The 2010 PDGA elections are now underway and will run through July 31, with the elected candidates assuming office as of September 1, 2010. Voting is not only a right of membership, it is a responsibility, so please take a minute of your time to cast your ballot.

Candidate statements for the 2010 PDGA elections have been published and can be found here:

Board Candidate Statements (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2010_BOD_Candidate_Statements.pdf)

State/Provincial Candidate Statements (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2010_SC_Candidate_Statements.pdf)


The 2010 PDGA Elections will once again be conducted on-line, with members casting their ballots at http://www.vote-now.com/. In 2009, the elections experienced a decrease in participation over 2008 when we experienced record participation in terms of the % of current members voting.

VOTING PROCEDURES

During the first week of July all current members for whom the PDGA has an email address on file will receive an email from vote-now.com with their PDGA online election instructions including their individual ballot passcode. All members whose email bounces back or who do not have an email address on file, will be mailed a postcard by vote-now.com with their on-line ballot instructions and passcode. On or about July 20, all members with valid emails who have not yet voted will be sent a voting reminder. Those members who do not have any access to a computer or internet capability will also be able to contact the PDGA office and request a mailed paper ballot. Provided this request is received by the PDGA no later than July 17, a ballot will be mailed to the member.


PDGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

A Board of Directors is a requirement for non-profit status and is mandated by the PDGA By-laws. The PDGA Board is comprised of 7 elected members each holding two-year terms. Every year, half - in the PDGA’s case 3 or 4 - of the Board positions are up for election. In addition to semi-annual summit meetings, the Board and staff conduct monthly teleconference calls and ongoing communication to accomplish required business.

Some of the Board’s main activities include: setting PDGA policies; hiring and supervision of an Executive Director responsible for headquarters, staff, and ongoing operations; financial management including annual budget; identification of responsible future Board members; and representing the membership’s visions for the future of the sport and the association.

The three current board members whose terms are up are Rick Rothstein, Cris Bellinger, and Matt Gillis and none have chosen to run for re-election.

Prospective Board members should have some of the following mix of skills and qualifications:

- Professional experience, involving management, marketing, financial, strategic planning, entrepreneurship, and/or the non-profit sector.
- Communication skills, in representing PDGA, and in corresponding with members, including access to email
- A passion for disc golf
- Familiarity with and commitment to PDGA

In accordance with the organizational by-laws, three at-large Board member positions will be determined in this year's election. The three candidates who obtain the most votes will secure office. Terms will be September 1, 2010 - August 31, 2012. At their first meeting, the new Board of Directors will elect the president and other officers from among the seven Board members.


2010 PDGA BOARD CANDIDATES

The following PDGA members submitted their candidacy for the PDGA Board of Directors prior to published deadline and their names will appear on the ballot:

Avery Jenkins
Cale Leiviska
Jack Lowe
Dave Nesbitt
Theo Pozzy
Michael Purkis

Board candidate statements and bio information (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2010_BOD_Candidate_Statements.pdf)


STATE AND PROVINCE COORDINATORS

The State and Provincial Coordinators represent more than 50 key PDGA volunteer positions. Each year 50% of US State and Canadian Province Coordinators are elected. Each member's on-line ballot will only display the Coordinator race for their home state or province. If your state or province is not included in the list below, it will be on the election ballot next year.

Here is the list of responsibilities for the SC position:

- Represent the PDGA in a positive light to members, clubs, agencies, and communities in their state or province.

- Work with Tournament Directors and clubs within their state or province and in adjoining areas to schedule PDGA Tour and other disc golf events. Serve as state/provincial liaison to the PDGA Tour Manager, in setting the Tour schedule and in addressing and resolving Tour event issues.

- Collect information, either personally or by delegating to individuals or clubs, for the PDGA Course Directory and the Course Evaluation system.

- Promote PDGA memberships, and PDGA programs such as the Affiliate Clubs program, tournament sanctioning, Disc Golf Foundation, and EDGE to the members and potential members in their state or province.

- Provide feedback on the annual Tour Standards to the PDGA Tour Manager

- Coordinate state qualification for events such as the USDGC, USADGC, and other qualified-entry tournaments;
- Vote for and recommend candidates for select annual PDGA Awards

- Other duties as determined by the SCs, PDGA Board and staff


2010 STATE/PROVINCE CANDIDATES

The following PDGA members submitted their candidacy for a state or provincial coordinators position prior to published deadline and their names will appear on the ballot:

Alaska - Edan Badajos
Arizona - Dan Ginnelly
British Columbia -
California (south) - Suzett Simons
Connecticut - no candidates
Florida - Jack Hicks, Bryan Moore
Hawaii - Steve Welck
Illinois - Brett Comincioli
Iowa - Justin McCluen, Tim Miller
Kentucky - Josh Dobelstein
Maine - Josh Connell
Maryland - no candidate
Massachusetts - Marcy Borelli
Michigan - Todd White
Mississippi - Shane Seal
Montana - Brian Bjortomt
Nevada - no candidates
New Hampshire - Rob Feeney
New Jersey - Bob Graham
New York - no candidates
North Dakota - no candidates
Oklahoma - Michael Treat
Oregon - Dion Arlyn, Rebecca Duffy
Rhode Island - no candidates
South Carolina - Harold Duvall
Tennessee - James Haines
Utah - no candidates
Virginia - Bob Cannon
West Virginia - Joshua Smith
Wyoming - no candidates

State/Province coordinator statements (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2010_SC_Candidate_Statements.pdf)

PLEASE VOTE!

When you receive your ballot in July, please take a few minutes of your time to complete and submit your ballot. In doing so not only are you fulfilling one of your basic rights and responsibilities as a PDGA member, but you are also demonstrating that the work performed by these core volunteers is important and worthwhile, both for you personally, and for the PDGA and disc golf as a whole.

Thanks very much for participating in the 2010 PDGA Elections!

What three current board members' positions are up for election?

"The three current board members whose terms are up are Rick Rothstein, Cris Bellinger, and Matt Gillis and none have chosen to run for re-election."

And two candidates have been BOD members before.

It will be interesting to see how this year's BOD elections go. This is a very strong set of candidates (IMO). If anyone wants to toss out any questions/topics in this forum, I'm available...

-Theo Pozzy

anybody else not get the email from vote now?

the e-mail went into my junk mail inbox, and I think did so for a few other people I know as well. Probably best to check there.

the e-mail went into my junk mail inbox, and I think did so for a few other people I know as well. Probably best to check there.

I did that everyday for the past two weeks.

I received mine on July 2. If you haven't received your ballot, I would check with the PDGA office to make sure they have your correct email on file.

It will be interesting to see how this year's BOD elections go. This is a very strong set of candidates (IMO). If anyone wants to toss out any questions/topics in this forum, I'm available...

-Theo Pozzy

are you satisfied with the org's membership retention rate and, if not, what would you do to address it?

with the growth that we see keeping the brain trust of the players that make the association is imperative to the success. However there also needs to be a notion that you are joining to make our sport better.

Options ni the past have been met with less enthusiasm than I like personally. I like having a magazine on the coffee table, in the living room, able to give to local park people, so I felt as though the magazine option a few years back set us back some.

With that in mind, I think that there needs to be an understanding that the value you pay to be a member is worth it. Our dues are fair in my mind, but what does turn people off from wanting to renew? You have to find a solid base of reasoning behind that in order to help defray that loss.

Our other biggest problem is that we are not reaching as many casual golfers as we could, and we do not tend to target our youth as much as we should in the shoolastic environment.

I know locally our typically player that we see contributing their time to our courses and leagues are not as young as I would like to see. I think that this is a bigger problem in the sport in that finding that new youth and leadership is imperative to taking us to the next level. If we grow the youth we may not see as many returning the next year, but further down the road as life presents more challenges, and timing becomes more valuable, you will realize that this sport is great for those of us with many other activities in our lives.

Once we are able to grab what the main reasons are for failure to renew (other than fee prices) I believe that those could be addressed and looked upon to create a better plan for the member to want to renew.

I renew yearly because I like the idea of knowing that I am helping to put myself in a sport that I appreciate and want others to know. I hope that my contribution to the sport allows it to move closer to a common place in our society, and in turn will allow others to join in and develop our sport for future generations. I enjoy the magazine, the knoweldge of ratings, and common place within the site here to find information. To me that and the consistency across the world for our events is worth the price of admission.

The PDGA's membership growth has been steady for many years, and tracks the growth of the competitive scene reasonably well. The challenge has always been attracting disc golfers that aren't competing (yet, anyway). One of my goals when I was on the board was to make sure the PDGA was always a go-to source of disc golf information. The course directory is one example of a resource that benefits casual players as well as PDGA members.

We have discussed the concept of a "supporting" membership for years, but have never put a plan in place to promote one (at least not when I was on the board). I think we should revisit this as and possibly try a pilot program to see how effective it might be.

Another key area that the PDGA has focused on is multimedia and reporting of disc golf news. The new website we launched in 2008 finally gave us a framework to more easily publish content, and Brian Graham, the staff, the board and others have done a good job of providing an ever-increasing stream of stories, photos and videos. I feel that if the PDGA can continue to invest in this area, that we will continue to be a focal spot for the sport - for competitive and recreational players.

-Theo

Theo,

I would encourage the BOD to consider the "supporting member" option, where such members would still receive the magazine, be eligible to vote in elections, but, in exchange for a lesser renewal fee, would be required to pay the "non-active" member fee if one of these persons were to participate in a PDGA event.

I know that I would not have had a break in my yearly renewal if such an option had been available to me in the past.

It seems that membership rates are from the past
when there was not the amount of weekly tournaments.
The revenue coming in weekly has to be greater than it
was six to eight years ago.

I would like to know the percentage of income the renewals
are compared to ten years ago. When there were not 25 tournaments
per weekend the higher renewal was justified. Now that there are way more
tournaments volume pricing should be considered.

Member dues should be no more than 25 per year. If we want to
double or triple the amount of current members.

It seems that membership rates are from the past
when there was not the amount of weekly tournaments.
The revenue coming in weekly has to be greater than it
was six to eight years ago.

I would like to know the percentage of income the renewals
are compared to ten years ago. When there were not 25 tournaments
per weekend the higher renewal was justified. Now that there are way more
tournaments volume pricing should be considered.

Member dues should be no more than 25 per year. If we want to
double or triple the amount of current members.

For Pros or Ams.

i completely agree about a decrease in renewal/membership fees. how many current members do we have? 10-11k? that's pretty much a joke. cutting the fee would improve that significantly and should be researched.

i still haven't heard a good reason why pros should be charged more than ams.

to the candidates-- why?

Theo,

I would encourage the BOD to consider the "supporting member" option, where such members would still receive the magazine, be eligible to vote in elections, but, in exchange for a lesser renewal fee, would be required to pay the "non-active" member fee if one of these persons were to participate in a PDGA event.

I know that I would not have had a break in my yearly renewal if such an option had been available to me in the past.

amen, some sort of reduced fee option is long overdue.

Member dues should be no more than 25 per year. If we want to
double or triple the amount of current members.

I'm not so sure. New members would have to come from tournament players who are playing as non-members, or non-tournament players.

For the former, I don't think there are enough to make a dent. Only a small portion of tournament players are non-members now, and many of them tend to be relatively new to the tournament scene. They tend to either drop out of competition after a year or so, or to end up joining the PDGA at current rates. Some more might join at lower fees, but it's hard to see how it would be a huge number.

For non-tournament players, it's hard for me to figure what we could offer that would entice them to join. Really, if you're just a casual player, what does the PDGA offer for you, other than the knowledge that you're supporting the sport? What COULD the PDGA offer, worth $25 per year? If anything, those folks are likely to join their local clubs.

And if you cut fees to $25 and "only" doubled or tripled memberships, it would amount to about the same income but more expense to serve 2-3 times as many members.

I'd be happy to have lower membership fees.....but I don't see how they would result in greatly increased membership.

Despite the above, I'd really like to see a lower, supporting-member fee.

But for other reasons.

Mainly, for the formerly active player who now plays few or no events, may or may not want to TD, and wants to stay a member and support the PDGA. Hard for him to justify $75 a year.

Drop the magizine, that can reduce expenses.

Drop the magizine, that can reduce expenses.

agreed. there are far more cost efficient and effective ways to get news around. is the magazine really that useful for marketing? i always hear the same "but i need something to leave at the dentist office" and "i need something to share at work". do you really think that works or does it just make you feel good? it isn't realistic anymore to think a print publication gives the sport credibility. wouldn't a larger membership be more useful? we need to wipe the nostalgia off our glasses and truly assess the cost and benefit.

agreed. there are far more cost efficient and effective ways to get news around. is the magazine really that useful for marketing? i always hear the same "but i need something to leave at the dentist office" and "i need something to share at work". do you really think that works or does it just make you feel good? it isn't realistic anymore to think a print publication gives the sport credibility. wouldn't a larger membership be more useful? we need to wipe the nostalgia off our glasses and truly assess the cost and benefit.

Also its nothing more than a giant advertisment. There is like 4 pages of ads for every page of content. The content is always very outdated.

...and the ads are of such second rate production quality, it almost mocks the sport. disc golf certainly doesn't need to be mocked anymore than it already is.

it's nice to pretend disc golf can support a print mag without being subsidized but that's not reality. growing the membership and increasing tournament participation might change that. though supporting a print mag is growing more unlikely given media forces moving away from print. high membership fees with little return on investment works against both.

i still haven't heard a good reason why pros should be charged more than ams.

to the candidates-- why?


I have never understood this myself. I can't really elaborate on it because I tend to think that way as well.

I have historically always given at the Birdie Level though so its never been a money issue with me, as I think our rate to join is smaller than many organizations out there trying to keep up with the information and ensure we have good expenses.

Lowering the fees is not an option to me, essentially from what I said above (aside from the Pro/Am argument). It is a cheap sport already and with the money that the membership supports we are able to do more things within the PDGA, send Marshal's have more uptodate scoring on majors, more information shared with the membership than it was 10 years ago. Ratings, online registration for TD's, amny items that our revenue of us has helped to create are now standardization that wasnt available even 7-8 years ago. Lowering the fees will prevent us from staying up to date with the technology to drive the information that the sport must have to be reputable.

I like the idea of a partnering membership with your dues being $25, and then having to pay the additional fees. I also disagree with the notion that having that magazine as a calling card to potential sponsors is old school. Its tangible, its in your hand, and it may lead you to the information online that we have much more of. Credibility doesn't come from a magazine, but it doesn't hurt it either. Older news and good articles on the history of the sport are nice things to share with others that no little about our sport. Giving that information in a concise product to people will help enable our sport at many levels, scholastic, professional, personal....

re: Pro fees vs. Am fees

I've seen it before, but can't recall most of it. There are certain expenses primarily or exclusively involving Pros. Marshals, NT, Pro Worlds. I don't know whether they're enough to justify the difference in fees, and I'd prefer the same fees for everyone, but there is reasoning out there beyond just soaking the pros.

re: Magazine

There is a thought that a magazine is a standard feature for an organization like ours. Other recreational and trade organizations have them as well; we're not alone in this.

Some people don't care for the magazine, so the PDGA could drop it and cut fees. In fact, if you went through everything the PDGA does and cut out the things that some members don't care for, you could get the fees pretty close to zero.

re: Pro fees vs. Am fees

I've seen it before, but can't recall most of it. There are certain expenses primarily or exclusively involving Pros. Marshals, NT, Pro Worlds. I don't know whether they're enough to justify the difference in fees, and I'd prefer the same fees for everyone, but there is reasoning out there beyond just soaking the pros.



There has never been a defensible reason, in my recollection. I think the unspoken reason is that pros receive more, and thus should pay more. It is lame, just as all the other reasons are lame. Simply unexamined inertia.

It is not a big deal to me, but it would be a sign of rationality for the BOD to equalize the fees.

I'm not saying the reasoning is good.....just that it's there, and has been published before.

But IF the pros cost the organization more than the Ams, there's at least an argument that their fees should be higher. IF the pros cost more than the Ams and IF the entry fees are equal, doesn't that mean the Ams are subsidizing the Pros? Beyond the tournament structure, where they're already doing so?

you are talking about an extremely small percentage of "pros" that might (emphasis on "might") benefit more than ams. the vast majority of "pros" will never even see a marshall, play an NT or ever go to worlds. until there are more than a few events that are absolutely exclusive to top level talent (2-3 right now?) the distinction between pro and am is delusional.

the pdga likes to pretend though.

I'm not saying the reasoning is good.....just that it's there, and has been published before.

But IF the pros cost the organization more than the Ams, there's at least an argument that their fees should be higher. IF the pros cost more than the Ams and IF the entry fees are equal, doesn't that mean the Ams are subsidizing the Pros? Beyond the tournament structure, where they're already doing so?

If the fee structure for membership is based on "who costs what," one would have to break down all of the operational expenses of the PDGA, and attribute those expenses to each class. I suspect that a lot of PDGA resources are consumed by what I call "tournament processing" and tournament related matters. Much of this processing is created by all tournament players to an equal degree.

However, I bet the am divisions create more work for the PDGA than the pros; it certainly does when running a tournament. The PDGA has to process all the non-member junk, and the supporting member junk. Most of this is am related. They then have to process everything quickly to update the ratings and get the ratings out to TDs, all to support the am structure which depends on ratings.

To say it another way, I bet an organization solely for pros would have a lower per member operational cost than an organization solely for ams which used our ratings structure. Sure, some of the increased operational cost for ams is offset by the sparkling benefits given to pros in the form of marshalls, World's subsidies, and whatever reason certain folks strain to create. At most, these "benefits" only reach 10% of pro members.

In summary, I suspect that if we have to have an analysis on "Who costs more," the results might not be what most people assume. All in all, I'd assume it is a push.

Frankly, the $25 or whatever it is doesn't mean much to me; it's the insult every January. Those inane, subtle injustices bother me the most. It's a no-brainer that it should be fixed.

re: Pro fees vs. Am fees
Some people don't care for the magazine, so the PDGA could drop it and cut fees. In fact, if you went through everything the PDGA does and cut out the things that some members don't care for, you could get the fees pretty close to zero.

Sure but if you went through everything that some members want, you could make the case that we need to be charging $240/yr, $20/month to get what everyone would want, bigger Pro purse at NT levels with the stipend from the membership, in otherwords you would pay for the sport from your dues. I don't think that is the option either.

There are many items that shuold be looked at, and many theories that should be discussed to take us to greater places with our sport by using the existing plan. I for one would like to help ensure the success of the organization that I have been a part of for the past decade and take the ideas that I have, and the ideas that others have shared with me to bring to a place within our sport. But alas, I only do that with your vote, if you don't vote for me, my ideas sit here in KC, and I will then use that energy locally and continue to make Kansas City one of the best places in the world to play disc golf.

Again I ask for your vote to be your voice on the board.

I was, of course, taking the argument to the extreme on cutting out programs to get entry fee to zero. Just having a little fun.

I recognize that the board must balance many different interests and there are no perfect answers. I'm thankful that there are people (like you) offering to make those decisions so I don't have to.

I got ya, I understood, but I wanted to put out the other extreme!
8-)

It is a fine balance with what we have, what we want, and how we get there. I am curious as to what plans will form our future, and would like to help in areas that I have had success in helping locally.

If elected I hope to bring that same energy to our national body that I have been able to bring locally. If not who knows what I'll do....It will give me more time for other options in life, as I decided to be committed to make this work and gave myself the knowledge of the time it will take. If I have that time free in the future for the next 2 years I am sure that I will work on betterment of our courses and relationships with the municipalities that we have here so that as an organization we are self reliant to do as our club sees fit.

Brian Hoeniger here just to ID myself ...

If the fee structure for membership is based on "who costs what," one would have to break down all of the operational expenses of the PDGA, and attribute those expenses to each class. I suspect that a lot of PDGA resources are consumed by what I call "tournament processing" and tournament related matters. Much of this processing is created by all tournament players to an equal degree.

- good point

However, I bet the am divisions create more work for the PDGA than the pros; it certainly does when running a tournament. The PDGA has to process all the non-member junk, and the supporting member junk. Most of this is am related. They then have to process everything quickly to update the ratings and get the ratings out to TDs, all to support the am structure which depends on ratings.

- Ok but why would you christen non and supporting members "junk" ??? As tour event players they would seem the most likely candidates for increasing active membership ... which MD21954 others and you I presume desire ...

To say it another way, I bet an organization solely for pros would have a lower per member operational cost than an organization solely for ams which used our ratings structure. Sure, some of the increased operational cost for ams is offset by the sparkling benefits given to pros in the form of marshalls, World's subsidies, and whatever reason certain folks strain to create. At most, these "benefits" only reach 10% of pro members.

- I'll bet if you do the math way more than 10% of pro members play in a Major, NT or EuroTour event

In summary, I suspect that if we have to have an analysis on "Who costs more," the results might not be what most people assume. All in all, I'd assume it is a push.

- an interesting reasonable and enlightening observation

Frankly, the $25 or whatever it is doesn't mean much to me; it's the insult every January. Those inane, subtle injustices bother me the most. It's a no-brainer that it should be fixed.

- well as the former ED under whose tenure the difference in pro vs am membership fees was instituted I can advise that beyond the so-called "sparkling benefits" the main reason this was done was the complaining by Am members (who collectively = 75%+ of active members) that they dont get the same benefits as Pros. So the pendulum was swung in that direction and as you hope, it may well swing back. As David Sauls points out on so many issues the PDGA is (word deleted) if it does and (word deleted) if it doesnt, in the minds of one strata or another of its members. The alternative would be a more stagnant org that is reluctant to change/experiment. I presume you agree that is not the solution either ...

- Last comments re retention/attrition rates. The potential for improvements here is not as great as some might think. Lyle Ross has proven several times on this d board that our rates are typical or slightly better than sports member assocs like PDGA. For many folk disc golf and the PDGA is a passing fancy as they discover it and then move on to other things in life (kids, major job, parasailing etc), including because they realize they arent very good players (after all the PDGA is focused on competition). The PDGA is also the tip of the disc golf iceberg, what % of ball golfers in USA are PGA or USGA members? Now think about all those former members in your town/city who are no longer members. Sure a section of them would say this is because something about PDGA is unappealing to them. But I can also say in terms of Toronto area players their reasons run the spectrum from died, descended into drug hell, to grew old, got injured, to discovered biking, took up Ultimate instead, prefer to play occasionally and recreationally, etc etc. Consider also that every year that several hundred (maybe its a thousand now?") lost members are "found" again (re-up). There's also a bunch of people who only sign up because they have to if they want to play the NT/A tier in their town. And there's lots of folk who say well Im only going to play 2 events this year so Ill pay the $10 fees instead. Bottom line if you like the PDGA is actually smaller than the current member numbers suggest, given that the hardcore/fanatical members number maybe 4000 or 5000 including you, me and MD21954, and a bunch of long timers who dont even compete any more but they believe in PDGA and its advancements from humble/formative days of not long ago to today. The good news is year after year the PDGA continues to grow by an average of 8-10-12%, impressive numbers that over time reflect real growth and sustainability.

my .02

Regards, BDH

^^^^
Undeniable violation of Board Rule #1 - Profanity (including creative misspellings & keystrokes to circumvent the profanity filter). I am notifying mods immediately. :(

^^^^
Undeniable violation of Board Rule #1 - Profanity (including creative misspellings & keystrokes to circumvent the profanity filter). I am notifying mods immediately. :(

That is the last thing I was put on probation for and the word I was using was just another way to say feces and not the "F-Bomb".

Well that was my 1st post in maybe 2 years so MY BAD if I broke the rules. Am I/are we to presume you found nothing else worth commenting on in the post? Either way Ive just changed the words in question ...

Personally, I appreciate input from PDGA staff and/or the BOD. And if it is input with passion, all the better.

Oh, I now realize it was BDH, and not BG. Anyways, I always liked your posts in defense of things. They helped me see a side of the issue I may not have understood. Thanks for your service in a relatively thankless job.

Thanks Guru, I had'nt been able to see that issue with the Pro/am side, but that makes entire sense to me in all honesty. I can see many people getting upset with that split. The minutes only go back to 2003 that I started to read, that and the executive session issues!!!! >8-< BUt I understand, I hadn't seen that information while reviewing to get an understanding of where things were and where they could be going was something I like to do when I am thinking of expanding into a group.

I appreciate all that you did for our sport (and Lorrie to!) Your years of service for the betterment of the game for all of us to play will never be known by the thousands that will play.

I think that you are spot on about the numbers being a revolving door, and trying to figure out that is the $60,000 question.

We've had some good candidates not make the board the last couple years. It seems that people are either just voting on name recognition, or really do believe that these top Pro's are the best men for the job.

It's hard for me to believe that these young guys have a lot of business sense, and will be able to help run our organization in the direction it needs to go. I hope I am wrong. I don't doubt their passion for the game, or willingness to give back to the sport that has given them joy. I just don't think that their experiences as touring pro's will give them the vantage point that we brought to the table for the BOD.

COngrats to the new board members. I wish you well in your future.

I too was surprised to see the 2 touring Pro's get voted in. I sure wish more members would vote....I just shoke my head at the turnout numbers :confused:

Good luck to the new members

It amazes me that now three times the ability of someone to throw a disc better than 99.99% of the world suddenly makes you an expert on what this sport needs.

With all due respect to Dave, Cale and Avery (who I all like and respect as people), there is NO need at ALL to have HALF the BOD made up .001% of the disc golf population.

When Dave ran last year, I kind of liked the idea of having a touring pro on the BOD. After all, it gives a good inside perspective on the top events in the game. While I do not think Dave is the best representative for this (I think Barry of Kenny - someone who has done this a very long time and is a bit older), I do like the idea of having a touring professional on the BOD.

There are what, 25 people making a living of disc golf? And that's probably a huge over estimate. We have 20,000 , roughly, active members and half of the BOD is made up of 3 of those 25? Does this not sound out of whack to anyone else?

I feel the main issue with this is touring pros all want the same thing. More money, more coverage and more big events. And why wouldn't they want that? That benefits guess who...them.

I remember having a conversation less than a month ago in Augusta with Brian Graham and he really relayed some interesting information about how we need to grow this sport. He talked about soccer and how 20 30 years ago, soccer was just making it's way to the US. They tried a huge professional league but without any major interest in the sport, tickets didn't sell and revenue dollars were in the red. Before long, soccer realized that by teaching kids how to play and getting kids playing, this was how to grow the sport. And while soccer certainly is not huge, it's successful enough to where people know about it and there are true professionals in this country, not just a handful of people like we have in disc golf.

While I do not know the personal motivations of Dave, Cale and Avery, I assume they are somewhat centered on players like themselves and while it is nice having huge events, that is not where we need as a sport to truly be focused on. But that clearly is a major part of sport, so like I said, very cool to have one.

However, half of the BOD is a bit ridiculous. Shame on everyone who looked at a rating or name to vote for these very important spots. It's almost like high school with a popularity contest.

I too was surprised to see the 2 touring Pro's get voted in. I sure wish more members would vote....I just shoke my head at the turnout numbers :confused:

Good luck to the new members

I voted for Cale mainly because he is a fairly smart guy who has some good ideas for the sport but didn't vote for Avery because I don't think it is best to vote in guys just because they are good players.


Jack was also one of my men and I am surprised he wasn't voted in considering most people I talked to said he was one of their three.

Jack was also one of my men and I am surprised he wasn't voted in considering most people I talked to said he was one of their three.


Probably needed Lorelei's and my vote :)

I'm curious to see the full numbers later this month.

However, half of the BOD is a bit ridiculous. Shame on everyone who looked at a rating or name to vote for these very important spots. It's almost like high school with a popularity contest.

Maybe they didn't want to vote in people who had already been on the BoD and wanted to see some new blood? Seriously, what makes you think they are any worse than Theo or Nez who have been around the org for a long time?

I'm not saying I voted for them but just remember that you can have your opinion while others have theirs..........

Its real easy to see why touring pros got voted in. 1st they are recognizable to every voter, whereas some of the other canidates the average member has never heard of. They also represent change. Most players are sick of the good-old boys PDGA network made up of amateurs well past their prime who are way out of touch with the current state of disc golf.


While travelling with Ulibarri, Mcbeth, and Billings last year I remember running into a PDGA board member. While I could understand him not knowing who Billings is(although he won a A tier 2 weeks before), not knowing who McBeth is when hes been on the cover of the mag, or Uli who has been Am world champ and rookie of the year runner up(?) was just amazing. Having board members who have no clue whats going on with the tour is not good for the sport.


sometimes people just want change. With a few exceptions, PDGA tournament payouts have been pretty stagnant for 10 years. I for one, am sick of the lack of growth so I voted for those who I thought would bring about the most change. I'm sure many people voted with the same reasoning.

If Avery and Cale put in the time that Dave did as a board member I feel really good about my choices

...With a few exceptions, PDGA tournament payouts have been pretty stagnant for 10 years. I for one, am sick of the lack of growth so I voted for those who I thought would bring about the most change. I'm sure many people voted with the same reasoning.



How exactly are these guys going to grow the stagnant payouts for PDGA events? Are they going to wave a magic wand and make added cash magically appear for events that I run?


BTW, my next event is raising money for EDGE. I am confident that any amount of money the event can donate to EDGE will do far more to grow the sport than putting some extra cash in the pocket of some top pro.

How exactly are these guys going to grow the stagnant payouts for PDGA events? Are they going to wave a magic wand and make added cash magically appear for events that I run?



never said they will, but I do think they have a chance- because they want to try things other than what hasn't been working for the last 5-10 years.

more courses, more casual players, and yet same payouts. shouldn't the PROFESSIONAL disc golf association address this?

events that you run? is that all your concerned about? what if we had a worlds payout worthy of the size of the event?( I hope first we can have one that isn't a huge joke) You don't think that might attract media attention?

I too was surprised to see the 2 touring Pro's get voted in. I sure wish more members would vote....I just shoke my head at the turnout numbers :confused:

Good luck to the new members

I'm not surprised at all. I think when have such recognizable names on the ballot, people who don't know any of the particulars will vote for the names they know. This gives Avery and Cale an advantage over the others, although both Nez and Jack are fairly well known as well, but not as well as the two big pros. I am VERY interested to see how the whole vote turned out....it shouldn't be a big deal to post the entire numbers somewhere...PDGA should already have them at their fingertips.

My question is whether the new Board will still try to grow the game from the bottom up (membership has trended up 8-12% on average over the last 10 years or so), or if they'll try and spruce it up at the top. The other question I have is whether or not these guys will put in the time necessary to do the job well. We've had touring pros do the job well, and some were basically non-existent. The same can be said for some of the non-touring pros. BG has a decent analogy with soccer, except that soccer was wildly popular internationally previous to gaining ground here in the U.S. Still, I've always felt that the answer was getting courses in the ground, and more people playing. I think Jack's focus of getting kids involved was brilliant, and I hope the BoD will spend some time on that.

Hmmm. More interest after the election than leading up to it.....

To me, there's value in having a top pro or two on the board, but not too many. Don't know how many too many would be, though. I prefer the perspective of big-event-organizers, but we'll see how it goes.

"Lack of growth" is only true in a limited sense. More membership, players, courses, tournaments, tournament participation, total purses. I've been around enough to be amazed by the growth. Of course, since players are only playing for each other's money, all of that has little affect on the pro payouts at major events.

Here's to hoping that a mix of new blood and new ideas with experience will lead to good things. Best of luck to those who won, and thanks to all who offered.

How exactly are these guys going to grow the stagnant payouts for PDGA events? Are they going to wave a magic wand and make added cash magically appear for events that I run?


BTW, my next event is raising money for EDGE. I am confident that any amount of money the event can donate to EDGE will do far more to grow the sport than putting some extra cash in the pocket of some top pro.

Part of the problem is that the main disc manufacturers would rather give $30,000 in discs than $5,000-10,000 in cash to sponsor worlds.....

I just wish wham-O was still around and the payouts were like the 70's before some of the other guys came into the mix.

Luckily there are so many new companies that competition will hopefully drive things forward and I have even heard of some top players being offered CASH to be sponsored by a certain company which is great and will hopefully lead to more competition when it comes to sponsoring players.

50 discs, a shirt. and having the owner not know your name isn't what it should be about.

the answer was getting courses in the ground

qft

I am VERY interested to see how the whole vote turned out....it shouldn't be a big deal to post the entire numbers somewhere...PDGA should already have them at their fingertips.


Brian Graham had posted on the home page under the ELECTION RESULTS tab the intial results and said that as soon as the full certifeid results were available he would opost them which if you look at the same tab today (1 day later from original post) -embedded is the full certifeid results with the letterhead having today's date.


Looks like if either Jack OR Theo had run with Nez they would have gotten in with the usual voting happenstance where several known names are running and the divided votes ends up costing 2 of the 3 of them a spot.

Wow, people were either trying to be funny, or just aren't that smart. Look at the "write-ins" for the Board. Dave Feldberg is on there at least 5 times, and he's already a board member! Somebody else wrote in Avery Jenkins, when he was a choice on the Ballot! Maybe they were trying to vote for him twice?

Brian Graham had posted on the home page under the ELECTION RESULTS tab the intial results and said that as soon as the full certifeid results were available he would opost them which if you look at the same tab today (1 day later from original post) -embedded is the full certifeid results with the letterhead having today's date.


Looks like if either Jack OR Theo had run with Nez they would have gotten in with the usual voting happenstance where several known names are running and the divided votes ends up costing 2 of the 3 of them a spot.

Keith,

I think my main point is that if you're ok posting uncertified partial results, why not post the whole thing? Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm not suggesting anything untoward, just a lack of completeness. The complete results are already posted, so any point is now moot.

Well, a few years back people here in California wanted change.

We got Arnold.

Change for change's sake is not always good.

But here's to wishing the newly constituted board good luck in their endeavors. I hope we don't lose focus on the ground-up philosophy, as I think it is sound.

Some of those write it's made me laugh. People putting emails and nicknames and even in some caeses "anyone but ______"

But the write in votes truly show how people approach these elections - people really do see them as a joke.

But the write in votes truly show how people approach these elections - people really do see them as a joke.

Or they don't vote at all as shown by the totals.

Keith,

I think my main point is that if you're ok posting uncertified partial results, why not post the whole thing? Not a big deal in the overall scheme of things. I'm not suggesting anything untoward, just a lack of completeness. The complete results are already posted, so any point is now moot.

John,

I'm guessing that Vote Now (I don't know anything about the entire process) sent the preliminary results with the winners in each category (which is why the first day alot of states showed no winner - just "write-in" as winner) and then after double checking and certifying them a day later sent the full results with all the totals - which gave the write-in names so the actual write-in winners could be listed.

With only a few thousand votes, it's not like an election where hundreds of thousands, or millions of votes have to be looked at and crossed checked.

It also shows how name recognition is everything as the only not "nationally" known name is the only one that got 1/3 of the votes of the 5th place candidate and barely only doubled write-in votes.

In my opinion it just shows that although they are several vocal members of change on the message board - the members that actually cared enough to vote are the only ones that could affect the outcome. If EVERYONE was really aggravated about how things are/were going with the PDGA - the effort would have been there to vote for a change as it has been done in local and national elections the last 10 years or so in terms of percentage increases in voters going to the polls. Our percentage went DOWN 6% :(

Keith

I'd be interested to see the breakdown of the voting turnout as AM vs. Pro.

I think the poor turnout is indicative of the fact that there are relatively few people that really care about what they get from the PDGA, as long as there are tournaments to play in and ratings to be had for recognition...

Organizers, manufacturers, distributors, top pros, and people that just like to complain.

Again, relatively few...

Could you vote via US Mail? Or was it just online? Kinda disappointed that ONLY 6% of a organization like ours voting to make their voice heard.

I do wish all the new Board members the best of luck in shaping our future. Remember that more course in the ground will mean more players!

Could you vote via US Mail? Or was it just online? Kinda disappointed that ONLY 6% of a organization like ours voting to make their voice heard.

I do wish all the new Board members the best of luck in shaping our future. Remember that more course in the ground will mean more players!

Your math is wrong, it was a 6% decrease year over year.

3121 out of 13802 is more like 23%.

Sorry my math skills are weak...Still 23% with a 6% decrease per year is not acceptable.

My question if you could vote via US Mail has not been answered.....

My question if you could vote via US Mail has not been answered.....

From the Voting story on the front (Home) page of PDGA.com when Voting first opened andwith every update through the last day of voting.

VOTING PROCEDURES

During the first week of July all current members for whom the PDGA has an email address on file will receive an email from vote-now.com with their PDGA online election instructions including their individual ballot passcode. All members whose email bounces back or who do not have an email address on file, will be mailed a postcard by vote-now.com with their on-line ballot instructions and passcode. On or about July 20, all members with valid emails who have not yet voted will be sent a voting reminder. Those members who do not have any access to a computer or internet capability will also be able to contact the PDGA office and request a mailed paper ballot. Provided this request is received by the PDGA no later than July 17, a ballot will be mailed to the member.

I think the voting rate was a lot less than 23% back in the day when it was snail-mail-only balloting.

Voting shouldn't be made too easy. It should require at least a little effort. A higher percentage of the population taking part in a democratic process isn't by definition 'a good thing'.