report/study before voting on even the smallest of issues. I want the people I elect to the PDGA BOD to be decisive, exhibit leadership and stand behind all BOD decisions whether they are in the majority or not. Will you do that?

"Excuse me, but there was no "quick action" in the approval of the Turbo Putt."

the approval was not the quick action. the rescinsion of the approval was.

what happened was that the BoD voted to de-approve the Turbo Puttr. some of us, myself included, urged more caution. i/we considered it overly risky to so quickly render a final decision, especially since the discs were already in production. Bob was more in favor of a quick de-approval, and was in the majority who voted to de-approve.

within days, the Board realized that its haste had led it into a serious error , and decided to reopen the discussion. the result was the compromise that has the Turbo puttr approved only through a specified date.

If elected, will you be able to represent me well? I come from an area with a large PDGA membership, a large number of PDGA events and members that actively support our local organizations and the PDGA.

Suzette, who can represent you? Must your representative agree with you on every issue? Must they come from a large thriving PDGA area? If this is the case, our organization is doomed to be governed ONLY by reps from such regions. The feeling of isolation in those "underdeveloped areas" will increase. NEFA and the Southern Nationals, to name a few, are regional organizations that are doing a fine job growing this sport in such areas. It seems to me that an INCLUSIVE model will produce better results.




Suzette, who can represent you? First and foremost, I want my BOD representative to have experience as a player, event organizer and local leader. I want my representative to be a fair and unbiased leader. I want my representative to support all BOD decisions, even when they are not in the majority. If they are not an expert on an issue, I want my representative to trust informed committee recommendations. I want my representative to be decisive and not want to poll the membership before every tough decision.

Must your representative agree with you on every issue? No. I believe in democracy and I understand that I cannot always be in the majority. When I question a BOD member about their voting record I expect a thoughtful and direct answer. If they are truly a leader and have thought through an issue, it will show in their response. They must also realize that unlike some message board posters, I actually vote!

Must they come from a large thriving PDGA area? No, but they must represent California, Minnesota and Iowa (all places I have lived and played Disc Golf) with at least the same intensity with which they may represent NEFA or SN country. I really don't think most BOD issues are regional, but national and global. I want my BOD representative to keep that in mind when making decisions.

"Excuse me, but there was no "quick action" in the approval of the Turbo Putt."

the approval was not the quick action. the rescinsion of the approval was.

what happened was that the BoD voted to de-approve the Turbo Puttr. some of us, myself included, urged more caution. i/we considered it overly risky to so quickly render a final decision, especially since the discs were already in production. Bob was more in favor of a quick de-approval, and was in the majority who voted to de-approve.

within days, the Board realized that its haste had led it into a serious error , and decided to reopen the discussion. the result was the compromise that has the Turbo puttr approved only through a specified date.




I don't see how polling the membership would have prevented this debacle.

it wouldnt have, we agree on that. my point was that there was in fact a "quick action" surrounding the TurboPuttr. it was not in the intial approval, but happened after the BoD got involved. i believe the "quick action" i described is more along the lines of what Steve was talking about... but i could be wrong.

it wouldnt have, we agree on that. my point was that there was in fact a "quick action" surrounding the TurboPuttr. it was not in the intial approval, but happened after the BoD got involved. i believe the "quick action" i described is more along the lines of what Steve was talking about... but i could be wrong.



Again, I don't see how polling the membership would have been of any value in this situation.

First and foremost, I want my BOD representative to have experience as a player, event organizer and local leader. I want my representative to be a fair and unbiased leader. I want my representative to support all BOD decisions, even when they are not in the majority. If they are not an expert on an issue, I want my representative to trust informed committee recommendations. I want my representative to be decisive and not want to poll the membership before every tough decision.

Must your representative agree with you on every issue? No. I believe in democracy and I understand that I cannot always be in the majority. When I question a BOD member about their voting record I expect a thoughtful and direct answer. If they are truly a leader and have thought through an issue, it will show in their response. They must also realize that unlike some message board posters, I actually vote!

Must they come from a large thriving PDGA area? No, but they must represent California, Minnesota and Iowa (all places I have lived and played Disc Golf) with at least the same intensity with which they may represent NEFA or SN country. I really don't think most BOD issues are regional, but national and global. I want my BOD representative to keep that in mind when making decisions.



Suzette, i'm ready to vote for you -- how about running for office? :D

suzette, i dont either. can we please agree? i think i'd like to experience that, and i am hoping this could be the time. :)

Suzette, i'm ready to vote for you -- how about running for office?


As good as Suzette would be, I'm thinking some would think her conflict of interest might be even greater than Shive's concern as a sponsored player.

suzette, i dont either. can we please agree? i think i'd like to experience that, and i am hoping this could be the time. :)




Pat, I think it is great that we agree that polling the membership would not have helped in this situation.

Steve, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and ask for my opinions.

Steve -

Did you receive any confidential PDGA financial information from current BOD member Pat Brenner?

Suzette

Here is a link to detailed 07 budget/actuals and detailed budget 08.
http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2008/08PDGABudget-Detailed.pdf

steve timm

Steve,

here's a hypothetical situation. i'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

BigDiscCo gets a great idea. they want to sponsor a big pro event. to raise funds for the event, they announce that they will manufacture a special stamped run of a new or popular disc. they state that they will charge a hefty premium for this run, but that the profits will go towards funding the event.

sales go amazingly well. in fact they go so well and BigDiscCo gets so much money for the event that they decide to divert some of the funds they received from selling the fund raiser disc away from the event and back to BigDiscCO for other uses.

if this were to happen, would you feel as if the players who bought these discs had been dealt with fairly? should the PDGA weigh in on a case like this, if it was to happen?

thanks for your thoughts.

pat

Steve -

Did you receive any confidential PDGA financial information from current BOD member Pat Brenner?





Suzette

Here is a link to detailed 07 budget/actuals and detailed budget 08.
http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2008/08PDGABudget-Detailed.pdf

steve timm



Nice.

Thinly veiled "hypothetical"

it is absolutely hypothetical. i do not have sufficient facts to say otherwise.

Thus the phrase "thinly veiled hypothetical"

Steve -

Did you receive any confidential PDGA financial information from current BOD member Pat Brenner?






Suzette

Here is a link to detailed 07 budget/actuals and detailed budget 08.
http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2008/08PDGABudget-Detailed.pdf

steve timm



Thank you for the link. However, that does not answer my question. I will rephrase: Did Pat Brenner release any confidential PDGA financial information to you earlier this year?

It was posted on the message board earlier this year that Pat released the confidential financial information without the permission of the BOD. Now your name has been mentioned as the person who received this confidential information.

Please confirm or deny.

Hey Pat, was that info shared with me confidential? Oh wait, NOPE, it's right there in the link Steve provided. Thanks for your service.

Patty, Pat, Pat

First, thanks to BiDiCo for your support of the sport.
No one forced them to establish the program.
I would assume that a cap was placed on the amount of support.
No doubt, the excess cash raised from selling these discs
could have gone into BiDiCo's pocket.

Not sure that any disc golf manufacturer wants to face the
WRATH that could result from misleading the customer.
After further study of the hypothetical you have presented,
a written agreement would serve all parties.

steve timm

Hey Pat, was that info shared with me confidential? Oh wait, NOPE, it's right there in the link Steve provided. Thanks for your service.



Thanks John for attempting to answer the direct question to Steve Timm, but I was referring to this quote by current BOD member Peter Shive on the Ask Pat Brenner thread -


..and I had much deeper concerns than your release of financial data to Steve Timm,...



So I will ask again. Steve, did you receive any confidential PDGA financial information from Pat Brenner?

So I'm slowly catching on that this recent publishing of the PDGA's real finances represents something of an internal coup.

For me, the ONLY scandal here is that any of our current PDGA leaders tried to keep this information secret in the first place.

While the PDGA may be opening itself up for criticism regarding certain expenses blah blah blah, that's normal and allows for constructive debate.

To conceal all the financial numbers behind the fake PDGA Balance Sheet we were fed for years is the real travesty.

Imagine if TDs concealed their financial figures. No one would trust them. The same is true for any organization -- it has to be completely open and honest if it's going to trusted.

I think the reason that the last administration found a way to remove its own constitution, is because it was flagrantly breaking its own constitution. It had to get rid of that line, because all of its expenses were kept like nuclear secrets? And why? Uh, I dunno? People are paranoid? You tell me. I really don't get it.

The line from the now defunct PDGA Constitution I always found so inspiring: "The PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open."

That idea is inspirational.

The PDGA's habit of not educating its members is much more likely to lea to criticism and little mini revolts. How can an organization systematically hide from its members what it does and expect to earn the trust and respect any organization needs to flourish?

Besides, how much confidential information does a frisbee organization need to have? The PDGA does not have to conduct its business like the CIA. When everything you do is on the up and up, there's simply no reason to hide anything.

Thank you for the link. However, that does not answer my question. I will rephrase: Did Pat Brenner release any confidential PDGA financial information to you earlier this year?

It was posted on the message board earlier this year that Pat released the confidential financial information without the permission of the BOD. Now your name has been mentioned as the person who received this confidential information.

Please confirm or deny.


suzette, not everything you read on the internet is true. this may be one of those cases (you are kinda vague about which post you are referring to). just as with national elections, smear tactics are used by some in an attempt to influence results.

The financial information that is available on the PDGA site is evidently not confidential, so therefore isn't what is being discussed unless it was released prior to the decision to publish it.

Suzette's question seems to be more focused on the veracity of Peter's assertion than the data.
If that assertion proves to be true, then the focus should still be on something other than the actual data released.

Suzette

Not sure if this is an ask the candidate thread,
a press conference, a witch hunt or a deposition.

Ask the candidate response:
Not sure what your question has to do with my candidacy.

Press conference response:
Let someone else have a shot at a question.

Witch hunt answer:
I've heard that Quest untralight plastic floats.
Does that make them bad for business?

Deposition answer:
Good, keep asking me the same question
until you get the answer you want.

steve

I don't know that it had anything to do with your candidacy, but since you continue to not answer the question, it has everything to with your candidacy.

Your refusal to provide a direct answer to my question troubles me. You are welcome to continue questioning my motives and changing the subject to avoid answering.

Apparently I am the only PDGA member interested in the answer, so I will not ask you again.

No Suzette, you are not.

But it does appear that repeating the question will not get you a direct answer.

Just having some fun Suzette, as i'm sure you know. I would have to agree with Chuck though when he referred to your working relationship with Innova and being a great BoD member. ;)



Suzette, i'm ready to vote for you -- how about running for office?


As good as Suzette would be, I'm thinking some would think her conflict of interest might be even greater than Shive's concern as a sponsored player.

Suzette, you are not the only one who wants to know whether confidential information was released to Steve Timm by Pat Brenner. I agree that it is interesting that Steve is not answering your direct question, instead taking a page from Jason S's book and trying to be funny. (One may note that Pat is also not answering the question, instead parsing the word "confidential" six ways from Sunday.)

I personally believe that discretion is an important quality in a director. Note that discretion is not "never telling anyone anything" but "exercising proper judgement" ... )

So Steve ... any direct response to the direct question Suzette asked?

actually, i answered it directly on the other thread.

discretion is important. would you reckon that proper judgement includes attempting to know and follow the law?

Pat,

Discretion = utmost importance! Maybe you should be discrete and PM me the direct answer. http://www.laughtertherapy.com/laughinggroup.gif

Vanessa
Truly honored to be placed on the level of Jason Southwick.

I opened this thread with the following statement:
"Will do my best to answer every reasonable question."

Why should I confirm a statement made by BoD Peter Shive?
I would never question Mr. Shive's integrity.

Information was requested and provided.

steve timm

actually, i answered it directly on the other thread.


"Directly," but "on the other thread." Just classic!

ROFL :D

Steve, if you were voted onto the BoD would you vote for or against Pat Brenner as the next Communications Director?

First things first.
I must get elected, Pat must get re-elected.

Pat seems to have the most experience with the Discussion bored.

Sort of like saying the participant with the most throws
gets to run the next event.

Not sure if it is a reward or punishment.

steve timm

Less than two weeks to place your votes.
Please remind your friends to exercise their right.
Thanks to those that have given me encouragement.
This sport will continue to grow.
Let's keep working to make the PDGA
an important component in said growth.

respectfully
steve timm